He says the Democratic party are a unit, that they everywhere fully
endorsed the Kansas-Nebraska bill; I say they nevertheless claim
the largest liberty in its construction, and that construction is
notoriously different in different sections of the Union among brethren
of the same political faith. Now, the American party also needed a
platform for the Presidential canvass, and that of February last was
put forth for that purpose. If it was not perfect, it was the best
we could get, and we had to take it, those of us that it did not
precisely suit, with the mercantile reservation, ‘Errors excepted.’
Was your President, the present occupant of the White House, elected
by a majority of American-born citizens? On the contrary, without the
foreign vote, which was cast for him almost unanimously, he never would
have been elevated to the position he now occupies.”
Mr. Kelly: “Suppose he was not elected by American-born votes (which
was very likely the case), were not the principles advocated by the
party which elected Mr. Pierce national principles, without the benefit
too of ‘Errors excepted’? Was there anything in the platform laid down
at Baltimore by the convention which nominated him violative of the
spirit or letter of the Constitution of the United States?”
Mr. Kennett: “I have not charged the contrary to be so. My point is
that the foreign-born vote holds the balance of power in our country,
that that vote is almost always on the Democratic side, and thus it
shapes the policy and action of the Government. This I consider wrong.”
Mr. Kelly: “I will say to the gentleman that the illiberal and narrow
policy parties have pursued in this country has contributed much to
drive both native and foreign-born Catholics in self-defense into the
Democratic party. That this is true is proved by the fact which you
know full well, Mr. Chairman [Mr. Humphrey Marshall], that the large
Catholic vote of Kentucky and Maryland had always been found with the
Whig party, until the Know-Nothing monster and its protean brood of
platforms drove them in self-respect as well as in self-defence into
the ranks of the national Democracy, where they have found repose and
peace under the broad shadows of the Constitution. I will add further,
that with the exception of two terms the administration of this
Government has been in the hands of the Democratic party. It appears to
me, therefore, that the fact that the foreign-born population, in the
exercise of the elective franchise being always found on the side of
the dominant party, is rather doubtful evidence that they are not as
loyal to the country as any other class of voters. The high state of
prosperity which the country has attained under Democratic rule would,
I should think, lead to quite a different conclusion.”
Mr. Kennett: “The Democratic party have been sharper and more
successful hitherto in bidding for their votes than we. Not that we
would not have won them too, had it been in our power. Office-seekers
are all in love with German honesty and the ‘sweet Irish brogue.’”
Mr. Campbell, of Ohio: “I have no desire to interrupt the gentleman
from Missouri, or to interfere with the very interesting colloquy
between him and the gentleman from New York. I have had something to
do with this matter of Americanism myself; something to do with the
tariff, and, like the gentleman from Missouri, I have been a Whig.
I think the greatest statesman of America was stricken down by a
religious influence.”
Mr. Kelly: “To whom does the gentleman refer?”
Mr. Campbell: “I refer to Mr. Clay of Kentucky. I well remember when
he was last a candidate—in 1844—that there was an individual on the
ticket with him—a distinguished gentleman, Theodore Frelinghuysen and I
know of my own personal knowledge that a priest of the Catholic Church
said that because Theodore Frelinghuysen was placed on the ticket for
Vice-President, therefore the influence of the Catholic Church of the
United States would be exercised against the ticket.”
Mr. Kelly: “Supposing this to be so, does the gentleman mean to argue
that because an individual Catholic priest used such a remark it is
sufficient ground upon which to condemn and disfranchise the four
millions of Catholics in this country?”
Mr. Campbell: “No, sir, by no means; nor would I interfere with their
religion, even though it was true that they had done so. The point I
make is this: That because Theodore Frelinghuysen was nominated on
the ticket with Henry Clay, who was recognized as one of the greatest
statesmen of his age, the influence of the Catholic Church—I mean
especially that of the foreign Catholic Church, I do not include the
American Catholic Church—was brought to bear against him; and wherever
you find a foreign Catholic vote in referring to the election of 1844
you will find, particularly in your large cities where the power was
wielded, that the power was exercised for the prostration of Harry of
the West, for the reason, as admitted to me in person by a priest of
your church, that Theodore Frelinghuysen was a leading Presbyterian
and President of the American Protestant Bible Society; and it is
against that spirit on the part of foreign Catholic influence in this
country, which has sought to control, through the power of its Church,
the destinies of this great nation that I make war.”
Mr. Kelly: “Allow me to say that I am a native-horn citizen of Irish
parents; and I wish to say to this House, and to the country, that no
such feelings actuate the Catholic Christians of this Republic. There
may be individual cases, but I deny that such influences have anything
to do with the Catholic population. And Mr. Clay himself, in writing a
letter on this very subject in the canvass referred to, made a public
acknowledgement that he had as much confidence in the Catholic people
as he had in any other religious sect in this Union. That letter was
published in a speech which I made in this House last session, and the
gentleman from Ohio can find it in the records of the House. To convict
the gentleman from Ohio, however, of misrepresenting Harry of the West
in this matter, I will again quote the same extract from the letter
referred to:
“‘Nor is my satisfaction diminished by the fact that we happen to be of
different creeds; for I never have believed that that of the Catholic
was anti-American and hostile to civil liberty. On the contrary, I have
with great pleasure and with sincere conviction, on several public
occasions, borne testimony to my perfect persuasion that Catholics were
as much devoted to civil liberty, and as much animated by patriotism as
those who belong to the Protestant creed.’”
“I have already quoted from Mr. Clay’s speech delivered in 1847, four
years afterwards, enough to show that his views and sentiments in
reference to foreign-born voters and religious creeds underwent no
change. But it was ever Mr. Clay’s misfortune to be damaged by his
friends. We have proof this evening that the fatality follows him to
the grave.”
In this debate, Mr. Kelly, who was the only Catholic in Congress,
sustained the concentrated charge of the leading Know-Nothing members,
and in the estimation of the House had the best of the argument over
them all. His speech was published and read throughout all parts of the
Union, and was received with manifestations of approval and pride by
Democrats generally, but especially by Catholics and adopted citizens.
In the celebrated Hayne-Webster debate in the Senate of the United
States on the Foot Resolution in 1830, Andrew Jackson, then President,
was so much pleased with Col. Hayne’s speech that he caused a number
of copies to be struck off on satin, and placed one of them on the
walls of his library in the White House.[9] The speech of John Kelly,
from which the preceding extracts are taken, was also published
on satin, and is still preserved in many households throughout the
country as a souvenir of the dark days of Know-Nothingism, and of the
gallant stand that was made in the House of Representatives against the
proscriptionists by the future leader of the New York Democracy.
During another debate in Congress—that of May 5, 1858—on the bill for
the admission of Minnesota into the Union, introduced by Alexander H.
Stephens, Chairman of the Committee on Territories, Henry Winter Davis
again attacked those he called “unnaturalized foreigners;” and Mr. John
Sherman, then a member of the House, and at present a Senator from
Ohio, and a recent aspirant for the Presidency, declared that “Ohio
never did allow unnaturalized foreigners to vote, and never will.” Mr.
Muscoe R. H. Garnett, of Virginia, made a fierce attack on the same
class, designating them as the “outpourings of every foreign hive that
cannot support its own citizens.” When these tirades were made, Mr.
Kelly rose to address the House in reply, but so bitter was the native
American feeling on the subject, and especially since his refutation of
the sectarian and anti-foreign speech of Davis in the preceding year,
that John Sherman resorted to every parliamentary quibble to cut off
Kelly’s speech. “Gentlemen here,” Mr. Kelly said, “directed many of
their arguments against emigration and against the naturalization of
foreigners. I intend to confine my remarks to that particular branch of
the subject.” At this point Mr. Sherman objected.
Mr. Sherman, of Ohio: “I rise to a question of order. The rule requires
that the debate shall be pertinent to the question before the House. If
the gentleman desires to make a speech upon the benefits of emigration
I hope he will make it in Committee of the Whole. Such debate is not in
order here.”
Mr. Kelly: “What I shall say will be pertinent to the issue before the
House.”
Mr. Sherman: “I insist on my question of order. I would inquire whether
the subject of emigration, which is manifestly the question which the
gentleman intends to discuss, is debatable on this bill? I do not wish
to embarrass the gentleman, but desire, if he wants to debate that
subject, that he shall do it in the Committee of the Whole on the state
of the Union.” This objection by Mr. Sherman to Mr. Kelly’s continuing
the discussion which he himself had just been indulging in, shows
that Kelly’s method of handling the subject was not relished by the
proscriptionists. Elihu B. Washburn, of Illinois, afterwards Minister
to France, here interposed in favor of fair play.
Mr. Washburn: “I hope by unanimous consent the gentleman from New York
will be permitted to continue his speech. He is upon the floor now, and
the matter of naturalization is involved more or less in the merits of
the question before the House.” But Mr. Sherman was ready with another
quibble.
Mr. Sherman: “If unanimous consent be given, I am willing to go
into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union and allow the
gentleman to speak, but I must object to it in the House.”
Mr. Wright, of Georgia: “I would remark that the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Jenkins) introduced this particular subject yesterday,
and occupied twenty-five minutes in its discussion.”
Mr. Kelly: “It is singular that gentlemen should make objection,
when it is a well-known fact that the whole discussion on this bill
has directed itself to that particular point. But I think there is a
disposition on the part of the House to let me go on.”
Several Members: “There is; go ahead.”
The Speaker: “Does the Chair understand that unanimous consent is given
to the gentleman’s proceeding?”
Mr. Lovejoy: “Not unless he is in order.”
Mr. Morris, of Pennsylvania: “I object; because if the gentleman is
allowed to proceed, other gentlemen must be allowed to speak in reply,
and thus we would have a general debate in violation of the rules of
the House, and I will not agree to violating the rules of the House.”
Mr. Kelly: “Inasmuch as there are objections I withdraw my appeal. I do
not desire to force myself upon the House.”
Thus did the Know-Nothings wince under the lash of John Kelly of New
York. Had he chosen to insist, he would have been heard, for he was
now one of the leaders of the House, and the majority would have found
a way to secure him the floor. He was the most formidable enemy of
the Know-Nothings in the Northern States, for he knew how to act as
well as to talk. Dreamers and visionaries write fine theories, but
only great men reduce them to practice. Mr. Kelly’s youth and early
manhood were passed at a period when native American bigotry and
intolerance were burning questions in State and National affairs. He
had been taught by observation, and a study of the fathers of the
government, that the best service he could render his country was to
make war on Know-Nothingism. He had met the leaders of that party
in their strongholds in the city of New York, and vanquished them.
Before his day there were clubs and factions, and local leaders and
captains of bands—Bill Poole and his Know-Nothings, Isaiah Rynders and
his Empire Club, Arthur Tappan and his Abolitionists, Mike Walsh and
his Spartans, Samuel J. Tilden and his Barnburners, Charles O’Conor
and his Hunkers—but the born captain had not appeared to mould the
discordant elements to his will, and make them do the work that was
to be done. When John Kelly struck the blow at Know-Nothingism at the
primary election on the corner of Grand and Elizabeth streets, already
described, and drove out the ballot-box stuffers, the people of New
York instantaneously recognized a man behind that blow, and everybody
felt better for the discovery. When he ran against the celebrated
Mike Walsh for Congress, one of the most popular characters who ever
figured in New York politics, and beat him, the native American
proscriptionists were glad that John Kelly was out of the way, for
while they feared him in local politics, they persuaded themselves
that he would be swallowed up in obscurity among the great men at
Washington, and that he would be heard of no more. Given a big idea
lodged in the centre of a big man’s head, and be sure fruit will
spring from the seed. Kelly carried his idea with him to Congress, and
hostility to Know-Nothingism marked his career there, as it had done at
home.
