Chapter 26: Grant's second term
- Sun leads opposition -- against third term -- Dana thanks press for its support -- Democrats control House of Representatives -- Tilden and Hendricks nominated -- Dana against Electoral Commission -- claims Tilden was elected by the ballots in the boxes -- W. E. Chandler's letter against overthrow of Packard's government in Louisiana -- “no force bill! no negro domination!” -- reduction of regular army -- removal of Southern question from current politics -- against free coinage of silver -- Exposes Garfield's connection with Credit Mobilier -- indifference to dogma -- Obituary of George Ripley
Throughout Grant's second term the Sun was the leader of the opposition. Every act of the President or his cabinet was scrutinized, and such of them as did not accord with its views of the public interest were condemned. The Republican congressmen, and especially such as held important positions in connection with the appropriations, the improvements of the city of Washington, the Credit Mobilier, or the legislation which was intended to permit citizens accused of criminal libel to be arrested and brought to the capital for trial, were severely criticised. They were charged by name with acts of wilful wrong-doing, and the facts of each case were laid before the country with absolute fearlessness. Neither moderation nor mercy was shown to those who neglected the interests with which they were charged; and yet the Secretary of the Treasury was heartily praised for his opposition to the bill for inflating the paper currency, while the President was still more highly praised for vetoing it. [439] The suggestion of a third term of the presidency for General Grant was heard, for the first time, before his second term was fully under way. It came from officeholders and politicians, and was kept constantly before the country, not only to the end of the term, but till it was finally put to rest four years later at the Chicago convention by the nomination of General Garfield, of Ohio. As the suggestion was at variance with the considerate course of General Washington, when he was offered a third nomination, and with what has since then generally been regarded as the unwritten law of the land, the Sun made haste to oppose it, and in doing so brought every argument that it could frame to bear against it. It would be impossible to summarize the discussion, which extended over a period of seven or eight years, but in spite of this the third-term proposition received the support of a large number of the leading Republicans, many of whom Dana had formerly classed as his closest friends. Many other influential newspapers, in the conviction that the precedent would be a bad one, did what they could to defeat it, but Dana led in the fight, and it now seems probable that but for the part he took in it the movement would have been successful. Every possible criticism was brought to bear on the conduct of the public business, whether it related to the use of the army in the work of reconstruction, to the collection of the revenues, to the inflation of the currency, to the current legislation, or to the management of the different executive departments. The summation of every argument was in substance that there was but one vital issue, and that was, “Turn the rascals out,” and thus free the country at the same time from chronic corruption and the dangers of a virtual dictatorship. In returning his thanks to his brethren of the press, through the Sun, April 24, 1875, for the support they had given to the principle it had been his fortune to represent [440] in resisting the subpoena which would have placed him in the hands of the Washington ring, he said:
... It is not alone because it saves us money; it is not alone because it saves us from unlawful imprisonment. Both these dangers we might easily have shunned by declining to print any exposure of the rascalities at Washington. We knowingly and considerately risked our purse and person in laying before the public the malversations in office which were costing the people right heavily. The powers that be made strenuous efforts by perversion of the authority of the court, and abuse of its process, to lay hands upon us. Under these circumstances our chivalric brethren of the press have made our cause their own, and the cause of the country. The journals which have stood with us foremost in the front rank, the Times, Tribune, Evening Post, and Herald, in resisting the advance of tyranny, to our dying day we can never forget. And so the press rises to the comprehension and assertion of its own dignity and power. And all petty and despicable jealousies and rivalries are buried deep in the strong current of the brotherhood of the press — the brotherhood representation of the rights of the people! No newspaper office in the country should be unadorned by the portrait of the independent judge who, in the straight path of judicial duty, has done so much for popular rights. The name of Blatchford should henceforth become a household word, and never be forgotten. ...But this was not all that Dana had to say on that subject. While he felt deeply the necessity for cleaning out the rings which were preying upon the substance of the people, he asked, August 18th:
