[
324]
Chapter 37:
until June, 1880, there had been nothing at all remarkable in the relations of
Grant with the man who outstripped him at
Chicago.
The most prominent of the
Western generals was not likely to see much of the chiefof-staff of a distant commander, and in 1863, when
Garfield was promoted to the rank of major-general, he had served only a few months under
Grant.
In the second year of the war he was elected to Congress, and after the
battle of Chickamauga,
Garfield resigned his military commission and applied himself to civil duties, in which he was destined to rise to greater eminence.
He was in Congress during the entire period of
Grant's Administration, and was always a loyal political supporter of the head of his party; but there was no approach to intimacy between them.
After the nominations at
Chicago,
Grant remained for a while entirely undemonstrative.
He sent no congratulations to his victor and gave no intimation of the course he intended to pursue.
The result of the
Convention was entirely unanticipated by him, and his disappointment was certainly keen.
In July he went off to
Colorado, where he remained for a month or more, and his silence was so prolonged that many believed he intended to support
Hancock; but of this there was never a possibility.
At last in September he made known his acceptance of the decision of his party.
Up to that time the prospects of
Garfield had not been brilliant.
He was comparatively
[
325]
unknown to the country and lacked the peculiar elements of popularity in illustrious service and national reputation, which
Grant and
Blaine and
Sherman, his three competitors before the
Convention, all enjoyed.
His friends soon found that there was need to enlist the aid of the great soldier of the country; for the adherents of
Grant were chagrined at their defeat and many still held aloof, while the followers of
Mr. Blaine, who had thrown their votes for
Garfield rather than consent to the nomination of
Grant, were not sufficient to secure the election of the unlooked — for candidate.
Representations were accordingly made to
Grant of the necessity for his support; and he himself felt that having allowed his name to be presented to the
Convention, it was in good faith incumbent on him to acquiesce in its decision.
Besides this he was thoroughly convinced that the interests of the country required the election of a Republican
President.
It was at a political meeting in
Indiana that he first made public his intention to support his former subordinate.
This utterance was followed by a demonstration from
Conkling, not only
Grant's most prominent champion at
Chicago, but himself only four years before a popular candidate for the Presidency.
When these two had spoken it was plain that the entire Republican party would be united under
Garfield as its chief and standard-bearer.
But
Grant was not content with a simple expression of opinion.
At
Garfield's urgent request he consented to pay him a visit; at
Mentor, the home of the candidate, he was met by
Mr. Conkling, and the two were entertained by the man who had overtopped them both.
After this
Grant took a still more unusual course.
He attended numerous political meetings, at nearly every one of which he made a short address, setting forth his reasons for desiring Republican success.
No
ex-President had taken such a step before, and it was still more remarkable in
Grant, who had not been a partisan before becoming
President, and had never shown an
[
326]
aptitude for political or hardly for public speaking of any sort.
But having made up his mind that patriotism and party loyalty required him to do what he could for the election of
Garfield he stopped short of no effort within his power.
He put away his mortification and disappointment, became a subordinate instead of a chief, and went about deliberately and continually as a faithful member of that party he had himself so often led to victory.
I saw him constantly during all this period, and used to marvel at his magnanimity; but he never made any allusion to the especial sacrifice his action must have cost him; that he felt it to the core, I am sure.
The influence of his presence and his popularity contributed greatly to the success of the campaign.
Garfield was elected by a small majority, and it is not claiming much for
Grant to say that he controlled votes enough to make up this majority.
I was present with him at public meetings in New York,
New England, and
New Jersey, and I saw the enthusiasm he evoked.
I stood by him during the great procession of the Boys in Blue in New York a few nights before the election.
The pageant lasted from nearly midnight till four in the morning, but he remained upon the platform until the last man had passed;
Chester A. Arthur, the candidate for the Vice-Presidency, stood by his side, reaping the benefit of
Grant's popularity.
Grant even became so much interested during the campaign that he made remarks about
Hancock which not only the adherents of the
Democratic candidate, but
Hancock himself, resented keenly.
There had been a coolness between them ever since the days of the
Andrew Johnson imbroglio, when
Hancock, against
Grant's urgent advice, accepted the place of
Sheridan at New Orleans.
This feeling was increased by the tone of
Grant's utterances now.
Apart from this, however, there was no bitterness aroused, even among Democrats, on account of
Grant's course.
I was
[
327]
present on half a score of occasions when he was traveling by train and the car that carried him chanced to stop near the point where a Democratic meeting was in progress.
Again and again it happened that the meeting adjourned temporarily while its members marched in a body to the station to salute
General Grant.
They cheered him, their bands played ‘
Yankee Doodle’ and ‘Hail to the
Chief’ for him, many shook him by the hand, and then they returned to their meeting in favor of
Hancock.
That the friend of a rival candidate and the representative of a rival party could draw crowds of his opponents to greet him in the midst of an excited canvass was a singular proof of his hold on the affections of his countrymen.