When James Buchanan became President, John Kelly became one of
the leaders of the Administration party in Congress. He was then
thirty-four years old. One day General Cass, Secretary of State,
visited the Capitol, and in conversation with a friend said: “Look at
John Kelly moving about quietly among the members. The man is full of
latent power that he scarcely dreams of himself. He is equal to half a
dozen of those fellows around him. Yes, by all odds, the biggest man
among them all. The country will yet hear from Honest John Kelly.”
These words of General Cass, uttered in his imposing George-the-Third
style of conversation, shortly after were repeated to old James
Gordon Bennett, the friend of Kelly’s boyhood, and the editor took
early opportunity to mention Honest John Kelly in the _Herald_, and
frequently afterwards applied the same title to him. The appellation
struck the public as appropriate, and soon passed into general use.
The subject of this memoir has been called “Honest John Kelly,” from
that day to this. In a letter to the present writer, in 1880, the late
Alexander H. Stephens said: “I have stood by John Kelly in his entire
struggle, and have often said, and now repeat, that I regard him as the
ablest, purest and truest statesman that I have ever met with from New
York.”
Mr. Buchanan was urged by Mr. Kelly to appoint Augustus Schell
Collector of the Port of New York. Other members of the New York
delegation in the House, and both the New York Senators opposed the
selection of Mr. Schell. Mr. Seward was vehement in his opposition. But
John Kelly stuck with the tenacity of Stanton in the War Department,
or Stonewall Jackson in the battle-field. The President nominated
Mr. Schell Senator Clay of Alabama reported the nomination favorably
from the Committee of Commerce, William H. Seward and the others were
overborne, and Mr. Schell was confirmed by the Senate.
When Mr. Kelly entered upon his political career, to be a foreigner, or
the son of a foreigner, in New York, in the opinion of the intolerant
of both parties, was deemed a matter that required an apology, or at
least an explanation. In 1857 one of the leading representative men of
the Federal Administration in New York was John Kelly, and those who
had been persecuted and oppressed before were recognized and advanced
equally with all others in the city and State of New York; and the
vanishing Know-Nothings at last realized that the absent Kelly had
dealt them heavier blows from Washington than he ever delivered in New
York. In these later and happier days men are no longer ashamed to be
called the sons of Irishmen, and at the festive board of the Irish
societies the notable ones of the country gather to make eloquent
speeches and drink rousing toasts. But while some men forget, true
Irishmen and true descendants of Irishmen have not forgotten their
Horatius at the bridge in the brave days of old. John Kelly, were he
a man of vanity, in contrasting the auspicious scenes of to-day with
those of the dark days of 1844 and 1854, and in viewing his own part in
effecting the change, could not fail to find much cause for pride and
complacent reflection; but vanity is not his weakness.
[Illustration: _John Kelly_
(AT THE AGE OF 35 YEARS.)]
Mr. Kelly went to Washington in the winter of 1855 to succeed the
brilliant Mike Walsh in the House of Representatives. How did the
weighty statesmen receive him? He went into their midst a big-boned,
heavy-browed, brawny stranger, with his far-seeing eye, and firm solid
step, and as he strode in among the Solons of Washington they all felt
an instantaneous conviction from his conversation and bearing that in
the society of the most eminent men of the Republic John Kelly was
exactly where he was entitled to be. He flattered no great man by the
least symptom of being himself flattered by his notice. He measured his
strength in discussion with the most celebrated men in Congress, and
feared the face of none. At their social gatherings he responded to the
brilliant _bon mots_ of the wits of the capital by quiet strokes of
humor, and anecdote, and story, that sent bursts of merriment through
the circle, delighting the sensible, and penetrating even those who
encased themselves in triple folds of aristocratic reserve.
There is nothing artificial about him, but he has been always, and was
so particularly in those days, the child of nature, with no shadow
of pretension or affectation in his manners. He was not simply a man
lifted up from the ranks of toil to be noticed by the world’s favored
ones, but he was endowed with that greatness of soul which always
distinguishes its possessor above his fellows, whether his lot be cast
in the highest or lowest situation of life. It is not strange that New
York has felt, and will continue to feel, the moral influence of this
man as long as he continues to take part in its affairs, loved by the
masses for his lion-like courage, and by friends who meet him face to
face in retirement for his almost womanly gentleness, while for obvious
reasons he is hated and vilified by those who do not appreciate such
qualities. And this courage and gentleness and unruffled equanimity
come all in a breath, perfectly natural and free, for they come of
their own accord. His composure under all circumstances has often
been remarked upon, and in the hurly-burly of New York politics, and
the headlong rush of the tide of life in the great metropolis, John
Kelly is as sedate and recollected as the ascetic in his cloister. But
there is nothing of sourness in his temper. Reflecting much at all
times, he possesses the rare gift of thinking while he is talking,
and when he is expressing one idea his thoughts never outrun the
present sentence, as do those of nine-tenths of people, to frame words
for the next one. He does not, in short, think of what he is going
to say next, but of what he is saying now. Among the finer shades
of character that distinguish one man from another it is extremely
difficult to define that untranslatable something which gives to each
person his individuality; but this intentness of Mr. Kelly upon the
immediate subject under consideration, both as listener and talker, is
wonderfully attractive, and constitutes one of the subtle forces of his
character as a political leader. This faculty of concentration belongs
exclusively to original minds. Self-reliant, and borrowing nothing
from others as to style or conduct, he gets at the point without
labored approaches, and acts great parts with a happy carelessness.
When others have been cast down and worried with care over affairs in
which Mr. Kelly was more interested than themselves, his elastic spirit
has not given way. Loving thus the sunshine, he affords a conspicuous
example of the truth of the inspired words, “a merry man doeth good
like a medicine.” Nothing has ever dispelled his cheerfulness. Defeat,
deprivation of office, desertion by those he trusted, and who owed all
they were to him, have neither embittered him, cast him down, daunted
his courage, nor shaken his faith in himself. Domestic afflictions such
as few men ever know—the death of his entire family—have come upon
him, and while the keen shaft scarred the granite, his constancy has
remained, and neither head nor chastened heart succumbed to misanthropy
or rebellion against Providence. Surely something more substantial than
wit, or genius, or equable temper was required to sustain John Kelly in
the trials he has borne. The natural can only accomplish the natural,
but a good man draws from supernatural fountains to replenish the
well-springs in the arid plains of the desert, and Christianity, not
for holiday show but daily use, must have been this man’s sheet-anchor.
Those acquainted with Mr. Kelly will be proper judges of the fidelity
or shortcomings of this picture. They who have read the absurd
delineations of him in some of the newspapers, and accept them without
more inquiry as reliable, may reject this description of his character
as contradictory of their preconceived notions on the subject. There is
a third class of witnesses—an increasing class—perhaps more impartial
than the two former ones, whose testimony on the point is important.
These are strangers who have formed violent prejudices against the man
after reading certain newspapers, but who on becoming acquainted with
him repudiate their own opinions as rash and preposterously unjust.
“Oh!” but say his enemies, “this is not a fair test; Kelly is plausible
and fair-spoken, and has great personal magnetism. Strangers when
they meet him fall under his spell.” The objection is a weak one, for
these strangers never relapse into their former absurd opinions after
they have gone away, and withdrawn themselves out of his spell. Let
such strangers decide as to the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of the
picture sketched here. A case of the kind occurred at the Cincinnati
Democratic Convention in 1880. A delegate to the Convention from the
State of Rhode Island was very severe on John Kelly. He had been
reading an unfriendly newspaper. He denounced him as a boss, and
uttered many just sentiments on the evils of bossism. While he was
speaking John Kelly and Augustus Schell passed by, and the former was
pointed out to him. “Is that Kelly?” said he. “Well, he doesn’t look
much like a New York rough, or bar-room bully anyhow. I have been told
he was both.” An introduction followed, and a conversation took place
between the delegate and the subject of his recent execrations. “I am
greatly obliged to you,” said the Rhode Island delegate to the author
of this memoir, who gave the introduction, after Mr. Kelly had parted
from him and re-joined Mr. Schell. “I honestly detested John Kelly, as
a low, ignorant ward politician, who had conducted a gang of rowdies
to this Convention to try and overawe it. So I had been told again
and again. Now I don’t believe a word of it. I never talked to a more
sensible man, and modest gentleman than John Kelly. This opens my eyes
to the whole business.”
In the course of this chapter particular attention has been directed to
Mr. Kelly’s war on Know-Nothingism as his chief claim to distinction
and the gratitude of his country during his younger days. He became
identified with the cause of equal rights in the minds of adopted
citizens of various nationalities, especially of the Irish, and
contributed as much, after Henry A. Wise, towards the overthrow of
the Know-Nothing party, as any man in the United States. The adopted
citizens were proud of their champion, and the place which he gained
in their affections became so deep that, like Daniel O’Connell in
Ireland, he could sway them by his simple word as completely as a
general at the head of his army directs its movements. Mr. Kelly never
abused this confidence, and consequently has retained his influence
to the present day. Many have marvelled at his hold on the people of
New York, as great when out of power, as when he has had the patronage
of office at his disposal. Among the causes which have conspired to
give him the largest Personal following of any man of the present
generation, his patriotic services in the old Native American and
Know-Nothing days must be reckoned among the chief. Such a hold Dean
Swift had upon Irishmen in the eighteenth century. Nothing could break
it, nothing weaken it, the King on his throne could not withstand the
author of the Drapier’s Letters in his obscure Deanery in Ireland. It
is fortunate John Kelly is a just and honest man, unmoved by clamor,
not to be bribed by place or power, nor seduced by the temptations of
ambition; for were it otherwise, his sway over great multitudes of
men might enable him to lead them to the right or left, whichsoever
way he might list, a momentous power for good or evil. The politician
who ignores this man’s influence, the historian who omits it from his
calculation of causes, has not looked below the surface of things, and
knows nothing of the real state of affairs in the city and State of
New York.
Alexander H. Stephens was acquainted with John Kelly for over a quarter
of a century; came into daily contact with him for four years on the
floor of Congress; served with him for two years on the Committee of
Ways and Means in the House; and his estimate of Mr. Kelly’s character,
referred to at a former page, is entitled to respectful consideration
from every man in the United States, especially on the part of those
who know nothing about him except what they have read in partisan
newspapers. “I have often said, and now repeat,” declared Georgia’s
great Commoner, “that I regard John Kelly as the ablest, purest and
truest statesman that I have ever met with from New York.”
FOOTNOTES:
[6] Cleveland’s Life of A. H Stephens, p. 469.
[7] The greater number of those he was addressing were Know-Nothings.
[8] Cleveland’s Life of A. H. Stephens, p. 472, _et seq._
[9] The Carolina Tribute to Calhoun (Rhett’s oration), p. 350.
CHAPTER IV.
RISE OF POLITICAL ABOLITIONISM—MARTIN VAN BUREN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
OF THE ABOLITIONISTS—JOHN KELLY’S BRILLIANT COURSE IN THE SYRACUSE
DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION OF 1855.
