[Footnote 535: James F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol.

2, p. 455.]

A few days afterward Davis referred to the matter again. "I have a declining respect for platforms," he said. "I would sooner have an honest man on any sort of a rickety platform you could construct than to have a man I did not trust on the best platform which could be made." This stung Douglas. "If the platform is not a matter of much consequence," he demanded, "why press that question to the disruption of the party? Why did you not tell us in the beginning of this debate that the whole fight was against the man and not upon the platform?"[536]

[Footnote 536: _Ibid._, p. 456.]

These personalities served to deepen the exasperation of the sections.

The real strain was to come, and there was great need that cool heads and impersonal argument should prevail over misrepresentation and pa.s.sion. But the coming event threw its shadow before it.

CHAPTER XXI

SEWARD DEFEATED AT CHICAGO

1860

The Republican national convention met at Chicago on May 16. It was the prototype of the modern convention. In 1856, an ordinary hall in Philadelphia, with a seating capacity of two thousand, sufficed to accommodate delegates and spectators, but in 1860 the large building, called a "wigwam," specially erected for the occasion and capable of holding ten thousand, could not receive one-half the people seeking admission, while marching clubs, bands of music, and s.p.a.cious headquarters for state delegations, marked the new order of things. As usual in later years, New York made an imposing demonstration. The friends of Seward took an entire hotel, and an organised, well-drilled body of men from New York City, under the lead of Tom Hyer, a noted pugilist, headed by a gaily uniformed band, paraded the streets amidst admiring crowds. For the first time, too, office-seekers were present in force at a Republican convention; and, to show their devotion, they packed hotel corridors and the convention hall itself with bodies of men who vociferously cheered every mention of their candidate"s name.

Such tactics are well understood and expected nowadays, but in 1860 they were unique.

The convention, consisting of 466 delegates, represented one southern, five border, and eighteen free States. "As long as conventions shall be held," wrote Horace Greeley, "I believe no abler, wiser, more unselfish body of delegates will ever be a.s.sembled than that which met at Chicago."[537] Governor Morgan, as chairman of the Republican national committee, called the convention to order, presenting David Wilmot, author of the famous proviso, for temporary chairman. George Ashmun of Ma.s.sachusetts, the favourite friend of Webster, became permanent president. The platform, adopted by a unanimous vote on the second day, denounced the Harper"s Ferry invasion "as among the gravest of crimes;" declared the doctrine of popular sovereignty "a deception and fraud;" condemned the attempt of President Buchanan to force the Lecompton Const.i.tution upon Kansas; denied "the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of an individual to give legal existence to slavery in any territory;" demanded a liberal homestead law; and favoured a tariff "to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country." The significant silence as to personal liberty bills, the Dred Scott decision, the fugitive slave law, and the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, evidenced the handiwork of practical men.

[Footnote 537: New York _Tribune_, June 2, 1860.]

Only one incident disclosed the enthusiasm of delegates for the doctrine which affirms the equality and defines the rights of man.

Joshua E. Giddings sought to incorporate the sentiment that "all men are created free and equal," but the convention declined to accept it until the eloquence of George William Curtis carried it amidst deafening applause. It was not an easy triumph. Party leaders had preserved the platform from radical utterances; and, with one disapproving yell, the convention tabled the Giddings amendment.

Instantly Curtis renewed the motion; and when it drowned his voice, he stood with folded arms and waited. At last, the chairman"s gavel gave him another chance. In the calm, his musical voice, in tones that penetrated and thrilled, begged the representatives of the party of freedom "to think well before, upon the free prairies of the West, in the summer of 1860, you dare to shrink from repeating the words of the great men of 1776."[538] The audience, stirred by an unwonted emotion, applauded the sentiment, and then adopted the amendment with a shout more unanimous than had been the vote of disapproval.

[Footnote 538: M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 137.]

The selection of a candidate for President occupied the third day.

Friends of Seward who thronged the city exhibited absolute confidence.[539] They represented not only the discipline of the machine, with its well-drilled cohorts, called the "irrepressibles,"

and its impressive marching clubs, gay with banners and badges, but the ablest leaders on the floor of the convention. And back of all, stood Thurlow Weed, the matchless manager, whose adroitness and wisdom had been crowned with success for a whole generation. "He is one of the most remarkable men of our time," wrote Samuel Bowles, in the preceding February. "He is cool, calculating, a man of expedients, who boasts that for thirty years he had not in political affairs let his heart outweigh his judgment." Governor Edwin D. Morgan and Henry J.

Raymond were his lieutenants, William M. Evarts, his floor manager, and a score of men whose names were soon to become famous acted as his a.s.sistants. The brilliant rhetoric of George William Curtis, when insisting upon an indors.e.m.e.nt of the Declaration of Independence, gave the opposition a taste of their mettle.