... Would it not be a fatal mistake if, in order to execute justice upon some great public robber like Tweed, we should overturn and destroy those defences of liberty that have cost so much to erect, and whose worth and wisdom centuries of experience have justified? [441] ... No matter what other amendments we may make in our laws, no matter with what unsparing radicalism we may lay the hand of change upon legislation and usages inherited from other times, let us be conservative at least in everything that relates to the defence of liberty and to the sanctity of personal rights.The election of a majority of Democrats to the House of Representatives at the fall elections of 1874, and the organization of the House by that party the next year, show that the voters of the country had come to the conclusion that the Republicans could not be trusted to expose fraud and reform the public service. The change greatly encouraged Dana in the course he was pursuing. He had been the first to lay bare the Safe Burglary Conspiracy, and to charge that it had been concocted by the Washington ring, planned and carried out by the Secret Service of the Treasury, paid for with public money, and protected by those “high in the confidence of the administration.” The Sun's statements had been denounced as a calumny by the party organs, but the investigations which had gone to the bottom of the matter, justified that newspaper completely by securing additional testimony which both astounded and appalled the public mind. The facts and circumstances gathered by the committee were recounted from day to day in the columns of the Sun, in all their disgraceful details, and were finally set forth triumphantly in its issue of April 12, 1876, as a complete vindication of its course for the entire period of two years, during which it constituted a most absorbing topic of public discussion. It is difficult to realize, after the lapse of thirty years, that the Safe Burglary, the Whiskey Ring, the Credit Mobilier, and the Post-tradership exposures so completely engrossed the attention of the public press and of the people themselves; but when it is considered that [442] these great scandals affected the reputation of hundreds of officials of the highest rank, including several members of the cabinet, it will be seen that they were entitled to all the attention they received, and justly became important factors in the presidential election which took place that year. It will be recalled that Tilden and Hendricks were the candidates of the Democrats, while Hayes and Wheeler were the candidates of the Republicans. The contest was perhaps the sharpest one the country had ever gone through. The issues were again those which had been so largely framed by the independent press of the country, and were so briefly summed up by the Sun in its famous cry of “Turn the rascals out.” Most of the Southern States were still dominated by the carpet-bag governments, which were in turn upheld by the armed forces of the general government. But the white voters of the South were doing all they could to keep the colored men from the polls and prevent what they called negro domination. In this they were successful to a great extent, especially in Louisiana, which, on the face of the returns, had given a majority to Tilden and Hendricks, and which, if allowed to stand, made their election certain. But under the prompt and vigorous management of the National Executive Committee, the Republicans set up claims which, if sustained, would give to Hayes and Wheeler the vote of the State, together with those of South Carolina and Florida. The exciting discussion which followed throughout the United States, aided by the wide-spread apprehension that the question which had been raised could not be settled without a resort to violence, led to the organization of an Electoral Commission, to which they were referred for decision. This device, although unknown to the Constitution, received the sanction of both houses of Congress and of a number of leading Democrats, including, as many believe, Tilden himself; and the commission was composed [443] of five senators, five representatives, and five justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, so divided politically that the casting vote rested with Justice Bradley. After careful consideration, the commission made a decision which gave the presidency to Hayes, and doubtless saved the country from an outbreak, or at least from confusion and uncertainty, which might have ended in anarchy and violence. It is an anomaly of history that while the vote of Louisiana was counted for Hayes, the Republican government of the State, which was instrumental in establishing the charge of fraud, and should have logically stood with the decision, was soon repudiated by the Hayes administration and forced to give place to a government composed mostly of white men. The Sun, having done its utmost to carry the country for Tilden, and having come so close to success, opposed the Electoral Commission from the day it was first suggested till it ceased to exist. It claimed that there was no proper warrant for it, either in law or justice; that Tilden was legally elected by a majority of the votes deposited in the ballot-boxes, and that while many votes may have been wrongfully excluded or wrongfully thrown out after they were received, there was no warrant in law for counting votes not deposited, nor for the assumption that if deposited they would have been in favor of Hayes and Wheeler rather than for Tilden and Hendricks. It contended to the end that “the only real settlement” of the controversy which could satisfy the country would be one giving the office to the man who had been really elected; that the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, in favoring the Electoral Commission, had committed “official suicide” ; and that