The rise and fall of the Know-Nothing party took place when John Kelly
was yet a young man. The old Federal party and its several legitimate
successors, more especially the Whigs and Know-Nothings, had not been
fortunate in their conflicts with the Democratic party. Founded by
Mr. Jefferson, the latter party always had been distinguished for
two central ideas—a strict construction of the Constitution, and
adherence to the minimum scale of governmental powers. The Federalists
had destroyed themselves as a national organization by opposition
to the war of 1812. General Jackson declared he would have hung the
men who burned blue lights at New London, when Commodore Decatur was
blockaded there by the British fleet.[10] These blue lights were said
to be signals to the enemy of the movements of the American forces.
The exposure by John Quincy Adams of the machinations at Boston of
John Henry, the British emissary and spy, who was sent from Canada
to instill treason in New England and bring about the secession of
the Eastern States,[11] had hardly less effect in sealing the fate
of the Federal party than the Hartford Convention, whose object was
the dissolution of the Union. Massachusetts—not South Carolina—was
the birthplace of the secession doctrine.[12] The extinction of the
Federal party was followed by the “era of good feeling.” Then came
the disruption during the administration of John Quincy Adams, who
having first propitiated Jefferson and Madison by making war on the
Hartford Convention and the Essex Junto, in the end showed he was a
Federalist at heart by reviving the principles which had distinguished
his father’s administration, and opening the way for the formation
of the Whig party by fastening the protective system on the country,
and deducing implied powers from the Constitution not found in
that instrument. The inevitable tendency of these revived ideas of
federalism was towards the centralization of all powers, whether
delegated or not, in the General Government. The Whig party, though led
by the brilliant Henry Clay, was no match for the Democratic party.
Twice it succeeded in wresting the government from the Democrats, but
on each occasion the result was due to Democratic dissensions, and to
the furore excited over the name of a military chieftain—Harrison in
1840, and Taylor in 1848. With Clay and Webster the Whig party died,
and was succeeded by Know-Nothingism. Mr. Kelly’s part in the overthrow
of the American or Know-Nothing party was dwelt upon in the last
chapter.
But the old Federal party, so unsuccessful with the Hartford
Convention, and in its opposition to the second war with England; so
short-lived in its regained supremacy under the Whigs; and so easily
overthrown under its bigoted organization of Know-Nothingism; was at
length about to adopt a new course, and to acquire a new vitality in
its war with the party of the Constitution, the Jeffersonian Democracy,
destined to place it in control of the government for a quarter of
a century, and to revolutionize the institutions of the country, if
not the principles of the Constitution itself. Agitation over negro
slavery furnished the anti-Jefferson party with this new lease of
life. That agitation became the burning question in American politics
while Mr. Kelly was in Congress. A maximum of government was now to
be employed, and the disciples of Mr. Jefferson, divided and routed,
were soon to behold the Hamiltonian school of politicians in absolute
control of every department of the Federal Government.
The commanding influence of New York in the affairs of the United
States was never more conspicuously displayed than at the time of the
dissolution of the Whig and organization of the Republican parties.
Dissensions among the Democrats of New York proved a potent factor in
this process of decay and rejuvenation among their opponents. Prior to
1848 the Abolitionists had no strength as a party organization. Mobbed
in Boston, New York and other cities, denounced by Daniel Webster as
“infernal Abolitionists,” and by Henry Clay as “mad fanatics,” they
struggled in vain for long years to effect a lodgment in American
politics. A rapid glance at the origin of political Abolitionism will
not be without interest to the historical student. Forty-four years
ago, January 28-29, 1840, an anti-slavery convention was held at
Arcade, then in Genessee County, New York. Reuben Sleeper of Livingston
County presided. Among the delegates were Myron Holley and Gerrit
Smith. At this conclave a call was issued for a national convention,
to be held at Albany April 1, 1840, to discuss the expediency of
nominating Abolition candidates for President and Vice-President of
the United States. At the time and place appointed the first national
convention of the anti-slavery party was held. Alvan Stewart presided,
and the Liberty Party, after a long discussion, was organized. The
convention was composed of delegates from six States. James G. Birney
and Thomas Earle were nominated for President and Vice-President. They
received a little less than 7,000 votes at the polls, the Harrison and
Tyler tidal wave sweeping everything before it. In 1844 the Liberty
Party again placed its candidates in the field—James G. Birney for
President and Thomas Morris for Vice-President—who polled nearly
60,000 votes, and defeated Henry Clay. The politicians were not slow
to perceive that the Abolitionists at last held the balance of power
between the two national parties of Whigs and Democrats. But no one
then dreamed that Martin Van Buren, who had achieved all his successes
in life as a Democrat, whom the South had made President in 1836,
and whom John Randolph described as the “Northern man with Southern
principles,” would place himself at the head of the Abolitionists in
1848, and thereby defeat his own party at the Presidential election
of that year. In this surprising defection of Mr. Van Buren from the
Democratic party, Samuel J. Tilden likewise struck his colors and
went off with the Little Magician into the camp of the Abolitionists.
Lucius Robinson also bolted with Tilden. John Kelly followed the lead
of William L. Marcy and Horatio Seymour, and supported Cass and Butler,
the nominees of the National Democracy.
A convention of the Liberty Party was held at Macedon Locke, Wayne
county, New York, June 8, 9 and 10, 1847, at which the Abolitionists
nominated Gerrit Smith and Elihu Burritt for President and
Vice-President. Burritt declined, and at a convention held soon after
at Rochester, New York, Charles C. Foote was nominated in Burritt’s
place. The politicians now began to put in their fine work. The
national committee of the Liberty Party and their outside advisers had
their own plans with which the nomination of Gerrit Smith conflicted.
They accordingly called another convention of the Liberty Party to
meet at Buffalo, October 20, 1847. The Macedon convention thereupon
separated from the Liberty Party, and took the name of Liberty
League. Both wings were in agreement in maintaining that slavery was
unconstitutional. William Lloyd Garrison and his followers, while
not endorsing the Liberty Party in all things, held that a rising
of the slaves in the Southern States would be no “insurrection.” In
this view the Abolition editors concurred, as did also the Liberty
Party conventions in Massachusetts and other Eastern States, those
held in various parts of New York, and those convened in Ohio and
other Western States. The Liberty League occupied the same ground
in regard to slavery, with this difference: they took position on
other public questions which the Liberty Party excluded from the
scope of its operations. Gerrit Smith, who was one of the single idea
Abolitionists, in fact their leader, was placed in nomination for the
Presidency at the Buffalo Liberty Party Convention of October 20,
1847. His candidature would have received the hearty support of the
Liberty League, for its members knew that a servile insurrection was
what he desired. Thirteen years later Gerrit Smith supplied John Brown
with the money to carry out his notorious Harper’s Ferry raid, the
revelation of which fact in Frothingham’s biography of Gerrit Smith
led to the suppression of the book by the friends of the latter. The
managers of the convention passed over Mr. Smith, and for the first
time went outside of their own ranks for candidates. John P. Hale,
of New Hampshire, and Leicester King, of Ohio, were nominated for
President and Vice-President. These nominations were only temporary.
In 1848 the Barnburners of New York were in open revolt against the
Democrats, bolted at the National Democratic Convention of Baltimore,
and held a convention of their own at Utica. The anti-slavery Whigs
of Massachusetts and the followers of Joshua R. Giddings and Salmon
P. Chase in Ohio were ready to unite with the Abolitionists of the
Liberty Party. A conference was held by the leaders of these various
discordant factions, secessionists from the two old parties, which
led to the call for the celebrated Buffalo Convention of August 9,
1848. In that Convention was born the Republican party of to-day. The
Liberty Party was swallowed up, Hale and King withdrew, the name of
Free Soil party was assumed, and two men never before considered as
distinctive Abolitionists, Martin Van Buren and Charles Francis Adams,
were nominated for President and Vice-President. “A party has arisen,”
said Daniel Webster with vitriolic humor in a speech at Abington,
Massachusetts, October 9, 1848, “which calls itself the Free Soil
party. I think there is a good joke by Swift, who wished to ridicule
some one who was making no very tasteful use of the words ‘_natale
solum_’:
“‘_Libertas, et natale solum!_
Fine words. I wonder where you stole ’em.’”
Thomas H. Benton, the Jackson Democrat and friend and champion of Van
Buren in the long struggle between the latter and Calhoun, added his
condemnation to that of Webster, the New England Whig. Of the Free
Soil party, which was launched on its stormy career at the Buffalo
Convention, Benton says in his “Thirty Years’ View”: “It was an
organization entirely to be regretted. Its aspect was sectional,
its foundation a single idea, and its tendency to merge political
principles in a slavery contention. And deeming all such organizations,
no matter on which side of the question, as fraught with evil to the
Union, this writer, on the urgent request of some of his political
associates, went to New York to interpose his friendly offices to
get the Free Soil organization abandoned; but in vain. Mr. Van Buren
accepted the nomination, and in so doing placed himself in opposition
to the general tenor of his political conduct in relation to slavery. I
deemed this acceptance unfortunate to a degree far beyond its influence
upon persons or parties. It went to impair confidence between the North
and the South, and to narrow down the basis of party organization to
a single idea; and that idea not known to our ancestors as an element
in political organizations. Although another would have been nominated
if he (Van Buren) had refused, yet no other nomination could have
given such emphasis to the character of the convention and done as
much harm.”[13] The vote in 1848 was as follows: Taylor and Fillmore,
1,360,752; Cass and Butler, 1,219,962; Van Buren and Adams, 291,342.
Mr. Van Buren was assisted very warmly in this crusade against the
National Democratic party by Samuel J. Tilden and Lucius Robinson, and
having effected his object in joining the Abolitionists, the defeat of
General Cass, he turned his back on his new allies in a single year and
returned to the Democratic fold. But the “harm” predicted by Benton had
been done, and the prodigal’s return could not undo it. It was by such
exploits that Mr. Van Buren won the title of “Fox of Kinderhook.”
Four years later, in 1852, the Free Soil party again held a national
convention, and nominated for President and Vice-President John P. Hale
of New Hampshire, and George W. Julian of Indiana. They polled 157,685
votes at the election.
At the succeeding Presidential election the Whig party was dead, and
the seed sown at the Buffalo Convention of 1848 by the Free Soilers had
flowered in the interval into its natural fruit—the Republican party,
a sectional organization founded on the single idea of opposition
to slavery. The mission of this party was proclaimed by its leader.
William H. Seward, to be an “irrepressible conflict” between a solid
North and a solid South. John C. Fremont and William L. Dayton were
nominated for President and Vice-President by the Republican National
Convention of 1856. Francis P. Blair, Mr. Van Buren’s old friend of
the _Globe_, was the political inventor of Colonel Fremont. Buchanan
received 1,838,169 votes, Fremont 1,341,264, and Fillmore 874,534.
Mr. Tilden was now back in the Democratic party, and acting in
harmonious accord with Mr. Kelly. Not so Mr. Lucius Robinson.
