Reminiscences of Sixty Years in Public Affairs/Chapter 21
XXI
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN MASSACHUSETTS IN 1855—AND THE EVENTS PRECEDING THE WAR
IN the month of August 1855, the Republican Party of Massachusetts was organized, and under the lead of those who signed the call, a convention was held at Worcester, the eighteenth day of September, of that year. In Mr. Webster’s time the Whig Party had been divided into two parts, known as Conscience Whigs and Cotton Whigs. The Conscience Whigs had become Free-soilers, and the Cotton Whigs upheld the flag of the party in the belief that trade would follow the flag. The death of Mr. Webster and the election of General Pierce ended the Whig Party in the State. In 1855 the Democratic Party was a nerveless organization, and without hope, except as the leaders looked to the supremacy of the party in the country as a guaranty of officeholding to the few who were in the ascendency in the commonwealth. In one short year of power the Know Nothing Party had destroyed its influence in the State. Thus was the way prepared for a new and formidable organization, destined to succeed under the declaration that slavery was not to be extended to the territories of the Union.
The first meeting of the men who led in the organization of the Republican Party was held at the United States Hotel. By adjournment the second meeting was held at Chapman Hall. At this meeting a committee of twenty-seven persons was chosen, of which the Honorable Samuel Hoar was chairman. He had been a Whig of the Federalist school, he was a lawyer of eminence, ranking all but the few greatest leaders of the bar, he had had a career of useful public service, and he enjoyed the respect and the confidence of the commonwealth. His associates were Homer Bartlett, Charles Francis Adams, George S. Boutwell, Stephen C. Phillips, George Bliss, H. L. Dawes, John Brooks, Charles Allen, Moses Kimball, R. H. Dana, Jr., Marcus Morton, Jr., William H. Wood, W. S. Breckinridge, James H. Mitchell, George Grennell, D. W. Alvord, Increase Sumner, William Clark, Charles W. Slack, Thomas D. Elliot, Samuel Bowles, William Brigham, Ivers Phillips, George Cogswell of Bradford, John H. Shaw. At this date, June 12, 1900, three of the signers are living: H. L. Dawes, George Cogswell, and the writer of this volume. A very exact account of the proceedings of the Chapman Hall meeting may be found in the Boston Journal under the dates of August 16, 17, 22, 23, and 30.
Mr. Franklin Dexter, a son of Samuel Dexter, was named upon the committee. Mr. Dexter declined the appointment, and in a letter which is printed in the Journal under one of the dates named, he gave his reasons. The one controlling reason was the fear that the persons engaged in the movement would go too far and involve the country in troubles and evils greater than those which the nation was then experiencing. To these considerations, Mr. Winthrop, in a private interview, added objections of a personal nature.
A supplementary call, signed by more than a hundred citizens, including Senator Wilson, was subjoined to the call of the committee. The impetus which the Know Nothing Party had received in the election of 1854 was sufficient to secure the re-election of Governor Gardner over Julius Rockwell, the first candidate of the Republican Party in the State. In 1856 Governor Gardner was elected as the candidate of the Republican Party. Since the year 1856 the Republican Party has given direction to the policy of the State.
In 1858 my friends made an effort to secure my nomination for the United States House of Representatives. I was indifferent to the movement, although I did not decline to be considered for the nomination. Some of my best friends urged me to remain where I was, and my opponents were certain that no one else could perform the duties in a manner so acceptable. At the Convention I received sixty-three votes, and my opponent, Charles R. Train, received sixty-six votes. Train was declared the nominee, and as such he was elected. After the Convention was over, some person of an inquiring turn of mind found that if every portion of the district had been represented the total vote could not have exceeded one hundred and eighteen. This discovery led to some crimination, each party charging the other with fraud.
When in 1860 notices were posted in the town of Concord calling upon the Republicans to meet in caucus, to choose delegates to the State Convention, Mr. Ralph Waldo Emerson called at the office of George M. Brooks, who was an active supporter of Mr. Train, and said:
“I see there is to be a caucus to choose delegates to the Convention, and I have called to make an inquiry about it, as Mr. Boutwell was cheated out of his nomination two years ago.”
Mr. Brooks said in reply:
“This caucus is for delegates to the State Convention. The District Convention has not been called. But we thought the cheating was on the other side.”