... There is no process or method or invention or power [444] or miracle by which a he can be made truth or a fraud converted into an honest reality. ... No such settlement of the question can stand. Nothing can stand but the truth!It is worthy of record that Dana never changed his mind nor moderated his condemnation of the settlement by which Haves was made president. He regarded it as a fraud upon the American people, and could never bring himself to speak of it or of the fortunate beneficiary except in terms of contempt, and yet it is to be noted that Hayes not only appointed a cabinet of unexceptionable men, who conducted their departments without a shadow of blame, but gave to the country an administration which restored the control of the Southern States to the Southern people and carried into effect many of the reforms which Dana had so strenuously advocated. Indeed, it introduced a new era in national affairs, free from rings and conspiracies, if not front the intrigues and combinations of the bosses and the politicians. While the Sun never acquiesced in this disposal of the presidency, it tacitly admitted that its special field of official criticism had been materially narrowed by the exemplary conduct of the public business, and yet it continued keenly on the alert in reference to everything that pertained to national politics. While there was no perceptible diminution of its independence, there was a growing sympathy between it and the Democratic party which ultimately led it into inconsistencies that were difficult to reconcile with good judgment or to excuse in the interest of the common weal. It will be recalled that William E. Chandler, a member of the Republican National Committee from New Hampshire, was one of the first to call attention to the radical departure of President Hayes from the policy his party [445] had hitherto pursued. He did this in an able statement addressed to the Republicans of his own State, but evidently intended for the people of the United States. It was dated December 26, 1877, and was printed in all the leading journals of the country. It recounted all the measures by which Tilden was deprived of the honors to which many believed him entitled, and pointed out with inexorable logic that Packard's right to the governorship of Louisiana was connected with Hayes's right to the presidency “by titles indissolubly connected in law, in morals, and by every rule of honor that prevails among civilized men.” The annals of politics do not contain a fuller or clearer summation of the facts connected with any political episode of American history; and, while it did not directly assail the Electoral Commission, or the justice and wisdom of its action, it was in every essential detail an independent confirmation and indorsement of the contentions put forth in the Sun. It is not germane to the purposes of this narrative to summarize further Chandler's extraordinary letter. It has been mentioned here for the sole purpose of emphasizing the statement that Dana was far from being unsupported in the resolute views which he entertained in regard to the antecedent facts and the political complications connected with the Electoral Commission, and for the additional purpose of pointing out that he printed the letter and persistently kept it before his readers as a Republican vindication of his own position. In connection with the unsatisfactory state of political affairs prevailing throughout the South, Dana's sympathies were clearly with the white people. He recanted none of his principles in reference to slavery, nor to the essential justice and wisdom of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting discriminations against the freedmen on “account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” but it is certain that he had long since become [446] convinced that the carpet-bag governments, based solely on the support of the colored voters, were not only intrinsically vicious, but that their existence and conduct were in opposition to the true principles of the Constitution and subversive of the best interests of the Southern people. His constant cry, so long as the Federal government undertook, under the authority of Congress, to control the provisional governments or to exercise any supervision whatever over State or federal elections was:
No force bill! No negro domination!It is needless to add that the entire white vote of the South and a majority of the Northern vote supported him most heartily in the position he had taken on this important matter, and finally united in permitting a settlement in substantial accord with this terse and forcible formula. Obviously, if there is injustice in this settlement, it lies in the fact that the Southern people do not acknowledge the colored people as a constituent part of the body politic, and do not apply the principle by which they regulate the right of suffrage with impartiality to both the white and colored people as they should. It was perhaps too early to expect any community in which illiteracy, race prejudice, war memories, and social inefficiency play such an important part as they do in most of our Southern States to adopt a perfect political system. From the beginning of Grant's second term to the end of Arthur's administration the Sun favored the reduction of the