This gentleman, whose famous gubernatorial contest with Mr. Kelly
twenty-three years later attracted national attention, and operated
disastrously on the fortunes of Mr. Tilden, now left the Democrats
and joined the Republican party. At a Fremont convention held at
Syracuse, New York, July 25, 1856, resolutions denouncing the
Democratic conventions, State and National, were adopted. The committee
reporting these resolutions, of which Lucius Robinson was a member,
also submitted an address which was adopted. “Mr. Buchanan,” it was
said in this address, “the candidate of the Cincinnati Convention,
stands pledged to make the resolutions of that convention his rule
of practice. Such a candidate, under such circumstances, we cannot
support. Mr. Fremont, who has been nominated by the Republicans,
is an acceptable choice. In his hands the Presidential office
will be vigorously and justly administered. We have, therefore,
nominated him for the Presidency, and his associate Mr. Dayton, for
the Vice-Presidency, and will use every honorable effort to secure
their election, that we may rescue the Presidential office from the
degradation into which it has fallen, and the politics of the country
from the corruption which is fast undermining our best institutions.”
Mr. Robinson’s committee also arraigned President Pierce for the
“deplorable misrule of the present administration.”
For twenty years Lucius Robinson continued to be an active Republican.
In 1876 when Mr. Tilden insisted on that gentleman’s nomination as
Democratic candidate for Governor of New York, Mr. Kelly called Mr.
Tilden’s attention to the record of his candidate, and advised against
his nomination. As Mr. Tilden still insisted, and was himself the
Democratic candidate for President, Mr. Kelly gave Mr. Robinson his
support, in order not to weaken the national ticket. Robinson was
elected Governor. His administration will long be memorable for the
proscriptive policy adopted by the Governor against a respectable
and powerful wing of the Democratic party. He surrounded himself
with an inner council, or star chamber, and stretched the Executive
prerogative of arraigning and removing Democratic officials to the
verge of tyranny. It soon became evident that no Democrat, howsoever
irreproachable in the walks of life, who did not belong to the
Governor’s faction, and who might be reached by Mr. Robinson, could
count on his safety in office, or feel himself secure for an hour from
the vengeance of the Executive. To follow John Kelly, or to adhere to
the Tammany Hall Democracy, became an atrocious crime in the estimation
of Lucius Robinson. The revolt against Robinson which soon took place,
cleared the moral atmosphere wonderfully, and proved that the spirit of
manhood which De Witt Clinton half a century earlier infused into the
politics of New York, when he rebelled against a similar tyranny, was
still to be relied upon in an emergency.
The rise of political Abolitionism presents a curious study, and this
rapid outline of its genesis has been deemed necessary. Mr. Kelly at
the juncture now reached was in a position to take an important and
conservative part in the great anti-slavery controversy, about which so
many angry passions have been lashed, and whose true history has not
yet been written. The Democratic party of the State of New York has
always been a quarrelsome family. De Witt Clinton and Van Buren were
leaders of rival factions; Wright and Marcy renewed the controversy;
and Tilden and Kelly, in the present generation, inherited the local
feuds and marshalled the contending hosts of their party in the State.
Settled first by the Dutch, New York was more rapidly colonized by
the Puritans, and later by the Irish and Germans. Contrarieties of
race sped the growth and power of the Empire State, but produced those
antagonisms among its people, which have been more intense there than
in any other State in the Union. Clinton, sprung from Irish stock,
was at war with Van Buren, who, although of Dutch blood, became the
leader of the New York Puritans. In the days of Jackson and Calhoun the
quarrel was revived over the disputes in which those two celebrated
national leaders, theretofore devoted friends, were embroiled by
Martin Van Buren about the year 1830. Calhoun was supplanted in
Jackson’s affections, and Van Buren, thanks to Peggie O’Neil, succeeded
to the Presidency. But Calhoun’s retributive blows in 1840 and 1844
prostrated Van Buren, and destroyed his ascendency in the Democratic
party. Stripped of dear bought power, Van Buren resolved on revenge,
and in 1848 turned on the National Democratic party itself, of which
Mr. Calhoun was then the powerful leader. Persons of a retrospective
imagination may indulge in day dreams over what might have been the
destiny of the United States, and over what other and happier story the
Muse of History might have related, had Martin Van Buren restrained his
feelings, and not rushed headlong into the camp of the Abolitionists.
Pursuing the same pleasing train of reflection, they might say—if the
Van Buren bolt had not occurred, the supreme calamity of disunion
and war, which Henry Clay and Daniel Webster by the most marvellous
exercise of statesmanship averted in 1850, might not have taken place
in 1860. But this is all idle speculation, like the saying that if
Richard Cromwell had possessed the genius of his father, he would have
fixed the Protectorate in his family, which Count Joseph de Maistre
brushes away with the pithy remark, that “this is precisely the same as
to declare, if the Cromwell family had not ceased to rule it would rule
still.”[14]
John Kelly was trained in the school of William L. Marcy, who, in
consideration of his pre-eminent abilities, was chosen Secretary
of State by General Pierce, and as the New Hampshire organ of the
President, the Concord _Patriot_ declared, because Mr. Marcy had
“completely succeeded in re-uniting the Democracy of New York.” Mr.
Kelly occupied a similar position to that taken by Horatio Seymour
in relation to African slavery. Regarding slavery as an evil, Kelly
believed, if the principles of Jefferson should be allowed to work
out their legitimate results without infraction of the compromises of
the Constitution, that the Southern States themselves in time would
adopt the policy of emancipation. This was the sentiment Washington
and Jefferson[15] had often expressed, and which John Randolph put
in practice by emancipating his four hundred slaves. Charles Fenton
Mercer, a Virginia statesman whose zeal for the negro was no less
ardent than that of Dr. Channing, the Boston philanthropist, devoted
his life to the extinction of slavery in Virginia. In 1836 John Letcher
and Charles James Faulkner championed a bill for gradual emancipation
in the Legislature of the same State. The Emancipationists did their
share in the interest of the black man, long before the Abolitionists
began their agitation. In estimating the influence of the two forces
upon the destinies of the negro race, greater sobriety of statement
than that of partisans will be required for the purposes of history.
Whether the views of Senator Ingalls of Kansas on John Brown are
more correct than those of Mr. Daniel B. Lucas of West Virginia on
John Randolph, or whether the verdict of posterity will pronounce
both eulogists at fault, it is beyond the power of any man of this
generation satisfactorily to decide. “Scholars,” Ingalls says,
“orators, poets, philanthropists play their parts, but the crisis comes
through some one whom the world regards as a fanatic or impostor, and
whom the supporters of the system he assails crucify between thieves or
gibbet as a felon. It required generations to arouse the conscience of
the American people to the enormous iniquity of African slavery. The
classical orators, the scholarly declaimers and essayists performed
their work. They furnished the formulas for popular use and expression,
but old John Brown, with his pikes, did more in one brief hour to
render slavery impossible than all the speechmakers and soothsayers had
done in a quarter of a century, and he will be remembered when they and
their works are lost in dusty oblivion.”[16]
“In regard to African slavery,” Lucas says, “which has played
so important a part in our political history, Randolph was an
Emancipationist as distinguished from an Abolitionist. This distinction
was a very broad one; as broad as that between Algernon Sidney and
Jack Cade. It was the difference between Reason and Fanaticism. On
this subject Randolph and Clay concurred; both were Emancipationists,
and both denounced the Abolitionists, as did also Webster and all
the best, wisest and purest men of that day. Randolph was right in
his denunciation of the Abolitionists. They were a pestilent class
of agitators who, for the most part, with little or no stake in the
community, mounted their hobby-horses, Hatred and Fanaticism, and
rode them, like Ruin and Darkness, the steeds of Lucifer in Bailey’s
“Festus,” over the fairest portion of our Republic. An exhaustless
empire of land has enabled the nation to survive this substitution of
the methods of Abolition for those of Emancipation; but the eternal
truth remains the same, that the one was legitimate and the other
internecine; and to justify the Abolitionists, because Emancipation
followed their efforts would be to justify the crime of the Crucifixion
because Redemption followed the Cross.”[17]
The Democratic party in New York, after the Buffalo Convention, became
divided upon the subject of slavery, and the Wilmot Proviso tended to
widen the breach. Barnburners who trained under Van Buren, and Hunkers
who followed the lead of Marcy, although all claimed to be Democrats,
were more bitter against each other than against those of the opposite
party. The election of Franklin Pierce in 1852, upon a platform which
proclaimed the inviolability of the Compromise Measures of 1850, served
to soften the asperities existing in the Democratic party of New York.
Before that time, Marcy and Seymour, both Hunkers, had declared “that
opinions upon slavery should not be made a test” of party loyalty.
Daniel S. Dickinson, then a Democratic extremist, who afterwards became
a Republican extremist, took opposite ground, and refused to unite with
the Barnburners. This led to the division of the New York Democracy
into “Hards” and “Softs.” And it is here, after these divisions had
taken shape, that John Kelly came forward, and acted an interesting and
conspicuous part in this great sectional controversy. His action and
influence in the Soft Shell Conventions of August 29, 1855, and January
10, 1856, although he was not a delegate to the latter Convention,
proved him to be a statesman of commanding abilities.
The New York Soft Shell Democratic Convention of 1855 was composed of
gentlemen who represented three distinct factions in the Democratic
party.
First, of those who had not recanted their Free-soil sentiments of
1848, and were still simon-pure Barnburners, utterly opposed to any
compromise with slaveholders, or the admission of another State
into the Union with the institution of slavery recognized in its
constitution.
Secondly, of those who had previously occupied the same ground as
the first class, but who now enjoyed the patronage and favor of the
Pierce administration in New York, and who had abandoned their Buffalo
platform, and accepted the principles of the Missouri Compromise of
1820, prohibiting slavery in all territories, except Missouri, lying
north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude.
Thirdly, of those who accepted the Webster-Clay Compromise of 1850 as a
settlement “in principle and in substance” of the slavery question in
all the territories, and who, therefore, acquiesced in the legislation
of 1854 in re-affirmation of that memorable compromise.
The Union had been saved by the Compromise of 1850. Franklin Pierce
had been elected on a platform squarely endorsing it. The Whigs had
not given to it as hearty an endorsement in their platform, but rather
evaded the issue. Pierce went to the people on this vital question,
and beat Scott overwhelmingly. The verdict approached unanimity, only
four States in the Union giving their electoral votes for Scott. The
Congressional legislation of 1854, known as the Kansas-Nebraska bill,
was supplementary to, and in strict conformity with the principles
of the Compromise of 1850, and left the question of slavery in those
territories entirely to the people thereof to settle for themselves,
with no interference from without. This was the ground taken by Henry
Clay in his last great effort to pacify the sections on a basis just
and honorable to each. It was the ground on which Daniel Webster
took his stand so patriotically in his celebrated 7th-of-March
speech in 1850. The only man who maintained the same position in the
New York Soft Shell Democratic Convention of 1855 was John Kelly,
notwithstanding the unparalleled approval the compromise received
at the hands of the people in Pierce’s election. John Van Buren,
who had been in company with President Pierce at the White Sulphur
Springs in Virginia—an administration favorite of anti-administration
proclivities—hastened back to New York, and appeared as a delegate at
Syracuse, to defend, as it was reasonably supposed, the measures of
Pierce in a convention composed of Democrats who enjoyed the patronage
of the administration. But Prince John, as Mr. Van Buren was called,
displayed his usual fickleness in this business, and went far in his
dalliance with the Abolitionists, to undermine the administration in
whose sunshine he was basking, and to render the renomination of that
excellent President, Franklin Pierce, practically hopeless. Without
exactly joining the Abolitionists of the Syracuse Convention in an
unqualified crusade against slavery, he kicked over the traces of the
Kansas-Nebraska bill, repudiated the compromise of 1850, and in order
to find a middle ground to stand on went back to the obsolete Missouri
Compromise of 1820. Dean Richmond, Sandford E. Church, and others
followed Van Buren’s lead in this matter, and voted for a resolution he
submitted taking this position. The Abolitionists of the Convention,
like General James W. Nye and Ward Hunt, pronounced the Van Buren
resolution “mere patchwork,” and wanted to go further in condemnation
of Franklin Pierce. There was only one man in the convention who stood
up to rebuke the slippery conduct of Mr. Van Buren, and to defend
the National Democracy from its false friends. This gentleman was
Congressman John Kelly, the subject of this memoir.
