USA > New York > History of the state of New York, political and governmental, Vol. II 1822-1864 > Part 21
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38
The bitterness that had been manifested in the Speakership caucus reappeared more intensely in the caucus over the United States Senatorships. As al- ready related, Governor Bouck had appointed Daniel S. Dickinson and Henry A. Foster to fill the places of Silas Wright and Nathaniel P. Tallmadge, resigned. In a special message Governor Wright called atten-
314
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1845
tion to this fact, and to the fact that as appointments were good only until the Legislature could act it was incumbent upon the Legislature to elect two Senators. The Democratic caucus was a scene of scandalous vio- lence, both vocal and muscular. The conservatives wanted Dickinson and Foster elected; the radicals wanted John A. Dix and Michael Hoffman. When the ballots were taken Dix was nominated for Wright's place, with four years to serve, and Dickinson for Tall- madge's, with only a few weeks more to serve. Then the conservatives succeeded in nominating Dickinson also to succeed himself, for a full term of six years. This left the conservatives with a decided advantage.
Meantime the Governor had sent to the Legislature at its opening a message of portentous length, devoted chiefly to analysis and discussion of the fiscal condi- tion of the State. He also had much to say about the school system and charitable and penal institutions. He deplored the evil of betting on elections, and rec- ommended that the Legislature declare the practice to be a crime punishable with a heavy fine. He sug- gested, likewise, legislation for preventing corrupt practices at the polls and in campaigns, particularly for limiting the amounts of money that might be used in campaigns. The Anti-Rent agitation commanded a large share of his attention. He discussed the de- mand, made chiefly by the Whigs, for a Constitutional convention, and urged that, largely in order to avoid the need of such a convention, the Legislature should adopt various pending amendments. In consequence the Legislature of 1845 again passed two amendments
315
SILAS WRIGHT
1845]
which had been passed by the preceding Legislature, and these were approved by the people at the Novem- ber election of 1845 and thus added to the Constitu- tion. Finally the Legislature passed an act providing that at the November election of 1845 the people should vote on the question of a Constitutional conven- tion, which, if they favored it, should be constituted of delegates to be chosen by the people in April, 1846. The people voted for a convention, which was held in 1846.
There came next a master-stroke of strategy against the radicals, delivered by that past-master of politics, Edwin Croswell. As the beginning of President Polk's administration drew near, interest centered upon the cabinet appointment which he would make from New York. He naturally turned to Van Buren for advice, that "Sage of Lindenwald" being regarded as the leader of the New York Democracy, and Van Buren consulted, in turn, Governor Wright. In con- sequence there were recommended to the President the names of Benjamin F. Butler for Secretary of State and Azariah C. Flagg for Secretary of the Treas- ury, it being thought that New York was entitled to one of those places, the two most important in the cabinet. Either selection would have filled the posi- tion with a man of preeminent ability and fitness.
But Polk hestitated. He felt under great obliga- tions of courtesy and gratitude to both Van Buren and Governor Wright. Yet he was not pleased with either of the men whom they had named. He wanted as Secretary of State one who would support his Texan
316
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1845
annexation policy, and he knew that Butler was strongly opposed to it. As for Flagg, the President knew that he was at enmity with a large and probably the majority faction of the Democratic party in New York; wherefore he was disinclined to appoint him. In this quandary he gave a listening ear to Edwin Cros- well and yielded to his advice. Accordingly he offered the appointment of Secretary of the Treasury to Gov- ernor Wright, who would have filled the place admi- rably but who unhesitatingly declined it, as Croswell had known beforehand that he would do. Mr. Wright had specifically promised during his campaign for elec- tion that if he were chosen Governor he would serve his term through and not resign it for any other place that might be offered to him; and Croswell knew that he would keep his word. Then, also on Croswell's advice, the President invited Mr. Butler to become Sec- retary of War. Now, Mr. Butler had already served in two cabinets, and had retired from them in order to resume the practice of his profession, to which he was passionately attached. He would have accepted the State or the Treasury portfolio in Polk's cabinet, though with some reluctance. But the inferior office of Secretary of War, with duties foreign to his pro- fessional experience, did not appeal to him. Indeed, he was not far from regarding the offer as an impro- priety, and he promptly and positively declined it- as Croswell had known in advance that he would do.