“Ah!” said Mr. Emerson. “I see that you are not for Mr. Boutwell. Do you know of anybody in the village who is for Mr. Boutwell?”
Mr. Brooks did not give him the information, and he went away. When the evening came for the district caucus, the leading men who managed the caucuses usually, went to the hall, and to their surprise they found the transcendentalists in force, surrounded by a deep fringe of farmers from all parts of the town. The meeting was organized. Four delegates were to be chosen. Upon the nomination of candidates the names were placed upon a sheet of paper, and then the citizens passed around and each one marked against four names. The friends of Train secured the lead, in making nominations, and my friends followed with four names. When this ceremony was over, Mr. Emerson rose and said:
“The first four names on that paper are for Mr. Train. The second four names are for Mr. Boutwell. We are for Mr. Boutwell, and our friends will be careful not to vote for the first four names, but to vote for the second four names.”
Mr. Emerson’s policy prevailed, and as far as I knew, this was his only appearance in Concord politics. In that year I had a majority of the delegates to the convention, but I attended, withdrew my name, and nominated Mr. Train for election. When I was elected in 1862, Mr. Emerson gave me his support and during my term I received many letters from him in approval of my course, which to many others seemed extreme and unwise. My acquaintance with Mr. Emerson was never intimate, but it was always friendly and I rest in the belief that he so wished our relations to continue. It began in the Forties, when he honored me with his presence at the Concord Lyceum, where, for a period, I had an opportunity to speak. It was my better fortune to hear Mr. Emerson speak on many occasions. He was not an orator in a popular sense, but he had the capacity to make his auditors anxious to hear what he would say in his next sentence, which, not infrequently, was far removed from the preceding sentence.
In April, 1859, I presided at a dinner in honor of Jefferson. In the speech that I then made, I predicted the Rebellion, although at that time there were but few who expected any event more serious than a political struggle. I then said:
“The great issue with slavery is upon us. We cannot
escape it. The policy of men may have precipitated the
contest; but, from the first, it was inevitable. The result is not
doubtful. The labor, the business, the wealth, the learning,
the civilization, of the whole country, South as well as North,
will ultimately be found on the side of freedom. The power
of the North is not in injustice. We are bound to be just;
we can afford to be generous. Concede to our brethren of
the South every constitutional right without murmuring and
without complaint. Under the Constitution and in the Union
every difficulty will disappear, every obstacle will be
overcome. But, rendering justice to others, let us secure justice
for ourselves; and we of the North, not they of the South,
shall be held responsible, if the slave-trade upon the high
seas is openly pursued or covertly permitted, if new territory
is consigned to slavery, or if the gigantic powers of this
government are longer perverted to the support of an
institution dangerous to the welfare of the people and hostile to
the perpetuity of the Union.”
A letter from Abraham Lincoln was read at the Jefferson
dinner. As Mr. Lincoln’s letter has more value, manifestly,
in the year 1901, than it appeared to have in the year 1859,
I reprint the important parts of that communication:
“Bearing in mind that about seventy years ago two great
political parties were first formed in this country—that
Jefferson was the head of one of them, and Boston the
headquarters of the other, it is both curious and interesting that those supposed to descend politically from the party opposed
to Jefferson should now be celebrating his birthday, in their
own original seat of empire, while those claiming political
descent from him have nearly ceased to breathe his name
everywhere. But soberly, it is now no child’s play to save
the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this
nation. One would state with great confidence that he could
convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of
Euclid are true; but nevertheless he would fail, utterly, with
one who should deny the definitions and axioms.
“The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them ‘glittering generalities.’ Another bluntly calls them ‘evident lies.’ And others insidiously argue that they apply only to ‘superior races.’
“These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect—the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads plotting against the people. They are the vanguard—the sappers and miners of returning despotism. We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us. This is a world of compensation; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it. All honor to Jefferson—to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.”
In the canvass of 1860 I made a speech at Cambridge in reply to a speech made in Faneuil Hall by Mr. Yancey. I again gave my opinion that war was impending. I then saw that the preliminary incidental conspiracy was in the Democratic Party, by which the party was to be divided, and by which the Republican Party was assured of success. Had the government been continued in the hands of Democrats there could have been no pretext for rebellion. The first necessary step in the movement was the destruction of the Democratic Party. That step was taken, and thus the way was opened for the election of Mr. Lincoln. The secession of the States, beginning with South Carolina, was a recognition of the legitimacy of the Government, of which Mr. Lincoln became the head. This recognition was consummated beyond question, when Vice-President Breckinridge announced the election of Mr. Lincoln, in February, 1861.