regular army to a minimum force of ten or twelve thousand men. Its argument was that, having become one of the richest and strongest nations of the world, and having no dangerous or aggressive neighbors, the United States have no use for a large and expensive army, and that a small one would not only be correspondingly [447] cheaper, but would afford sufficient support to the national authority to enable it to meet any emergency likely to arise, or in which it would be proper to use force at all. It regarded the continued presence of troops in the South as unnecessary and unwarranted, and contended that the greater the number of armed men at the disposal of the government, the greater the expense and the more powerful would be the temptation to use them in a manner which might prove oppressive to the people. It is to be observed that Dana never ceased to deprecate the tendency, after the war was over, to call upon the Federal government in every matter thought to be of national importance, instead of depending upon the State authorities, whose special duty in our system of government is to take care of local and domestic interests. In this he was not only a true Democrat, but had the support of many conservative statesmen of all parties from the earliest days of the republic to the present time. Indeed, there was no political controversy on this subject. The only question was as to how many officers and men were absolutely necessary to keep alive the military spirit, maintain order, and take proper care of the fortifications. About this it was easy for the most conservative men to differ. Although the Congress failed to adopt the extreme view of it that Dana advanced, it took good care that the army should never be large enough to create a military class or to menace the rights of the people in any section. Throughout the administrations of Hayes, Garfield, and Arthur, while there were many important matters of national policy to be discussed, the speedy and, on the whole, the satisfactory removal of the Southern question from current politics left the great newspapers much more time for the consideration of purely social and economic questions than they had had since the close of the war. Dana having had the unusual satisfaction of seeing most [448] of his views adopted, and the public service in Washington, as well as in New York, relieved from the scandal of jobbery and corruption, by the selection of clean and honest men for office, wasted no time singing paeans of triumph, but settled down to the consideration of important questions of national politics as they arose. From the start he opposed the effort to increase the use of silver as a money metal by any of the devices brought forward by the politicians or the representatives of the silver-mining interests. He also opposed independent bimetallism on any plan not approved or supported by the entire commercial world. Rich as our country had become, and great as were the resources of its government, he scrutinized all propositions, and still more all legislation, which looked to an independent effort on their part to maintain silver at a parity with gold on an arbitrary basis of relative values. So long as that proposition was a living issue the editorial page of the Sun bristled with articles against it, and stood by the sound economic principle that the American standard of value, like that of the commercial world at large, should be gold, and gold alone. As the question of sixteen to one has been settled apparently forever, it would be both unprofitable and tiresome to summarize the arguments, or even to quote such as Dana himself may have formulated from time to time. With an occasional denunciation of the rascality of the Louisiana returning board, for which it had a deep and abiding hatred, and an occasional paragraph in favor of the wholesome practice of turning out the federal officeholders from time to time and putting new men in their places, the Sun gave special attention to the affairs of New York City. While it was tolerant of Tammany as a charitable association, it was bitterly opposed to the rule of the bosses, and in the campaign of 1870 against their candidate for mayor it exerted a remarkable influence [449] on the result by the use of the simple but picturesque refrain:
No king, no clown,It rung the changes on this couplet in a manner which drove it home to the comprehension of the average voter, and gave a notable illustration of the force which a popular refrain may exert in such a contest as this was. The public mind was greatly excited, many excellent speakers took part in the canvass, but it may well be doubted if any argument used was more effective than this in the final overthrow of Tammany. In personal and social matters the Sun was always quite as independent as it was in politics. This is well shown by its attitude in regard to the Beecher-Tilton scandal, which for a season was an absorbing topic of discussion in both religious and secular society. Beecher was one of the most eloquent men of his day. He had done great service in presenting the cause of the Union in England, and was a preacher of unusual prominence, influence, and popularity. The sympathy of the public was strongly in his favor, but when his correspondence, as brought out in the trial, was considered in connection with the lady's confession and the undisputed facts of the case, the Sun did not hesitate to pronounce Beecher guilty nor to declare that
To rule this town!