[Footnote 539: "Mr. Seward seemed to be certain of receiving the nomination at Chicago. He felt that it belonged to him. His flatterers had encouraged him in the error that he was the sole creator of the Republican party."--H.B. Stanton, _Random Recollections_, p. 214. "I hear of so many fickle and timid friends as almost to make me sorry that I have ever attempted to organise a party to save my country."

Letter of W.H. Seward to his wife, May 2, 1860.--F.W. Seward, _Life of W.H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 448.]

Seward, confident of the nomination, had sailed for Europe in May, 1859, in a happy frame of mind. The only serious opposition had come from the _Tribune_ and from the Keystone State; but on the eve of his departure Simon Cameron a.s.sured him of Pennsylvania, and Greeley, apparently reconciled, had dined with him at the Astor House. "The sky is bright, and the waters are calm," was the farewell to his wife.[540] After his return there came an occasional shadow. "I hear of so many fickle and timid friends," he wrote;[541] yet he had confidence in Greeley, who, while calling with Weed, exhibited such friendly interest that Seward afterward resented the suggestion of his disloyalty.[542] On reaching Auburn to await the action of the convention, his confidence of success found expression in the belief that he would not again return to Congress during that session. As the work of the convention progressed his friends became more sanguine.

The solid delegations of New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, and Kansas, supplemented by the expected votes of New England and other States on a second roll call, made the nomination certain. Edward Bates had Missouri, Delaware, and Oregon, but their votes barely equalled one-half of New York"s; Lincoln was positively sure of only Illinois, and several of its delegates preferred Seward; Chase had failed to secure the united support of Ohio, and Dayton in New Jersey was without hope. Cameron held Pennsylvania in reversion for the New York Senator. So hopeless did the success of the opposition appear at midnight of the second day, that Greeley telegraphed the _Tribune_ predicting Seward"s nomination, and the "irrepressibles" antic.i.p.ated victory in three hundred bottles of champagne. As late as the morning of the third day, the confidence of the Seward managers impelled them to ask whom the opposition preferred for Vice President.

[Footnote 540: F.W. Seward, _Life of W.H. Seward_, Vol. 2, p. 360.]

[Footnote 541: _Ibid._, p. 448.]

[Footnote 542: "Mr. Julius Wood of Columbus, O., an old and true friend of Mr. Weed, met Mr. Seward in Washington, and reiterated his fears in connection with the acc.u.mulation of candidates. "Mr. Lincoln was brought to New York to divide your strength," he said. But Mr.

Seward was not disconcerted by these warnings. Less than a fortnight afterwards Mr. Wood was at the Astor House, where he again met Mr.

Weed and Mr. Seward. Sunday afternoon Mr. Greeley visited the hotel and pa.s.sing through one of the corridors met Mr. Wood, with whom he began conversation. "We shan"t nominate Seward," said Mr. Greeley, "we"ll take some more conservative man, like Pitt Fessenden or Bates."

Immediately afterwards Mr. Wood went to Mr. Seward"s room. "Greeley has just been here with Weed," said Mr. Seward. "Weed brought him up here. You were wrong in what you said to me at Washington about Greeley; he is all right." "No, I was not wrong," insisted Mr. Wood.

"Greeley is cheating you. He will go to Chicago and work against you."

At this Mr. Seward smiled. "My dear Wood," said he, "your zeal sometimes gets a little the better of your judgment.""--Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 269.]

But opponents had been industriously at work. They found that Republicans of Know-Nothing antecedents, especially in Pennsylvania, still disliked Seward"s opposition to their Order, and that conservative Republicans recoiled from his doctrine of the higher law and the irrepressible conflict. Upon this broad foundation of unrest, the opposition adroitly builded, poisoning the minds of unsettled delegates with stories of his political methods and too close a.s.sociation with Thurlow Weed. No one questioned Seward"s personal integrity; but the distrust of the political boss existed then as much as now, and his methods were no less objectionable. "The misconstruction put on his phrase "the irrepressible conflict between freedom and slavery" has, I think, damaged him a good deal," wrote William Cullen Bryant, "and in this city there is one thing which has damaged him still more. I mean the project of Thurlow Weed to give charters for a set of city railways, for which those who receive them are to furnish a fund of from four to six hundred thousand dollars, to be expended for the Republican cause in the next presidential election."[543] Such a scheme would be rebuked even in this day of trust and corporation giving. People resented the transfer to Washington of the peculiar state of things at Albany, and when James S. Pike wrote of Seward"s close connection with men who schemed for public grants, it recalled his belief in the adage that "Money makes the mare go." Allusion to Seward"s "bad a.s.sociates," as Bryant called them, and to the connection between "Seward stock" and "New York street railroads" had become frequent in the correspondence of leading men, and now, when delegates could talk face to face in the confidence of the party council chamber, these accusations made a profound impression. The presence of Tom Hyer and his rough marchers did not tend to eliminate these moral objections. "If you do not nominate Seward, where will you get your money?" was their stock argument.[544]

[Footnote 543: Parke G.o.dwin, _Life of William Cullen Bryant_, Vol. 2, p. 127.]