The interests of the seceding States would have been promoted as the measures of the incoming administration would have been retarded, if the members from those States could have retained their seats in Congress. It is probable that in the excitement of the time, the States gave no thought to the question whether it would be wise to allow their members to remain in the old Congress, and there thwart the administration in its efforts to raise men and money. However that may have been, when the Southern members left their seats they surrendered to the Republican Party that absolute power by which in the end the Rebellion was suppressed. Upon the theory of many Democrats and of some Republicans, that the seceding States were never out of the Union, they might have kept a representation in Congress while the States themselves were carrying on a war for the destruction of the old Government. Happily for the country the logic of events was mightier than the logic of the schools. The larger number of men who went out haughtily in 1860 and 1861 never returned.
In 1861 I was invited to deliver an address at Charlestown, Mass., on the anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans. I said nothing of that battle, for my thoughts were directed too exclusively to the prospect of war in the near future, to allow me to deal with the past except for the purpose of warning or encouragement. That address gave great offence to Democrats generally, and it led many Republicans to denounce me as unwise, and to declare that my counsels were dangerous. Governor Andrew, who had just taken his seat as Governor, accepted the view that I expressed, as did his privy counsellor, Frank W. Bird, although they had disagreed with me in the National Convention, of June, 1860. They were the earnest supporters of Mr. Seward, I was opposed to his nomination, and as I would not pledge myself to his support, I barely escaped defeat in the State Convention, which elected the delegates at large to the Chicago Convention.
In my address at Charlestown, I made these remarks, which gave no inconsiderable offence:
“In this juncture of affairs, we anxiously ask, what more
remains to be done? I infer, from what I see and hear, that
most of my countrymen believe that the election of Abraham
Lincoln to the Presidency is to be declared in the customary
way, and that he is to be inaugurated at Washington on the
4th of March next. The intentions of men are hidden from
our view; but the necessities of the seceders we can
appreciate, and the logic of events we can comprehend. It is a
necessity of the South to prevent the inauguration of Lincoln.
If he is inaugurated at Washington on the 4th of March,
the cause of the secessionists is lost for ever. In all their
proceedings, they have been wise and logical, thus far; and I assume that resistance to the inauguration of Lincoln is a
part of their well-laid scheme. No man can now tell whether
this scheme will be abandoned, whether it will be tried and
fail, or whether it will be tried with success. I believe it
will be tried.
“True, the administration has put itself on the side of order; the city is alarmed for its existence, knowing full well that if it is given up to the military or the mob, and the representatives of eighteen free States are, for a single hour only, fugitives from the capital of the country, its re-occupation will be upon terms less agreeable to the inhabitants of the District and the neighboring States. The possession of Washington does, in a considerable degree, control the future of this country. Believing, as I do, in the stern purposes of these men; knowing, also, that Maryland and Virginia can command on the instant the presence of large bodies of volunteers,—I deem it only an act of common prudence, for the free States, without menaces, without threats, with solemn and official declarations even that no offensive movement will be undertaken, to organize, and put upon a war footing, a force of one hundred thousand men, who may be moved at any moment when desired by the authorities of the country.
“What, then, will be our position? The way ought to be open for the inauguration of Mr. Lincoln; but there are those who demand a compromise as a step necessary and preliminary to that event. I do not now speak of the demand made upon States, in their sovereign capacity, to repeal certain laws, concerning personal liberty, alleged to be unconstitutional.
⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅
“The compromises of which I speak are the various propositions, which proceed upon the idea that the election by the people of a President of the Republic, in constitutional ways and by constitutional means only, shall not be consummated by his peaceful inauguration, unless the character of the government is fundamentally changed previously, or pledges given that such changes shall be permitted. I see no great evidence that these demands are to be acceded to; but I see that the demands themselves attack the fundamental principles of republican liberty. If disappointed men, be they few or many, be they conspirators and traitors, or misguided zealots merely, can interpret their will, and arrest or divert or contravene the public judgment, constitutionally expressed, then our government is no longer one of laws, but a government of men.”