Having thus tendered cabinet places to two eminent New Yorkers and having had them declined, Polk felt himself free to make his next selection from that
317
SILAS WRIGHT
1845]
State entirely according to his own taste, though as a matter of fact he again was influenced by Croswell. He offered the War portfolio to William L. Marcy, who accepted it. Of course Mr. Marcy's eminence and unquestioned "regularity" in the Democratic party made this appointment above criticism. Nevertheless it was a demoralizing body-blow to the radicals be- cause it assured the giving of all Federal patronage in the State to the conservatives, or Hunkers, as they were by this time generally called. It was also a blow to Governor Wright, partly because it accentuated and intensified the quarrel in the Democratic party under and in spite of his administration, and partly because it made a man with whom he was not at all in accord the New York representative of the national adminis- tration.
To complete the discomfiture of Governor Wright and to aggravate the Democratic dissensions with the result of temporary ruin, there now came upon the field a new and little known figure, destined to domi- nate the scene above Seward and Weed and the other veterans of many campaigns. This was John Young, a comparatively obscure member of the Assembly from Livingston county. He was a native of Vermont, who had come to New York in boyhood and become a country lawyer. In 1831 he served for a single term in the Assembly, without distinction, and then retired to private life and the practice of his profession. At first a Jacksonian Democrat, he became an Anti-Mason, then a National Republican, and finally a Whig, ardently supporting Henry Clay. In 1840 he was
318
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1845
elected to the national House of Representatives, but he was little heard of at Washington and his Congres- sional life was limited to a single term. In the fall of 1843 he was returned to the Assembly, but still failed to attain any prominence ; and in 1844 he was reëlected to the Legislature of 1845, of which we are now speak- ing.
In that body he was at first "seen but not heard." Then suddenly, on his own initiative, he put himself forward as the practical leader of the Whig party and as the protagonist of that party against the mighty Silas Wright. He quietly studied parliamentary law and the rules of the Assembly until he was probably the most expert parliamentarian at Albany, and then, taking no counsel but his own, he became marvellously constant in attendance at the meetings of the Assembly, watching with unwearying intentness an opportunity to catch the enemy napping.
He sought his opportunity in the discussion over the proposed Constitutional convention. It was by this time certain that such a convention would be held, and the only real dispute was over the way in which it should be called and the way in which its work should be confirmed and put into effect. On these matters the two Democratic factions were at swords' points. The conservatives or Hunkers had harked back to DeWitt Clinton's policy of 1821. They wanted the convention to be called by a majority vote of the people and the amendments which it should prepare to be similarly acted upon by the people, not as a whole but separately. This system was also favored by Governor Wright.
319
SILAS WRIGHT
1845]
The Whigs, on the other hand, wanted the Legislature to call the convention and to have its work submitted as an integral whole to the people for their approval, as had been done, in spite of Clinton, in 1821. In this the Whigs were joined by the Native Americans and Anti-Renters. As for the radical Democrats or Barn- burners, they favored the procedure of 1821, desiring to have the convention possess unlimited power to re- write the whole Constitution if it were so inclined, and to have its work submitted as a whole to the people for ratification.
Michael Hoffman was the leader of the Barnburners, and William C. Crain was his active lieutenant on the floor of the Assembly. The latter introduced a bill modelled after the Convention act of 1821. This was in open opposition to the known wishes of the Hunker majority, and was declared by many to be mere spite work on the part of Crain in resentment over his de- feat by Horatio Seymour in the Speakership contest. At any rate the bill was at once referred by the As- sembly to a committee, which shoved it into a pigeon- hole with no intention of ever letting it emerge there- from.
But they counted without John Young. That watch- ful and indefatigable schemer watched the pigeonhole as a cat watches a mousehole, and watched, too, the Hunker majority, waiting for a moment when so many of its members were absent that he would be able to rally a majority against it. He had behind him 54 of the 128 members, beside Mr. Crain and some other Barnburners. The Hunkers, unmindful of his design,
320
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1845
one day permitted their attendance on the floor of the Assembly to fall below the number of safety. In- stantly Young pounced upon his opportunity with a motion commanding the committee forthwith to report Mr. Crain's bill without amendment, and making that measure the special order of business for each day until it should be disposed of. Crain and his friends voted for the motion, and it was carried.