... his great genius and his Christian pretences only make his sin the more horrible and the more revolting.It was on October 1, 1878, that the Sun published an elaborate and circumstantial article recapitulating the career of General Garfield as a member of Congress, and charging him with complicity in the Washington ring, the operations of Oakes Ames and the Credit Mobilier, the [450] back-pay salary grab, the De Golyer paving contract, and many other irregularities of legislation. It was a bold and relentless arraignment, which attracted much attention at the time, and constituted later the strongest argument of the campaign against the election of Garfield to the presidency. It was repeated in many forms by Democratic speakers during the canvass, but failed to convince the majority of the voters that Garfield was altogether unworthy. His popular plurality over “Hancock the Superb” was only seven thousand and eighteen, while he had a clear majority of fifty-nine in the electoral college. The President-elect was generally admitted to be a man of great amiability and of many admirable and showy qualities, among which was an unusual gift of oratory, while his opponent, although deservedly one of the most popular heroes of the war, was but a poor speaker and a bungling writer. It was in describing Hancock's letter of acceptance that the Sun, with ill-concealed contempt, declared that
it is as broad and comprehensive as the continent, as elastic as india-rubber, and as sweet as honey.And it was in speaking of his personality that it said:
General Hancock is a good man, weighing two hundred and fifty pounds.After the election was over and the result established beyond a doubt, it came out with the sententious statement, based upon the small plurality against it, that
what the Democratic party needs is leaders who are not knaves and not fools. It has votes enough.The assassination of Garfield a few months after his inauguration filled the public mind with sympathy and [451] completely wiped out the memory of the charges that had been brought against him. This, together with the fact that his successor, although a comparatively unknown man, gave the country a clean and therefore popular administration, brought about a great change in the newspaper discussions of the period. It will be recalled that Dana was in early life inclined to the ministry, but gradually drifted away from the orthodox Congregational Church, and greatly shocked his father by turning towards the Unitarians, with whose belief he was more in sympathy, not only because their fundamental ideas seemed more liberal and reasonable, but because many of his college associates and best friends in New England were connected with that body. After removing to New York he became interested in the philosophy and speculations of Swedenborg, and for years attended the Swedenborgian Church. Later it is manifest that he left behind every form of belief based upon dogma, and inclined more and more to that Goethean indifference which he had mentioned in his youth. He had no patience with bigotry, intolerance, or pharisaism, but allowed every one perfect liberty in matters of faith. Although out of its chronological order, it may be well to relate here an incident bearing on this subject which took place early in the last year of his life. A friend who enjoyed his confidence and was accustomed to discuss all sorts of questions with him, said one evening: “Mr. Dana, you have sounded the depths of philosophy and of human wisdom; you have read the Bible, the Koran, and all the sacred books of the ancients; you have conversed with the pope and the great men of the earth-tell me, is there anywhere any evidence which would be received in a court of justice that there is a life after death?” With a look of intense concentration of thought, but without a moment's hesitation, he replied: “Not a scintilla. It is all based on [452] man's egotism and that hope which springs eternal in the human breast.” This was the last utterance he ever made on that subject, and yet to those who knew him best Dana was throughout life, both by example and precept, the steadfast friend of true religion. Leading himself a clean, wholesome, and upright life, in which every appetite and passion was held in absolute subjection to his own will, as became an honest gentleman and true philosopher, he never hesitated to rebuke intolerance, persecution, espionage, or any other sort of interference with personal liberty and personal responsibility, whether it was conducted under the cover of religion, philosophy, or secular government. He made the Sun from the start a forum in which every form of religious belief could state its views and have an unbiassed and patient hearing, and some of the most learned and instructive discussions of the times, in the search for truth, were given to the world through its columns by Goldwin Smith and other occasional and regular contributors. From one of its earliest and most notable articles I quote as follows:
There is nothing more derogatory to the character of the human race, there is nothing more painful and humiliating to contemplate, there is no darker page in history, than the persecutions, the imprisonments, the cruelties, the tortures, the murders which have been inflicted in the hallowed name of religion.And again:O Christ, all suffering and merciful One,
What damning deeds have in Thy name been done.