[Footnote 544: Horace Greeley, New York _Tribune_, May 22, 1860.]

Horace Greeley, sitting as a delegate from Oregon, stayed with the friends of Bates and Lincoln at the Tremont Hotel. The announcement startled the New Yorkers. He had visited Weed at Albany on his way to Chicago, leaving the impression that he would support Seward,[545] but once in the convention city his disaffection became quickly known. Of all the members of the convention none attracted more attention, or had greater influence with the New England and Western delegates. His peculiar head and dress quickly identified him as he pa.s.sed through the hotel corridors from delegation to delegation, and whenever he stopped to speak, an eager crowd of listeners heard his reasons why Seward could not carry the doubtful States. He marshalled all the facts and forgot no accusing rumour. His remarkable letter of 1854, dissolving the firm of Weed, Seward, and Greeley, had not then been published, leaving him in the position of a patriot and prophet who opposed the Senator because he sincerely believed him a weak candidate. "If we have ever demurred to his nomination," he said in the _Tribune_ of April 23, in reply to the _Times"_ charge of hostility, "it has been on the ground of his too near approximation in principle and sentiment to our standard to be a safe candidate just yet. We joyfully believe that the country is acquiring a just and adequate conception of the malign influence exerted by the slave power upon its character, its reputation, its treatment of its neighbour, and all its great moral and material interests. In a few years more we believe it will be ready to elect as its President a man who not only sees but proclaims the whole truth in this respect--in short, such a man as Governor Seward. We have certainly doubted its being yet so far advanced in its political education as to be ready to choose for President one who looks the slave oligarchy square in the eye and says, "Know me as your enemy.""

[Footnote 545: "At this time there was friendly intercourse between Mr. Greeley and Mr. Weed, nor did anybody suppose that Mr. Greeley was not on good terms with Governor Seward. He had, indeed, in 1854, written to Mr. Seward a remarkable letter, "dissolving the firm of Seward, Weed & Greeley," but Mr. Weed had never seen such a letter, nor did Mr. Greeley appear to remember its existence. Mr. Weed and Mr.

Greeley met frequently in New York, not with all of the old cordiality, perhaps, but still they had by no means quarrelled. Mr.

Greeley wrote often to Mr. Weed, in the old way, and he and his family were visitors at Mr. Weed"s house. Indeed--though that seems impossible--Mr. Greeley stopped at Mr. Weed"s house, in Albany, on his way West, before the Chicago convention, and made a friendly visit of a day or so, leaving the impression that he was going to support Mr.

Seward when he reached Chicago."--Thurlow Weed Barnes, _Life of Thurlow Weed_, Vol. 2, p. 268.]

Greeley favoured Bates of Missouri, but was ready to support anybody to beat Seward. Bryant, disliking what he called the "pliant politics"

of the New York Senator, had been disposed to favour Chase until the Cooper Inst.i.tute speech. Lincoln left a similar trail of friends through New England. The Illinoisan"s t.i.tle of "Honest Old Abe,"

given, him by his neighbours, contrasted favourably with the whispered reports of "bad a.s.sociates" and the "New York City railroad scheme."

Gradually, even the radical element in the unpledged delegations began questioning the advisability of the New Yorker"s selection, and when, on the night preceding the nomination, Andrew Curtin of Pennsylvania and Henry S. Lane[546] of Indiana, candidates for governor in their respective States, whose defeat in October would probably bring defeat in November, declared that Seward"s selection would cost them their election, the opposition occupied good vantage ground. David Davis, the Illinois manager for Lincoln, against the positive instructions of his princ.i.p.al, strengthened these declarations by promising to locate Simon Cameron and Caleb B. Smith in the Cabinet.

The next morning, however, the anti-Seward forces entered the convention without having concentrated upon a candidate. Lincoln had won Indiana, but Pennsylvania and Ohio were divided; New Jersey stood for Dayton; Bates still controlled Missouri, Delaware, and Oregon.

[Footnote 546: "I was with my husband in Chicago, and may tell you now, as most of the actors have joined the "silent majority," what no living person knows, that Thurlow Weed, in his anxiety for the success of Seward, took Mr. Lane out one evening and pleaded with him to lead the Indiana delegation over to Seward, saying they would send enough money from New York to insure his election for governor, and carry the State later for the New York candidate." Letter of Mrs. Henry S. Lane, September 16, 1891.--Alex. K. McClure, _Lincoln and Men of War Times_, p. 25, _note_.]