Prominent among the delegates who took part in the Convention were
Dean Richmond, chairman of the Democratic State Committee; Sandford
E. Church, afterwards Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals;
John Kelly, Congressman elect; John Cochrane, Surveyor of the Port of
New York; Lorenzo B. Shepard, John Van Buren, Robert Kelly, President
of the Convention; James W. Nye, Timothy Jenkins, Wm. Cassidy, Ward
Hunt, Andrew H. Green, Israel T. Hatch, who was nominated for Governor,
Thomas B. Alvord, Peter Cagger, Dennis McCarthy and Benjamin Wood.
Although the Convention was called to nominate candidates for State
officers, the debate took a wide range, and the Kansas-Nebraska
troubles became the subject of an angry discussion.
The New York _Herald_ of September 2, 1855, contained in its Syracuse
correspondence a spirited sketch of the brilliant debate in the
Convention, and of the exciting scenes to which it gave rise. A
disruption at one time seemed inevitable. “The excitement,” said the
_Herald_, “had been wrought up to fever heat. There were dire menacings
of a bolt. Both divisions of the army seemed ready simultaneously to
throw off their allegiance, and go over to the double enemy. Mr. John
Kelly of New York, had thrown out awful menacings of defection in favor
of the National Democracy, if the Convention should fail to endorse the
administration; and Ex-Lieutenant Governor Church, Jenkins and Hunt, of
Oneida, and the good-humored member from Suffolk, General Nye, seemed
to be just as ready to march off with their hosts to the Republican
party. The remnant of the faction, if any were left, might have divided
themselves among the Whigs or Know-Nothings, leaving only the Custom
House, marshalled by John Cochrane, as the sole corporal’s guard of
the Administration. Such a dreadful contingency was to be avoided at
all hazards and sacrifices. The recess was utilized in endeavoring
to harmonize conflicting views, and to beat down the extravagant
requirements of the extremists of either section. There was, therefore,
intense interest manifested in the proceedings of the evening session,
and when the Convention re-assembled at 7 o’clock P. M., the hall was
crowded to its greatest capacity.”
In the preliminary stages of the Convention two sets of resolutions
had been submitted. Those of the regularly appointed committee were
reported by William Cassidy. In these the Pierce administration
was endorsed, and the National Democracy sustained. Minority or
supplementary resolutions taking directly opposite grounds were offered
by Timothy Jenkins, a pronounced Free-soiler.
Jenkins, in a radical Barnburner speech, denounced the territorial
legislation known as the Kansas-Nebraska bill, arraigned the President,
and demanded a restoration of the Missouri Compromise. He was answered
by John Cochrane in defence of the President, but as Mr. Cochrane had
been a violent Barnburner in 1848, his argument was handicapped by
his record. Besides, he was Surveyor of the Port of New York, and the
newspapers had often referred to a letter said to have been written
by Franklin Pierce to the bolting Barnburners’ meeting in the Park
in 1848, at which the standards of party rebellion against Cass
and Butler and the National Democracy were first raised. If General
Pierce wrote such a letter it was suppressed, but Mr. Cochrane’s
opponents claimed that he was the recipient of this “scarlet letter,”
as the _Herald_ styled it, and as he subsequently obtained one of the
President’s fat offices, uncharitable comments were made upon General
Pierce’s motives in the transaction. But it is scarcely credible, in
view of Pierce’s antecedents, that he could have committed himself to
the Van Buren bolters of 1848. His record in the United States Senate,
and in New Hampshire, had been that of a Jeffersonian Democrat of the
strict construction school.
John Van Buren addressed the Convention after Mr. Cochrane, but as
he too had been a Barnburner, and the Rupert of debate among the
bolters of 1848, his effort now to throw oil on the troubled waters
proved a failure. Besides, it was a very halting effort. He moved that
all resolutions in relation to the Administration, Kansas-Nebraska
legislation, and Slavery be laid on the table, but did not press the
motion to a vote, and shortly after withdrew it. The motion to withdraw
was more consonant with Mr. Van Buren’s real sentiments than the one
to table the disturbing resolutions. The Convention was now face to
face with Mr. Jenkins’s anti-Democratic programme, and Mr. Van Buren
showed a disposition to support it. It was at this juncture that Mr.
John Kelly rose to stem the tide of Sewardism that was sweeping over
the Convention. With an intuitive understanding of a scene which was
constantly shifting, but whose inevitable end, if not now stopped,
he foresaw would be the elevation of William H. Seward to a position
little short of that of dictator of the destinies of the Union, John
Kelly pointed out the perilous levity of Mr. Van Buren’s conduct, and
made a patriotic appeal to the Convention to close up its ranks and
redeem the State from Know-Nothingism, and the sectional Republican
party. “The firebrand of discord,” said Mr. Kelly, “which gentlemen
of the old Barnburner persuasion are now on this floor throwing into
the ranks of the Democratic party, would have even worse consequences
than their course had produced in 1848, when they defeated General
Cass for the Presidency, and enabled the Whigs to slip into control
of the Legislature, and elect Mr. Seward United States Senator to
succeed a Democrat. The fate of the Union now trembled in the balance,
and dissensions in this Convention would go far to destroy the
National Democracy, and place the sceptre of power in the hands of
the arch-agitator, William H. Seward. Mr. Van Buren’s constituents,”
continued Mr. Kelly, “will approve of the resolutions of the Committee
in favor of the National Democracy, though that gentleman may not do
so. I admire Mr. Van Buren’s personal character, but not his political
tergiversations. I hope the Convention will sustain the administration
of Franklin Pierce, and not divide the Democratic party by passing the
supplementary resolutions of the gentleman from Oneida. But to preserve
harmony here I am willing to leave out all matters relating to Kansas,
and so will be the delegation from New York city, who are prepared now
to vote for the resolutions of the regular committee.”[18]
General Nye, former political associate of Gerrit Smith, the John Brown
Abolitionist, took the floor to reply to Mr. Kelly. Bowie knives, and
pistols, and pronunciamentos in Kansas formed the burden of his speech.
In conclusion the eloquent but somewhat comical General Nye declared:
“I would say, President Pierce, you have openly insulted the spirit
of your countrymen. Let us speak out and make this declaration. I
know it is our opinion, and think it is his. I don’t think my friend
Kelly would withdraw from the Convention if we passed the Jenkins
resolutions; but if he should do so, we should obtain legions by
adopting them. The Republican Convention is counting on our ominous
silence.”
Another Free Soil resolution was introduced at this point by Sandford
E. Church, declaring uncompromising hostility to the extension of
slavery into free territory. John Van Buren again took the floor and
loudly advocated the Church resolution. An administration resolution
was next offered by Lorenzo B. Shepard, declaring that the people in
the Territory of Kansas should be left to settle their own matters
as to slavery without interference from the North or South. A Mr.
Hinckley, of Ontario County, made a violent Abolition speech, and
caused roars of laughter by assuming a tragic attitude and declaring,
“I feel like a brave Indian on the battle field.”
John Van Buren, whose mission in the Convention seemed to be to destroy
his friend President Pierce, now offered the following resolution:
“_Resolved_, That while the Democracy of this State will faithfully
adhere to all the compromises of the Constitution, and maintain all
the reserved rights of the States, they deem this an appropriate
occasion to declare their fixed hostility to the extension of slavery
into free territory.”[19]
He supported this resolution in a long speech, in which he tried hard
to leave the Administration without a leg to stand on. As a death-blow
to Pierce, the effort was eminently successful. In conclusion, he moved
to lay the whole subject on the table. Having shot his parthian arrow
into the side of the National Democracy, Prince John was not disposed
to give its friends a chance to be heard. A sharp running debate now
took place between Mr. Kelly and Mr. Van Buren. The New York _Herald_
published a synopsis of it:
“Mr. John Kelly, of New York, hoped the gentleman would not press his
motion, but would give other gentlemen an opportunity of expressing
their sentiments.”
Mr. Van Buren: “I will withdraw it, for I am going to dinner
(laughter), provided you or the gentleman who shall speak last agrees
to renew it in my name.”
Mr. Kelly: “I will agree to that if the Convention agrees to go to
dinner now.” (Laughter.)
Mr. Van Buren: “But if the Convention does not now take a recess, I
want to make the same bargain. I want the last man who speaks to renew
the motion in my name.”
Mr. Kelly: “I will do no such thing.”
Mr. Van Buren: “Then I insist on my motion.”
Mr. Kelly: “I expected more generosity from the gentleman from the
Thirteenth District of New York, than to do anything of this kind.”
At this point a recess was taken until 3 o’clock P. M. On the
re-assembling of the body Mr. John Kelly addressed the Convention,
and showed a determination not to be choked off by Mr. John Van Buren
and the Seward contingent of Disunionists and Abolitionists, who,
notwithstanding their noisy demonstrations, constituted only about
one-third of the Convention. He made a powerful speech in defense of
the National Democracy, and the Administration of General Pierce. He
reviewed, in scathing terms, the treason to Cass and Butler on the
part of the bolting Barnburners in 1848, and when he declared sternly
and with unmistakable indignation, that, if this treason was now to
be repeated he would leave the Convention, and never again affiliate
with Barnburners, a great sensation occurred, and it became evident
that the schemes of the fanatics had been arrested and thwarted by
Mr. Kelly. A hurried consultation took place between the friends and
opponents of the Administration. Mr. Kelly’s demand that a delegation
of true Democrats, and not Seward Democrats, should be sent to the
Cincinnati National Convention, and that a platform endorsing the
territorial legislation of Congress in 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska bill
(in effect a re-affirmation of the Webster-Clay Compromise of 1850)
should be adopted, was reluctantly but finally conceded. The sectional
and disturbing resolutions of Jenkins, Church and Hunt were withdrawn,
and in return for these concessions it was agreed to by Kelly and his
friends that the appointment of the delegation to Cincinnati should
be postponed to a later day, and the drafting of an address and
resolutions expressive of National Democratic principles should be
deferred until the meeting of another convention, at which the National
Convention delegates should be chosen. In view of this compromise any
further conflict over the Van Buren Free-soil resolution was avoided,
and it was adopted by the Convention.
No full report of Mr. Kelly’s important speech, which brought about the
administration victory, was taken down at the time of its delivery,
indeed none of the speeches before the convention was fully reported.