... The Americans are a proud-spirited, independent, liberty-loving people. They will tolerate no such superintendence, [453] no such espionage. They will not have even the holiest religion crammed down their throats against their will. They will be free: “They worship only God, nor even Him except in their own way.” Spies may be a necessity of war, but in time of peace all men unite to make war on spies.The death of George Ripley, in July, 1880, one of a group of early friends and co-laborers, who had become estranged from Dana because of the independent and aggressive course pursued by the Sun in denouncing political corruption, afforded a suitable occasion for an illuminating article on socialism. As it was evidently written by Dana, and exhibits rare tolerance of another sort, and gives his matured views on the Brook Farm experiment and social democracy, I quote as follows:
... The social philosophy of this eminent thinker sprang from two sources: from his deep, inner faith in Democracy as taught by Jefferson, and from his conception of humanity as taught by Herder. Of these vital ideas his socialism was the logical consequence; and the community at Brook Farm was the fruit at once of his democratic convictions and of his weariness with the unsatisfactory, unprofitable routine of conventional society as he found it forty years ago existing around him in Boston. He had very few intimate friends then or at any other time, yet three men were especially near to him, influencing his mind by their conversation and writings. These men were George Bancroft, Orestes A. Brownson, and Theodore Parker. The fundamental democratic doctrine of liberty, equality, and fraternity, and the doctrine of humanity as a living unity, they shared with him; his conclusions concerning the embodiment of democracy in new social forms they respected, but did not share. His experiment they observed with interest and sympathy, but in its pecuniary and personal risks they took no part. Indeed, no individual of distinction [454] joined in the enterprise except Mr. Hawthorne, and he remained but a month or two, investing a few hundred, which he took care to recover by a lawsuit afterwards. The community of Brook Farm lasted about five years, and was finally dissolved in consequence of the destruction by fire of its most important and costly building. But if this disaster had not occurred, it must presently have come to an end. The plan was too large for the means, the profits were insufficient, and the friction was too great. It contained at the time about one hundred inmates, including schoolteachers, mechanics, business men, farmers, and pupils. In pursuance of the attempt towards a more just retribution for labor, all employments were paid substantially alike; and thus persons who in the world without could earn large salaries received no more than those who could only earn small ones; but the great difficulty was, that enough could not be earned for all the needs of the establishment. The world is not yet ripe for social democracy. Yet it is not too much to say that every person who was at Brook Farm for any length of time has ever since looked back upon it with a feeling of satisfaction. The healthy mixture of manual and intellectual labor, the kindly and unaffected social relations, the absence of everything like assumption or servility, the amusements, the discussions, the friendships, the ideal and poetical atmosphere which gave a charm to life, all these combine to create a picture towards which the mind turns back with pleasure as to something distant and beautiful, not elsewhere met with amid the routine of this world. In due time it ended and became almost forgotten; and yet it remains alive, and the purposes that inspired it still dwell in many minds. In the case of Mr. Ripley, they remained as the soul of his philosophy, the sure and steady light which lighted up the dark places of thought and action. He was a socialist and a democrat to the last. The same is doubtless true of others who were with him, and who have since been scattered in the ordinary plains and byways of existence. The faith of democracy, the faith of [455] humanity, the faith of mankind are steadily growing towards a society not of antagonisms, but of concord; not of artificial distinctions, but of spiritual development towards a society commanding the forces of external nature and converting the earth into an abode of peace and beauty, excelling the mythical Eden of old; this we say still lives among men. The mortal remains of one of them are to-day committed to the earth, but the faith survives immortal and consoling.One God, one law, one element,
And one far-off divine event,
To which the whole creation moves.