William M. Evarts presented Seward"s name amidst loud applause. But at the mention of Lincoln"s the vigour of the cheers surprised the delegates. The Illinois managers had cunningly filled the desirable seats with their shouters, excluding Tom Hyer and his marchers, who arrived too late, so that, although the applause for Seward was "frantic, shrill, and wild," says one correspondent, the cheers for Lincoln were "louder and more terrible."[547] Whether this had the influence ascribed to it at the time by Henry J. Raymond and others has been seriously questioned, but it undoubtedly aided in fixing the wavering delegates, and in encouraging the friends of other candidates to rally about the Lincoln standard.

[Footnote 547: M. Halstead, _National Political Conventions of 1860_, p. 145.]

The first roll call proved a disappointment to Seward. Though the pledged States were in line, New England fell short, Pennsylvania showed indifference, and Virginia created a profound surprise.

Nevertheless, the confidence of the Seward forces remained unshaken.

Of the 465 votes, Seward had 173-1/2, Lincoln 102, Cameron 50-1/2, Chase 49, and Bates 48, with 42 for seven others; necessary to a choice, 233. On the second ballot Seward gained four votes from New Jersey, two each from Texas and Kentucky, and one each from Ma.s.sachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska--making a total of 184-1/2.

Lincoln moved up to 133. The action of Ohio in giving fourteen votes to Lincoln had been no less disappointing to the Seward managers than the transfer of Vermont"s vote to the same column; but, before they could recover from this shock, Cameron was withdrawn and 48 votes from Pennsylvania carried Lincoln"s total to 181.

The announcement of this change brought the convention to its feet amid scenes of wild excitement. Seward"s forces endeavoured to avert the danger, but the arguments of a week were bearing fruit. As the third roll call proceeded, the scattering votes turned to Lincoln.

Seward lost four from Rhode Island and half a vote from Pennsylvania, giving him 180, Lincoln 231-1/2, Chase 24-1/2, Bates 22, and 7 for three others. At this moment, an Ohio delegate authorised a change of four votes from Chase to Lincoln, and instantly one hundred guns, fired from the top of an adjoining building, announced the nomination of "Honest Old Abe." In a short speech of rare felicity and great strength, William M. Evarts moved to make the nomination unanimous.

The New York delegation, stunned by the result, declined the honour of naming a candidate for Vice President; and, on rea.s.sembling in the afternoon, the convention nominated Hannibal Hamlin of Maine. As Evarts was leaving the wigwam he remarked, with characteristic humour: "Well, Curtis, at least we have saved the Declaration of Independence!"

Three days after the nomination Greeley wrote James S. Pike: "Ma.s.sachusetts was right in Weed"s hands, contrary to all reasonable expectation. It was all we could do to hold Vermont by the most desperate exertions; and I at some times despaired of it. The rest of New England was pretty sound, but part of New Jersey was somehow inclined to sin against the light and knowledge. If you had seen the Pennsylvania delegation, and known how much money Weed had in hand, you would not have believed we could do so well as we did. Give Curtin thanks for that. Ohio looked very bad, yet turned out well, and Virginia had been regularly sold out; but the seller could not deliver. We had to rain red-hot bolts on them, however, to keep the majority from going for Seward, who got eight votes here as it was.

Indiana was our right bower, and Missouri above praise. It was a fearful week, such as I hope and trust I shall never see repeated."[548] That Greeley received credit for all he did is evidenced by a letter from John D. Defrees, then a leading politician of Indiana, addressed to Schuyler Colfax. "Greeley slaughtered Seward and saved the party," he wrote. "He deserves the praises of all men and gets them now. Wherever he goes he is greeted with cheers."[549]

[Footnote 548: James S. Pike, _First Blows of the Civil War_, p. 519.]

[Footnote 549: Hollister, _Life of Colfax_, p. 148.]

The profound sorrow of Seward"s friends resembled the distress of Henry Clay"s supporters in 1840. It was not chagrin; it was not the selfish fear that considers the loss of office or spoils; it was not discouragement or despair. Apprehensions for the future of the party and the country there may have been, but their grief found its fountain-head in the feeling that "his fidelity to the country, the Const.i.tution and the laws," as Evarts put it; "his fidelity to the party, and the principle that the majority govern; his interest in the advancement of our party to victory, that our country may rise to its true glory,"[550] had led to his sacrifice solely for a.s.sumed availability. The belief obtained that a large majority of the delegates preferred him, and that had the convention met elsewhere he would probably have been successful. In his _Life of Lincoln_, Alex.

K. McClure of Pennsylvania, an anti-Seward delegate, says that "of the two hundred and thirty-one men who voted for Lincoln on the third and last ballot, not less than one hundred of them voted reluctantly against the candidate of their choice."[551]