The New York _Herald_, of September 1st, 1855, contained the following
synopsis of what he said:
“Mr. John Kelly, of New York, took the floor. He came here, he
said, to represent the Democracy of the city of New York, and he
was determined to do so. He was always led to suppose that it was
not upon principle, but upon personal grounds that the Democratic
party was divided. He belonged to the Tammany Hall section of the
party, but if it were resolved to force down the throats of the
Convention resolutions derogatory to the honor of the Democratic
party, and of the administration, he, for one, would not remain in
the Convention. Let these dividing questions, he said, rest as they
are. If the resolutions reported by the Committee were brought up,
the city delegates would sustain them. But if on the other hand, the
resolutions of the gentleman from Oneida were forced down the throats
of the body, he would leave the Convention, and never attach himself
again to this branch of the party. (Sensation and applause.) He
asked was it desirable for one-third of this Convention to be the
means of severing the ties which connect the party together? He knew
that the constituents of the gentleman from New York who last spoke
(Mr. Van Buren) would endorse the administration, and endorse the
Kansas-Nebraska bill. If it were the desire of that gentleman to try
and distract the Convention, he should have come from another district,
and not disgrace that which sent him. (Hisses and applause.) When
he—Mr. Kelly—remembered the causes of the division of the Democracy
in 1848, he thought that the ‘isms’ and those causes of division
were to be forever buried in oblivion. But they come here again.
Shall it be said that the Democratic party of New York shall not
sustain a Democratic administration? If so, let it go forth that the
administration portion of the Democratic party of New York has refused
to endorse and sustain it. He trusted the Convention would consider
these matters well, and see what they were going to do. They were going
to divide the party and dissever it, never to be brought together
again in its present strength. They were going to give the power to
the proscriptive Know-Nothing party, which would bring the country to
ruin and desolation. Let them consider the matter well, and ask their
consciences whether they could do such a thing as this. He, for one,
would vote for the resolutions endorsing the administration, and if it
were necessary to endorse the Kansas and Nebraska bill, he would vote
for such resolution, too, and he was sure that the majority of the New
York delegation would do so.”
General Nye: “It is not on the issue of the Kansas-Nebraska bill that
the Democratic party of New York can hope to triumph, nor on it that
my friend from New York city, Mr. John Kelly, can expect to be sent to
Congress in 1856.”
Mr. Kelly: “On that issue alone I was elected.”
General Nye: “It so happens, however, that the opposing candidate voted
for the bill, and you could not have much advantage over him there.
(Laughter.) Besides, the very district which my friend Mr. Van Buren
is said to misrepresent—the Thirteenth—elected John Wheeler, who voted
against the bill.”
Mr. Kelly: “Will you also state that John Wheeler was elected by the
Know-Nothing party?”
General Nye: “No: I know nothing of that party. (Laughter.) I wish
this Convention to treat the subject in a manly way. If you do, I do
not believe Mr. Kelly will withdraw from the Convention; but even if
he does, better he should go than that the hosts that I see around me
should do so.”
Mr. Ward Hunt, of Oneida, made a violent Free soil speech, in the
course of which he said:
“Another gentleman from the city of New York, a member of Congress
elect (Mr. John Kelly), threatened to walk out of the Convention, if
it happened to adopt a course not in accordance with his views. He
would only say that if that gentleman did walk out, his blessing would
go with him, and the delegation of the city of New York might go with
him, too.”
Mr. O’Keefe: “Except Van Buren.” (Laughter.)
Mr. Hunt: “Well, I am glad to see that there is one good man left in
the city of New York.”
Mr. Van Buren: “I will not give notice, like my friend from the
Fourteenth Ward, Mr. Kelly, that if the procedure of the Convention
should not please me I would bolt. Perhaps if I did, the Convention on
that very account would persist in adopting such measures.” (Laughter.)
The repeated references by the leading opposition members of the
Convention to Mr. Kelly’s notice of his determination to retire, if
the Seward wing of the party persisted in its factious course, and the
concessions which followed, showed that the blow had been sent home.
The one strong man had been found to arrest the progress of disunion,
and to aid materially in staving off in 1856, the calamity which
finally overtook the country in 1860.
Had New York entered the Democratic National Convention of 1856,
distracted by intestine feuds, as was the case in 1848, the election of
the Republican candidate for President, John C. Fremont, probably would
have followed, together with the dreadful appeal to arms which shook
the continent four years later. The State ticket placed in the field by
the Soft Shell Convention of 1855, was not successful at the polls. The
State was carried by the Know-Nothings by decisive majorities. Samuel
J. Tilden was the candidate on the Soft Shell ticket of that year for
Attorney General. A short time before the election Mr. Tilden received
the following letter from Josiah Sutherland, nominee for the same
office on the State ticket of the other wing of the party:
NEW YORK CITY, Friday, Oct. 12, 1855.
SAMUEL J. TILDEN, ESQ.,
MY DEAR SIR:—I was nominated for the office of Attorney General of
this State, by that portion of the Democratic party of the State
called the Hards; you were subsequently nominated for the same office
by that portion or section of the Democratic party of the State called
the Softs. I look upon the resolutions passed and published by the
Convention which put me in nomination (a copy of which I herewith
enclose) as truly, emphatically and unequivocally expressing great
principles of the National Democracy and of the Constitution. The
third resolution, as you will observe, firmly enunciates the great
Democratic principle, “That it should be left to the people of the
States to determine for themselves all local questions, including the
subject of slavery;” it expresses also “an unqualified adherence to
the Kansas-Nebraska Bill,” and a firm opposition to “any effort to
re-establish the Missouri prohibition.”
I approve of these resolutions and have endorsed them, and do
now endorse them in letter and spirit. Do you look upon these
resolutions as truly and faithfully expressing principles of the
National Democracy and of the Constitution? Are you in favor of the
Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and of the great principle of the exclusive
constitutional right and liberty of the people of the Territories on
the subject of slavery, thereby affirmed?
Do you believe that in the organization of future Territories Congress
will have no right or power, under the Constitution as it now is,
to prevent the inception, existence or continuance of slavery in
such Territories as a domestic or Territorial institution; that
the question and subject of slavery as a domestic or Territorial
institution, in the absence of any express provision or clause of the
Constitution giving such right and power to Congress, will and must
of necessity belong exclusively to the people of such Territories—of
natural, if not of constitutional right; and that the only
constitutional and legitimate way in which a citizen of Massachusetts
or of New York can interfere with or act upon that question, is by
exercising his undoubted right to move to the territory where the
question is pending, and to become a citizen or resident thereof?
Are you opposed to the political, verbal “Black Republican” fanatics
and demagogues of the North, who, using words for things, oppose
this great principle, and call for a restoration of the “Missouri
Compromise line?” Are you opposed to the State ticket lately put in
nomination in this State, headed by Preston King, and to the declared
principles and grounds upon which that ticket was nominated?
The opinions, propositions, or principles which would be implied in
the affirmative answers to the foregoing questions appear to me to
be plainly expressed, or necessarily implied in the resolutions of
the Convention which put me in nomination, and of which you herewith
receive a copy.
Please answer these questions by letter at the earliest possible
day; for if you answer them in the affirmative, I shall take great
pleasure in immediately laying your letter before the State Committee
of the party which put me in nomination, and shall at the same time
inform that Committee that I decline any longer to be considered a
candidate. I will not stand in the way of a union of the Democratic
party of this State upon principle. The Constitution and the Union now
need the united force of the Democratic party of this State for their
protection.
With the most sincere desire to promote such a union of that party,
and with high regard for yourself personally, I have the honor to be,
Your obedient servant,
JOSIAH SUTHERLAND.
MR. TILDEN’S REPLY.
NEW YORK, Thursday, Oct. 18, 1855.
DEAR SIR:—I have received your letter, offering, on certain
conditions, to send your declension to the State Committee of the
party by which you were nominated, with my letter of compliance, and
to open to me the opportunity of running before that Committee for
their nomination in the vacancy.
I think that, on reflection, you will see that it is impossible for
me to entertain any negotiation, or discuss any conditions, for a
fusion of a part of the two State tickets, as proposed by you, or of
the entire ticket, as proposed in other quarters. Still less can I
initiate such an arrangement for my individual advantage, irrespective
of the other gentlemen nominated on the ticket with me, and which,
even if not intended for that purpose, may result in a call for
some of them to reciprocate your withdrawal. Discussions as to the
feasibility, propriety or terms of any union of the two tickets belong
not to me, but to the party which nominated me, or its authorized
representatives. The only countenance I could, in any event, give to
the suggestion would be in retiring myself, and not in being made
instrumental in, or even a party to, causing others to do so. Those
who have done me the honor to make me their candidate know that no
delicacy toward me need restrain them from anything of this nature
which they think it advisable to do. Very respectfully, your obedient
servant,
HON. J. SUTHERLAND.[20] S. J. TILDEN.
It will be observed that Mr. Tilden made no answer to Judge
Sutherland’s inquiries on the vexed question of slavery in the
territories. Mr. Tilden was one of the Free soil bolters at the
Baltimore Convention of 1848, and supported Van Buren and Adams in the
Presidential contest of that year. His views on the subject of Slavery
in the Territories, which he did not disclose in this correspondence,
were frankly stated five years later in his letter of October 26, 1860,
to Judge William Kent. “I never held any opinion,” said Mr. Tilden
in the Kent letter, “which could justify either the policy or the
organization of the Republican party. If I had done so I should not
hesitate to frankly renounce so grave an error. * * * But, in truth,
I never adopted the doctrine of absolute and universal exclusion,
by federal legislation, of slavery from all territories, and still
less that of the exclusion of new slave States, or the philosophical
theories on which the doctrines are founded.”
Mr. Kelly’s energetic protests in the Soft Shell Convention of 1855
bore ample fruit in the Convention of the same party held at Syracuse
January 10, 1856. The delegates chosen to represent the Softs at
Cincinnati were headed by Horatio Seymour, and were National Democrats
of conservative convictions and feelings. Mr. Kelly was a delegate
from the Fourth Congressional District. An able and elaborate address,
written by Nicholas Hill, Jr., was adopted by the Convention, and
was replete with sound Democratic doctrine of the broadest national
character. Not a word of Free soilism appeared in it. The resolutions
were of the same conservative kind, and adverted to the triumph of
the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill as shown in the recent
elections. The fourth resolution was in these words:
“_Resolved_, That the determination of Congress, avowed in the
Kansas-Nebraska bill, to reject from the National councils the subject
of slavery in the Territories, and to leave the people thereof free to
regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to
the Constitution of the United States, is one that accords with the
sentiments of the Democracy of this State, and with the traditional
course of legislation by Congress, which under Democratic auspices,
has gradually, in successive Territorial bills, extended the domain
of popular right and limited the range of Congressional action;
and that we believe this disposition of the question will result
most auspiciously to the peace of the Union and the cause of good
government.”
Thus the principles advocated by John Kelly were embodied in the
address and resolutions of this Convention, while those which John Van
Buren had urged were entirely rejected. Franklin Pierce was unfortunate
in the selection of his political representative in the State of New
York, at this important juncture. He was an aspirant for renomination,
and his brilliant but unstable counsellor, Prince John, landed him
in a Serbonion bog, and left the coveted prize to James Buchanan.
John Kelly would have proved a safer adviser for the eloquent and
patriotic Pierce. The differences between the two wings of the New York
Democracy, led respectively by Horatio Seymour and Greene C. Bronson,
were harmonized at Cincinnati, and on motion of Mr. Bayard of Delaware,
both were admitted on an equal footing in the National Convention.