It showed that they separated the soldier and the patriot from the politician, and admired and approved the one while they opposed and condemned the other.
After the election and until the inauguration of
Garfield,
Grant was in no way in the counsels of the incoming Administration.
He took, however, a lively interest in the formation of the new Cabinet, but was not invited to offer his views.
When
Robert Lincoln's name was mentioned for
Secretary of War it was reported that
Grant objected to the appointment.
I knew to the contrary and asked permission of the
General to say this to
Lincoln.
He was more than willing to assent, and I wrote to
Mr. Lincoln that so far from objecting,
General Grant would be very glad to see him
Secretary of War; and added that he was at liberty to use the information.
Lincoln replied, expressing his thanks and his appreciation of
Grant's good wishes, but he never said either to
Grant or me that he found the indorsement valuable.
When it was first announced that
Blaine was to be made
Secretary of State,
Grant would not believe the appointment possible, and after it became certain that the man he regarded as his most prominent enemy was to be chief of
Garfield's Cabinet, his mortification was extreme.
At first he declared
[
328]
that he should withhold all support from the Administration if
Blaine became a member; but he soon thought better of this and went to
Washington a few days after the 4th of March.
He visited the
President and was invited to breakfast.
On his return I spent several hours with him and he told me that
Garfield had assured him of his gratitude and of his desire to regard
Grant's wishes so far as possible in his policy and appointments.
On the 22d of March I went to
Washington, having passed the previous evening with
Grant; I carried a letter from him to the
President requesting that I might be retained at
London, where I was still
Consul-General.
I went, however, first to the
Senate Chamber to visit
Senator Conkling, who informed me that my name had been sent to the Senate that very morning as Charge d'affaires at
Copenhagen.
The change in the
Custom House of New York had been made which brought about the famous political contest between
Garfield and
Blaine on one side, and
Grant,
Conkling, and
Arthur on the other.
Robertson, whose course at
Chicago had secured the defeat of
Grant, and who was therefore the man in the whole country most objectionable to
Grant and his partisans, was made Collector of New York, although according to all the recognized rules of political courtesy,
Conkling should have been consulted; and
Merritt, the friend and appointee of
Sherman, was ousted to make room for
Robertson.
I was removed from
London in favor of
Merritt;
General Grant's brother-in-law,
Mr. Cramer, the
Charge d'affaires at
Denmark, was displaced for me, and
Mr. Nicholas Fish, the son of
Grant's
Secretary of State, was removed from the position of Charge at
Berne to make room for
Cramer.
Merritt,
Cramer, and I were each placed where we had no desire to be, and
Fish lost his position altogether.
All this had been done without any premonition or warning to
Grant, who had seen the
President two days before and received his assurances of friendship and deference.
[
329]
Of course the
President had the right to make what changes he pleased in the public service, but
Grant thought that after what he had done to secure
Garfield's election he should have been consulted in the disposition made of his personal friends, and he felt that the changes were intended to be offensive to him. But although greatly amazed he at first withheld any public expression of opinion.
He telegraphed to me on the 24th of March in these words: ‘See the
President at once with my letter.
Ask him to withdraw your nomination, and if he cannot leave you in
London, ask him to give you either
Italy or Naval Office in this city.
Show him this dispatch as my endorsement of you for either place.’
At the
Executive Mansion I met
Merritt, who had come on from New York to save himself from taking my place, and as we walked up the stairs—to the
American salle des pas perdus—we laughed at each other, and each declared he did not wish for a change.
The President and I were old acquaintances.
He had been my guest more than once in
Washington.
He said he had supposed I would like the new arrangement, which was a nominal promotion so far as I was concerned; I was to have a pleasant and easy diplomatic post instead of a busy consular one; it was higher in rank and would leave leisure sufficient to prosecute my literary pursuits.
He disclaimed any intention of disapproving my services or displeasing
General Grant; but he gave me no reason to suppose he would change his plans.
When I reported the result of my interview to
General Grant he telegraphed me again: ‘I advise you to decline
Copenhagen and stick to
London, unless you can get Naval Office or
Italy, or some equally good place.
Advise with
Conkling and
Platt.
It would be better to come here without Government appointment than to take
Copenhagen.’
My relatives and personal friends gave me different advice and thought I would do better to accept the mission to
Denmark; but I considered myself bound to defer to General
[
330]
Grant, and finally requested the
President to withdraw my nomination as Charge to
Copenhagen.
This he did, but offered me no other appointment, and he did not recall that of
Merritt, so that if
Merritt should be confirmed I would be out of office altogether.
I remained a few weeks in
Washington, consulting not only with
Senators Conkling and
Logan, but constantly with
Vice-President Arthur, and once returning to New York to take the advice of
General Grant.
I saw the
President several times and he sent his secretary to me more than once to urge me to accept the appointment to
Copenhagen, as that would relieve him from the appearance of disregarding
General Grant's personal wish; but I could not disobey the injunction of my own chief.
General Grant's urgency in the matter was by no means solely on my account, although he admitted in letters that were published at the time his interest for me and for his brother-in-law; but the instinct of fight was aroused in the soldier.