This struck the Hunkers with consternation. They hurried to the Governor, who sympathized with them and strove to persuade Crain to withdraw his mis- chievous bill. Crain refused. Then the Governor turned to Michael Hoffman and pleaded with him to use his influence with Crain. But Hoffman also re- fused. So there was nothing to be done but have the Crain resolution openly debated and voted upon. It was a memorable debate, one of the ablest in the his- tory of the New York Legislature. Many members participated in it, but the supreme individualities were Horatio Seymour for the Hunkers and John Young for the Whig-Barnburner coalition. The contrast be- tween the two was great. Seymour was dignified, polished, eloquent; Young was cautious yet daring, direct and logical, with a tactical skill fully rivalling that of Seymour. Both were unfailingly courteous.
At the beginning Young could count upon only Crain and three other Barnburners to support him, giving him a total of 58 against 70. But Young's speeches had the effect of bringing converts to his support, and by the time the bill was put upon its final passage he had won over all of the Barnburners, giving him a clear
-
SILAS WRIGHT
Silas Wright, 16th governor (1845-46) ; born in Amherst, Mass., May 24, 1795; moved to Sandy Hill, Washington county, New York, 1816; lawyer; surrogate St. Lawrence county, 1821-24; state senator, 1824-27; member of congress, 1827-29; state comptroller, 1829-33; elected to United States senate to fill vacancy caused by resignation of William L. Marcy; after- ward reelected and served from January 4, 1833, to December 1, 1844, when he resigned to become governor of New York (1845-46) ; defeated for reelection; died at Canton, N. Y., August 27, 1847.
ADDISON GARDINER
Addison Gardiner, jurist; born, Rindge, N. Y., March 19, 1797; spent his boyhood at Manlius, N. Y .; removed to Rochester, 1822; 1st justice of the peace of Monroe county; assistant district attorney Monroe county, 1825; appointed judge of the 8th circuit, 1829; was elected lieutenant governor in 1844, but resigned to accept appointment on the bench; judge of the court of appeals, 1847; died at Rochester, N. Y., June 5, 1883.
1
1845]
SILAS WRIGHT
321
majority over the Hunkers, and the bill was passed. Thus in an overwhelmingly Democratic Assembly a Whig leader succeeded in getting a measure adopted contrary to the policy of the Democratic majority, and won for the Whigs the credit and prestige of having secured the holding of the much-needed Constitutional convention. It was one of the most remarkable per- sonal triumphs in the history of the Legislature, which was crowned a little later when the Senate also adopted the measure and the Governor, though most reluctantly, gave it his Executive approval. Thereafter John Young was the practical Whig leader of the State.
One more stroke of Young's completed the breach between Hunkers and Barnburners. This was effected over a bill making a moderate appropriation for canal work, to-wit: reconstruction of locks on the Crooked Lake canal so as to make them safe; enlarging portions of the Erie canal; completion and protection of work on the Genesee Valley canal, and similar work on the Black River canal. The total sum to be appropriated was only $197,000, and the work contemplated was all approved by the Canal Commissioners and was obvi- ously in the interest of economy. Nevertheless the proposal was, technically contrary to the agreement upon which the Hunkers and Barnburners had estab- lished their modus vivendi in 1842, and contrary to the spirit and intent of the act of Legislature passed in that year.
This measure was put forward by the Hunkers and was opposed by the Barnburners, who denounced it as a breach of faith. Upon that issue the Democrats in
322
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1845
the Assembly were pretty equally divided, and it is a matter of doubt whether the bill would have passed or been rejected had its fate been left to them. But John Young and his followers proved the decisive factor. They had the balance of power; indeed, they were the plurality party in the Legislature. In such a conflict Young cared not with which faction of the Democracy he was allied so long as Whig policies were to be pro- moted and the Democratic dissensions fomented. In the Constitutional convention fight he had allied him- self with the Barnburners and beaten the Hunkers. In the canal matter he did the opposite. He swung his entire strength to the Hunker side and secured the passage of the Appropriation bill through the Assem- bly. Forty Whigs and twenty-eight Hunkers voted for it, and one Whig and twenty-five Barnburners against it.
The bill was sent to the Senate, with every expecta- tion that it would there be rejected. Had all the Barn- burners remained in their places and voted against it, such would doubtless have been its fate. But six of them, all professedly opposed to the bill, did not vote- five of them absenting. themselves from the Senate chamber just as the roll was about to be called. The result was that the bill was passed by fourteen to nine. Immediately it was sent to the Governor, and an hour or two later he returned it to the Assembly with a veto. It was obvious that his veto message had been written in advance, in anticipation of the passage of the bill, since it was as long and elaborate as an annual message and must have required much time for its preparation.