It has been said that William L. Marcy desired John Kelly, in place of
John Van Buren, to be made the mouthpiece of the Administration in New
York at this critical period. But from the day of Pierce’s election
John Van Buren had been assiduous in his attentions to him. He went
early to Concord before the inauguration, and was closeted with the
President elect.[21] He was with him at the White Sulphur Springs, in
Virginia, just before the Syracuse Convention of 1855. Mr. Van Buren
was a man of varied and fascinating accomplishments, and found it
an easy task to capture the President’s heart. Notwithstanding the
preference of Mr. Marcy for John Kelly as administration leader in
New York, on Prince John was bestowed that distinction. William L.
Marcy, with the exception of De Witt Clinton, the greatest Democratic
statesman the Empire State has yet furnished to the country, died at
Ballston Spa, New York, July, 4, 1857.
Mr. Kelly won a national reputation by his brilliant course in the
Syracuse Convention of 1855. His services in the cause of the Democracy
were recognized on all sides before he took his seat in Congress at
the meeting in December of that year. General Cass, successor of
Mr. Marcy in the State Department, introduced and welcomed his old
New York supporter of 1848 into the councils and friendship of the
Administration of Mr. Buchanan. John Kelly entered the field of Federal
politics, as a member of the Thirty-fourth Congress, under favorable
auspices for a successful career.
FOOTNOTES:
[10] Ingersoll’s Hist. Second War between the United States and Great
Britain. Vol. 1, p. 439.
[11] Message of President Madison to Congress, March 9, 1812. Vt. Gov.
and C., Vol. V., 478-9. Henry himself for $50,000 revealed the matter
to Madison. Ibid. Committee on Foreign Relations Ho. Rep. June 3, 1812,
also arraigns England. Ibid, 499.
[12] January 14, 1811, in the debate in the House of Representatives
upon the erection of the Louisiana purchase into a State, Josiah
Quincy, of Massachusetts, opposed the measure. “He expressed his
deliberate opinion that so flagrant a disregard of the Constitution
would be a virtual dissolution of the bonds of the Union, freeing the
States composing it from their moral obligation of adhesion to each
other, and making it the right of all, as it would become the duty of
some, to prepare definitively for separation, amicably if they might,
forcibly if they must! This declaration, the first announcement on
the floor of Congress of the doctrine of Secession, produced a call
to order from Poindexter, delegate from the Mississippi Territory.”
Hildreth’s Hist. U. S., Vol. III., p. 226.
[13] Vol. 2, p. 723.
[14] Generative Principle of Political Constitutions, p. 19.
[15] Jefferson’s Complete Works. VII., 159.
[16] Address by Hon. John J. Ingalls at Ossawatomie, Kansas, August 30,
1877, on the dedication of a monument to John Brown and his associates.
[17] John Randolph of Roanoke. An Address delivered before the Literary
Societies of Hampden-Sidney College, June 13, 1883, by Daniel B. Lucas,
LL.D.
[18] New York _Herald_ August 31, 1855.
[19] “New York Hards and Softs,” p. 70.
[20] New York Hards and Softs, pp. 71-2.
[21] New York Hards and Softs, p. 39.
CHAPTER V.
KELLY, AS ALDERMAN AND CONGRESSMAN—SKETCH OF MIKE WALSH—GREAT STRUGGLE
FOR SPEAKERSHIP—STORMY DAYS IN CONGRESS—JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS PLAYS PART
OF CASSANDRA—CULLEN OF DELAWARE TALKS OF EGGING THE CATHOLICS—KELLY
REPLIES—READS IMPORTANT LETTER OF LAFAYETTE ON PRIESTS WHICH THE
KNOW-NOTHINGS HAD GARBLED—KELLY THE ONLY CATHOLIC IN THE HOUSE.
Although a political rather than a chronological order has been
observed in the preceding chapters, it is necessary now, for the
preservation of important threads of the narrative, to speak of some
events as they transpired.
John Kelly, then captain of that popular company the Emmet Guards, was
elected Alderman for the Fourteenth Ward at the election in November,
1853, to serve for two years, beginning January 1st, 1854. Twenty-five
or thirty years ago the people of the city of New York selected the
strongest men in the community to represent them in the Board of
Aldermen. To attain, at that period, the place of a City Father was an
object of ambition with those who sought an attractive rank among their
fellow-citizens, and many men were elected Aldermen who have since
become famous in State and National politics. The Boards of which
Mr. Kelly was a member in 1854-5, were exceptionally able bodies. At
his election, November 8th, 1853, the whole number of votes cast for
Alderman of the Fourteenth Ward was 1938, of which John Kelly received
1097; Thomas Wheelan, 566; and Morris Miller, 275. Mr. Kelly’s majority
over all was 256. He was a member of the Committee on the Almshouse
Department in the Board of Aldermen, and of the Committee on Annual
Taxes in the Board of Supervisors, the latter body being composed of
the Mayor, Recorder and Board of Aldermen. The Aldermanic list for
1854 contains the well-known names of Nathan C. Ely, President of the
Peter Cooper Insurance Company, and also President of the Board of
Aldermen; William Boardman, jun.; Abram Wakeman, Amor J. Williamson,
Thomas Christy, Anson Herrick, Daniel D. Lord, John Kelly, Richard Mott
and Thomas Woodward. To these were added, in 1855, Isaac O. Barker,
who succeeded Mr. Ely as President of the Board, Orison Blunt, William
Chauncey, George W. Varian, and others, the new members taking the
seats of those whose terms expired in 1854.
Mr. Kelly’s aptitude for affairs was soon recognized by his fellow
members. President Barker placed him on no less than five committees in
his second year in the Board, and appointed him chairman of the most
important committee of the body—that on Annual Taxes in the Board of
Supervisors. The members of this Committee were John Kelly, Henry R.
Hoffmire and Daniel D. Lord. The Know-Nothings were then powerful in
New York, and John Kelly was their sleepless opponent in the Board of
Aldermen. His constituents were warmly attached to the man, and duly
appreciated his services in official life. Some even went so far as to
predict that he would soon become a dangerous rival to the celebrated
Mike Walsh, then in the meridian of his popularity. Kelly and Walsh
both lived in the Fourth Congressional District, and the latter was at
that time representing the District with great acceptability in the
Thirty-third Congress. The prediction was verified, and Kelly became
Walsh’s competitor at the ensuing election. The interest which this
contest excited was not confined to the city, but extended to all parts
of the State of New York. The plan adopted in these pages of giving
outline sketches of the more conspicuous men with whose names that of
Mr. Kelly has been associated in political controversies, certainly
cannot be disregarded in the case of Mike Walsh, that wayward genius,
gifted orator, and child of misfortune.
Michael Walsh was born in the town of Bandon, County Cork, Ireland,
in 1815, and came to this country with his parents when he was a
child. His father was an intelligent, industrious, hard working man,
and the owner of a mahogany yard in Washington Street, New York.
He entertained peculiar views in regard to a republican form of
government, and on that account never became a citizen of the United
States. His son Michael possessed a great deal of talent, and was
educated at St. Peter’s school in Barclay Street. When he was about
sixteen years of age his father indentured him to a lithographer at
Broadway and Fulton Street, with whom he learned that business. He was
hardly twenty-one when he began to be exceedingly active in political
affairs in New York, and the whole country. As an orator, for his
age, he had probably no equal. He possessed literary ability, and was
equally ready with pen or tongue. His forte, however, was sarcasm, and
unfortunately for himself he had an unrivaled knack for coining slang
expressions. Many of the slang sayings peculiar to New York at this
day were invented by Mike Walsh. He was naturally humorous, and was
endowed with powers of mimicry that would have made his fortune on the
stage. He could describe the weaknesses of human nature, and lay bare
the motives which influenced public men in their actions with a mastery
which no other man of his time possessed.
He was elected to the lower branch of the Legislature of New York
before he was twenty-one years of age, and although he had little or
no business ability, he distinguished himself in the House by his
fine oratorical powers. His speeches were not only interesting and
amusing, but often full of information. Without previous thought or
reflection, he could make a capital off-hand speech, expressing his
views very intelligently, and enlisting the attention of his audience
throughout. The Democratic party in New York, at that period, was under
the control and influence of men who had very little respect for Walsh,
as his manners were not only objectionable, but sometimes his language
was abusive. He was very strong, notwithstanding, with the people,
and on that account was feared by the leaders. He was re-elected to
the Assembly several times. He established and edited a paper which
he called “The Subterranean,” and his squibs, sometimes clever but
often coarse, were sent forth in its columns. There was a furniture
dealer in the Fifth Ward named John Horsepool, between whom and Walsh
a bitter feud existed. Several times Horsepool had him arrested for
libel. At last “The Subterranean” belched forth an angrier flame than
usual, and Horsepool got his revenge. Walsh was indicted, tried and
convicted, and sent for a short term to the penitentiary. But this
served to excite sympathy for him and increase his popularity. He
was a very companionable man, was full of anecdote, and had a very
retentive memory. He recollected, without particular effort, nearly
everything he had ever read, and if called upon would recount a story
or any other matter with great precision. Among his companions, for
several years, were Tom Hyer, the pugilist, and Jack Haggarty, son of
the old New York auctioneer of that name. They generally made their
headquarters at the Hone House, a hostelry kept by Morgan L. Mott. This
was formerly the private residence of Philip Hone, and took its name
from him. Walsh and his coterie would gather together here daily, and
relate stories and anecdotes of their checkered experiences. Having no
business occupations and some money to spend, they all shortened their
days by the immoderate use of alcoholic stimulants. As long as Mike
Walsh survived he was the life of the company. During the Presidential
canvass of 1844 Walsh formed a political organization on the East Side
of New York city, which he named the Spartan Band. This body was in
opposition to the Empire Club of Captain Isaiah Rynders. Both of these
clubs were exceedingly active during the Polk and Dallas campaign,
and rendered efficient service to the Democratic ticket. Walsh was
proud of the influence he wielded over his men, and of the power his
position brought to him as a leader. The singular notion occurred to
him of giving high-sounding titles to his several lieutenants, and
he consequently called them after the distinguished French Marshals
who fought in the wars of Napoleon the First. All the men who were
prominent in those days in the Spartan Band and Empire Club have long
since passed away, with the exception of Captain Rynders, who still
figures in New York politics at eighty-one, as erect of carriage and
almost as brisk of step as he was fifty years ago.[22]
A curious anecdote is told of the way in which Mike Walsh and David C.
Broderick, subsequently Senator from California, ceased to be friends.
After Walsh was sentenced to Blackwell’s Island, an understanding is
said to have been reached between them that Walsh should commit suicide
on his way to the penitentiary by jumping from the ferry-boat into the
East River. Walsh being regarded as the champion of the poor as against
the rich, and many believing he had been sentenced to Blackwell’s
Island because of his advocacy of the interests of the poor, his death
in the manner indicated, it was thought, would be avenged by his
followers as that of a martyr in their cause. In view of the disgrace
visited upon him, Walsh is said to have promised Broderick that he
would sacrifice his life by drowning, and thus stir up the vengeance of
the populace in retaliation upon his and their oppressors. But Walsh
showed better sense than to do so foolish a thing, and Broderick became
his enemy, and branded him as a coward, because he did not kill himself
according to promise.