He thought too that he had deserved different treatment at
Garfield's hands, and he felt the nomination of
Robertson more keenly than the removal of
Cramer, or
Fish, or my own.
Garfield, however, remained firm, but as the nominations were all opposed in the Senate, I returned to my post in
England to await the result, while
General Grant went to
Mexico on business.
From there he wrote to me: ‘I will never again lend my aid to the support of a Presidential candidate who has not strength enough to appear before a convention as a candidate, but gets in simply by the adherents of prominent candidates preferring any outsider to either of the candidates before the convention save their own.’
In June, however, he sent me word that he thought after all I might as well accept the Copenhagen mission, and I replied that if I had his full sanction I should like to do so rather than leave the public service.
Accordingly the matter
[
331]
was arranged through
General Horace Porter and
Robert Lincoln, the
Secretary of War.
Mr. Lincoln obtained a promise from the
President that I should be appointed again to
Copenhagen, if I would pledge myself in advance to accept the post.
But before this arrangement could be carried out
Garfield was struck down by the assassin.
General Grant had in the meantime returned from
Mexico and gone to his house at
Long Branch.
Both
Conkling and
Platt had resigned their positions in the Senate, and after a long struggle at
Albany their successors were elected.
Grant's feeling, however, had by this time become somewhat mollified, and when
Garfield visited
Long Branch,
Grant called on him and the
President expressed great satisfaction at the courtesy.
Nevertheless
General Grant had fully sympathized with the feeling of
Mr. Conkling and
Vice-President Arthur, and had come in for his share of unpopularity with those who supported
Garfield, as well as with that large portion of the community which always worships power.
I remember that my publishers assured me that the sale of my History of
Grant's Campaigns, which appeared at this time, was greatly injured by the course that
General Grant took at this crisis: the people said they wanted no more of
Grant.
When
Garfield was shot the public indignation in some quarters was even turned toward his predecessor, and there were found those who were willing for a day or two to believe that
General Grant was not displeased at the awful fate of the
President.
Of course this unjust clamor was only momentary and never genuine, but it was strange to see any portion of the public directing such suspicions toward the man who not a year before had been the object of ovations greater than any other American had ever received.
It would be preposterous to offer to vindicate his fame from such aspersions now, but a letter that he wrote me on the subject will nevertheless be interesting.
On the 27th of July, he said:
I am just this day in receipt of two letters from you of the
[332]
latter part of June.
Why they have been so long coming I cannot conceive.
A few days after your letters were written, as you know, the dastardly attempt was made upon the President's life.
This of course has put a stop to all communications on the subject of foreign appointments—in fact all Presidential appointments.
I had told Porter before this trouble came that I thought probably you had better after all accept the Copenhagen appointment for the present.
Whether Porter had an opportunity to mention the subject before the wounding of the President or not I do not know.
This attempt upon the life of General Garfield produced a shock upon the public mind but little less than that produced by the assassination of Lincoln.
The intensity of feeling has somewhat died out in consequence of the favorable reports of the patient's condition from day to day; but now more alarm is being felt for his safety.
I myself have felt until within the last three or four days that there was scarcely a doubt about his recovery.
Now, however, I fear the chances are largely against it. But by the time this reaches you more certainty will be felt one way or the other.
The crime is a disgrace to our country, and yet cannot be punished as it deserves.
I have been very busy, though not accomplishing much, which must be my excuse for not writing sooner.
In September
Garfield died, and
Grant had the strange fate of following the coffin of another of his great opponents.
He had been at the funerals of
Chase,
Sumner,
Motley, and
Greeley, and now of
Garfield.
In every instance the disputes of earth were hushed in the awful presence of that antagonist who overcomes each of us in our turn; but in
Garfield's case the solemnity was greater still, for the pall of the dead
President reminded his predecessor of that other and even greater martyrdom which had occurred in the same capital, and of that funeral in which he had followed another and greater
President.
The next obsequies at which the Nation mourned were destined to be his own.
I cannot close this chapter without reminding the reader that these pages are professedly based upon my personal
[
333]
knowledge, and that therefore my own experiences and such relations as I may have borne to the events I describe may seem unduly prominent.
But in no other way can I tell what I witnessed or prove the trustworthiness of my reports.
I give nothing at second-hand except upon such authority as cannot be gainsaid—the authority always of other witnesses.
Only in this way can I offer the material for history which I venture to believe this volume will become.
And if at times I seem to disclose secrets which show that men are human, even men whom the country has wished to deify, I believe that in the end, when the greatest are seen to be made of flesh and blood, their countrymen will feel a keener and profounder sympathy with the real beings I describe than with any fanciful creations fit only for the stories of mythology.
The very faults of great men ally them to us, and
Grant himself wrote to me at this very time: ‘You give true history in regard to them and furnish the proof as you go along.
While I would not wish to detract from any one, I think history should record the truth.’
I believe if he knows what I write now he approves my course.