During the summer months Mike Walsh was in the habit of frequently
sleeping all night in one or another of the parks of the city, because,
as he claimed, the night air hardened his constitution. For the same
reason he seldom wore an overcoat in winter. He was an inveterate
joker, and was in his element whenever he could play a trick on the
unwary or uninitiated. He was the author of the Frank McLoughlin
hoax, which all old New Yorkers will remember. McLoughlin was a noted
sporting man in New York forty years ago, and a great toast among
horse men, pugilists, and like people of that day. He was one of the
California pioneers of 1849 when the gold excitement broke out. In a
few years he returned to New York. Mike Walsh happened to be passing
through the City Hall Park, and met McLoughlin as he was on his way
from the ship to the house of his relatives.
“Well, Frank,” said Mike, “I see you have returned.”
“Yes,” was the reply.
“Do you expect to remain here?”
“Yes, sir,” said Frank, “I hope to spend the remainder of my days in
New York. I have been in no place since I left here that I like as
well.”
“I suppose,” said Mike, “all of your friends will be glad to see you?”
“Yes, I am sure they will, and I shall be glad to see them.”
Thus they separated. Walsh hastened over to the Pewter Mug on Frankfort
Street, Thomas Dunlap proprietor, then known as Tammany Hall. Passing
into the bar-room, Walsh exclaimed to those present that he had just
seen Frank McLoughlin, and that he had gone to a public-house on
the Bowery, and requested his friends to call on him there at once.
McLoughlin being a favorite, a great many persons started out to find
him, but as it was Sunday they encountered some difficulty in obtaining
admittance to the hotel. The bar-keeper there perceived the joke in an
instant, and said McLoughlin had been at the hotel, but had gone to
John Teal’s, on the corner of Stanton and Forsyth Streets, having left
word, if any of his friends should call, they were to go there and see
him. Walsh took care to circulate the hoax all over the city, sending
people to various points in quest of McLoughlin, who was the bearer,
quoth Mike, of many letters and presents to the boys in New York from
old acquaintances in California. Proprietors of drinking saloons reaped
a large harvest by selling extra quantities of their beverages to the
victims of the hoax. In sportive tricks of this sort Mike Walsh was
continually engaged.
In 1852 he was nominated for Congress in the Fourth Congressional
District, and elected. He served in the House of Representatives for
two years, and attracted by his peculiar powers much attention in that
body. He was nominated the second time in 1854 by the Hard Shells. The
Soft Shells nominated John Kelly. A very bitter and exciting contest
followed. Many thought Walsh was invincible in the Fourth District,
but his opponent was very popular, and the struggle between them was
carried on with great enthusiasm and energy. Mr. Kelly came out the
victor, but only with eighteen plurality. The whole number of votes was
7,593, of which John Kelly received 3,068; Mike Walsh, 3,050; Sandford
E. Macomber, 824; John W. Brice, 626; James Kelly, 1; and scattering,
24.
After the election Walsh served notice on Kelly that he would contest
his seat, on the ground that illegal votes had been cast in the
Fourteenth Ward, where the majority against Walsh was quite large. Mr.
Kelly at once acted on information that had been given to him by a
friend of Walsh’s father, the late John Griffin, that Walsh was not a
citizen of the United States, his father not having been naturalized,
and he himself having neglected to take out citizen’s papers when he
reached the proper age. He was not, therefore, a citizen of the United
States. A certificate of his baptism was procured from the parish
priest at Bandon, Ireland, where he was born, and Walsh, fearing the
result of an exposure, withdrew, and the contest ended.
The subsequent career of Mr. Walsh was a checkered one. He was
employed by George Steers, the well-known ship-builder, as his agent
to go to Russia to negotiate a contract in his favor to build ships
for that Government. Walsh obtained letters of introduction from the
Secretary of the Navy of the United States to officials of the Russian
Government, and set out on his mission with fair prospects of a
successful issue to the business. Instead, however, of conducting the
affair well, the unfortunate man fell into riotous living in Europe,
and spent the remittances his employer sent to him. He returned to the
United States in the steerage of one of the steamships plying between
Liverpool and New York.
He was never a candidate for office again, after his memorable contest
with Mr. Kelly in 1854. In the winter of 1859 poor Mike, while on his
way home one night, slipped and fell down a cellar-way on the 8th
Avenue, near 16th Street, and was supposed to have been instantly
killed, as he was found dead the next morning by the police. Although
at the time it was thought that he had been murdered, the evidence
taken at the inquest showed that this was not the case, and the jury
returned their verdict that his death was caused by an accidental fall
in an open cellar-way. His death called forth expressions of profound
sorrow in New York, for, in spite of the infirmities of his nature,
Mike Walsh had a powerful hold on the popular mind, and over his
new-made grave many an eye was dimmed with unhidden grief, and all that
was gentle and noble in his nature was feelingly recalled.
Although John Kelly had been an ardent Hunker, or Cass and Butler man,
in 1848, he was now acting with the Soft Shells, having, when the
reconciliation took place between the Hunker and Barnburner factions
in 1849, followed the leadership of William L. Marcy and Horatio
Seymour, the two eminent Hunkers, who became Soft Shells. It was by
the Soft Shells he was nominated against Walsh in 1854. The country
was roused to a high pitch of excitement by the Kansas imbroglio
when he took his seat as a Representative of the city of New York in
the Thirty-fourth Congress. For the first time in the history of the
government a purely sectional candidate, sustained exclusively by
sectional votes, was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives
in 1856. This was Nathaniel P. Banks, of Waltham, Massachusetts. The
struggle was the most bitter and protracted one that ever took place
in the House, beginning when Congress assembled on the first Monday
of December, 1855, and continuing from day to day for nine weeks. The
contending forces were so evenly balanced, and party spirit ran so
high, that it seemed impossible to break the dead-lock. There were
three candidates in the field, and the followers of each supported
their respective favorites with unflinching resolution. William A.
Richardson of Illinois, who had brought in the Kansas-Nebraska bill
at the last session, and carried it through successfully, was the
caucus nominee of the Democrats; Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts,
of the Republicans; and Henry M. Fuller, of Pennsylvania, of the
Know-Nothings. It was the beginning of the great sectional conflict,
and the ominous mutterings of the storm were now heard in the House
of Representatives whose thunder in a few years was to break forth on
a hundred battle-fields. There was Joshua R. Giddings, the ancient
Abolitionist, who for years like Cassandra in the gates had been
uttering prophecies of woe, and now in anticipation of victory was
goading the Hotspurs of the South to fury, such as Keitt, and Brooks,
and Caskie, and Bowie, and Extra Billy Smith, and Fayette McMullin.
There, too, were Humphrey Marshall, Henry Winter Davis, Zollicoffer
and Cullen, Know-Nothing birds of evil, shouting their No-Popery cry
in the House, like Lord George Gordon in the British Parliament,
seventy-five years before. There were Alexander H. Stephens, who on the
outbreak of sectionalism left the Whigs forever, and now took sides
with the National Democrats, John Kelly, Howell Cobb, James L. Orr, and
William A. Richardson, marshalling the forces of the administration,
and striving to pluck success from the aggressive and powerful
sectionalists. They would have succeeded in electing the Democratic
candidate, William Aiken, finally settled upon in place of Messrs.
Richardson and Orr, but for the officious intermeddling of a blunderer,
who revealed the plans of the Democrats before they were fully matured,
and nominated Aiken in a theatrical speech which repelled the two or
three wavering votes, only needed to elect him. This was Williamson
R. W. Cobb of Alabama. In the homely words of Mr. Stephens, as will
be explained more fully a few pages further on, he “plugged the melon
before it was ripe.”[23] It was true that Aiken was first nominated
by John Kelly in a few tentative words, that attracted several and
did not repel any votes. Mr. Kelly made no kite-flying speech, and
the anti-Banks Whigs, such as John Scott Harrison, Haven, Cullen and
Barclay, who opposed an out-and-out Democrat, were interested in Mr.
Kelly’s off-hand manner of presenting William Aiken’s name, and showed
a disposition to vote for him as against Banks. Harrison had avowed his
intention to do so.[24] But W. R. W. Cobb of Alabama, let the secret
out that Aiken was the Democratic dark horse, and the masterly plans
of Alexander H. Stephens and John Kelly, just as victory was in reach,
were dashed to the ground. An opinion further prevailed among many
that one or two Democrats were corruptly bought off.
On the 18th of December, 1855, after nearly two weeks had been spent
in a fruitless effort to organize the House, John Letcher of Virginia
proposed that all the members should resign, and new elections be
held. This proposal was not made seriously, but rather as a protest
against the dead-lock. Joshua R. Giddings of Ohio chose to treat
the proposition seriously, and on the 18th of December spoke of the
Democrats as follows: “These are the gentlemen who propose here to
the majority of the House, that we shall resign and go home, if they
will. The proposition is unfair. We are endeavoring to organize this
House; they are endeavoring to prevent an organization. To illustrate
my idea, I will remark that I am reminded of the criminal standing upon
the gallows, the rope fastened to the beam over his head and around
his neck, the drop on which he stands sustained by a single cord,
which the sheriff stands ready with his hatchet to cut. ‘Now,’ says
the criminal to the sheriff, ‘if you will resign, I will, and we will
go home together, and appeal to the people.’ Let me say to gentlemen,
we are each of us now writing our biography with more rapidity than
we generally imagine. Gentlemen of the Democratic party, I say again,
in your attempt to extend this sectional institution, you have called
down the vengeance of the American people upon your heads. The
handwriting upon the wall has been seen and read of all men. Your
history is written, and your doom is sealed; the sentence is pronounced
against you, ‘depart, ye cursed!’ I have already given my views upon
Republicanism. They are expressed in the language of that immortal
instrument the Declaration of Independence. That is the foundation of
my Republicanism, as it is that of a vast majority of the Whigs and
Know-Nothings of the North. You, gentlemen of the Democratic party,
stand forth here denying this doctrine. You say men are not endowed by
their Creator with the inalienable right of liberty. * * * I would to
God I could proclaim to every slave in Virginia to-day—You have the
right of self-defence, and when the master attempts to exercise the
right of dominion over you, slay him as he would slay yourselves!”[25]
Here then the incendiary appeal in favor of a servile insurrection,
which John Brown tried to carry out with arms in 1859, was openly made
on the floor of Congress in 1855.
That Giddings was either blinded by his fanaticism, or was a dishonest
pettifogger, became clearly established a few weeks after he made this
seditious speech. On the 18th of January, 1856, the House still being
in the wrangle over the Speakership, Mr. Giddings took the floor,
and advocated the adoption of the plurality rule. Mr. Banks had the
largest number of votes of the several candidates. Giddings, who had
bitterly opposed this rule in 1849, now, to help his candidate, as
earnestly advocated it.
He said: “We have but one precedent in the history of the Government
for our guidance. In 1849 this body found itself in the same condition
for three weeks that it now finds itself in during almost seven weeks.
There were then, as now, three parties in the House. No one party
had sufficient numbers to decide the election. No one party now has
sufficient numbers to elect.”
Mr. Jones of Tennessee rose to a question of order.
Mr. Giddings: “I do not blame the gentleman (Mr. Jones) for rising to
a question of order. He then stood with the party which established a
precedent which shall go down in all time to the condemnation of his
party. I mean that under the circumstances, the Democratic party, as
a party, in its caucus, speaking by a party organ, then declared the
plurality rule to be the proper and only rule which could be adopted
for the organization of the House.”
Mr. Howell Cobb, “Mr. Clerk, the gentleman is mistaken.”