323
SILAS WRIGHT
1845]
In concluding the message Governor Wright very tem- perately referred to his opponents, saying :
"Should the bill fail for a want of the constitutional vote, a majority of both houses continuing to be in its favor, I shall cheerfully submit to the people of the State the decision of the issue which will be formed between myself and the majority of the Legis- lature, rejoicing in the conviction that the difference of opinion on my part is unaccompanied by one personal feeling unfriendly to a single individual of that majority, and determined that the decision of our common constituents shall be submitted to by me in the same spirit in which I have joined the issue."
In these amiable and eloquent words Governor Wright anticipated his own fall in politics. The refer- endum which he thus invoked proved, the next year, to be adverse to him. The bill was not passed over his veto, but the breach between the two Democratic fac- tions became complete, and one of them included the Governor in its animosity and by its action caused his defeat for reelection.
The Legislature of 1845 adjourned without day on May 14. It also adjourned without the usual caucus of the majority party and its address to the people. Not for many years had the caucus and address been omitted. But on this occasion it was quite impossible to bring the two factions together for the purpose, and it was felt that a caucus of just one faction would do more harm than good by advertising the breach which some re- garded as marking the final and hopeless dissolution of the party. Each faction accused the other of preventing the holding of the caucus, and a bitter war of wordy recriminations was waged. The Barnburners, though without holding a caucus, issued through a committee
324
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1845
an address to the public, signed by thirteen Senators and thirty Assemblymen, which was chiefly devoted to sup- port of the attitude of the radicals toward the Constitu- tional convention. The Whigs also issued an address, signed by forty-nine members, elaborately defending their canal and general financial policy, vindicating their course concerning the Constitutional convention, favoring the national Tariff law of 1842, and vigorously condemning the annexation of Texas and denouncing the Democrats of the New York Legislature for refus- ing to put themselves upon record against it. This was one of the ablest addresses of its kind ever issued in the State, and it had a marked effect upon public opinion.
During the summer of that year there was little polit- ical agitation, but an industrious "still hunt" was con- ducted by the Whigs and by each of the Democratic factions, with the result that a very full vote was polled at the legislative elections in the fall. The Democrats carried the State by a diminished majority, and the Barnburners carried the Democratic party, electing about twice as many members as the Hunkers. In the Senate as reconstituted for the ensuing year there were twenty-five Democrats, six Whigs, and one Native American. In the Assembly-elect there were seventy- four Democrats, fifty-two Whigs, and two Anti- Renters. The Abolitionists ran numerous candidates but elected none, their total vote in the State being less than 16,000. On the question of the Constitutional con- vention the verdict was overwhelming. The votes in favor of it were 214,700, and against it only 33,032-an
325
SILAS WRIGHT
1846]
affirmative majority of 181,668, or more than five times the entire negative vote.
When the Sixty-ninth Legislature met at Albany on January 6, 1846, several important personal changes in its composition were to be observed. The masterful and admirable figure of Horatio Seymour was missing from the Assembly, while that of Samuel J. Tilden, of New York City, made a first appearance in public life. Ira Harris and John Young were returned to their places, respectively from Albany and Livingston coun- ties. The organization of the Senate remained un- changed, but in the Assembly there was an animated contest over the Speakership. It was from the first ob- vious that a Barnburner would be chosen, and the chief contest was between rival candidates of that faction. William C. Crain, the candidate of the year before against Horatio Seymour, was again put forward, while opposed to him was Benjamin Bailey, of Putnam county. The choice finally fell upon Mr. Crain by a vote of 48 to 22, and he was elected Speaker over John Young, the Whig candidate, by 73 to 44; while seven Anti-Rent votes were cast for Ira Harris. William W. Dean was elected Clerk.
The Governor's message was, as before, voluminous, elaborate, and scholarly. Its first topic was the Anti- Rent war, which had raged so violently that he had been compelled to proclaim Delaware county in a state of insurrection. Various recommendations were made, which led to legislation abolishing distress for rent, equalizing taxation in proportion to rent, and limiting leases to ten years. The population of the State, accord-
326
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1846
ing to the census taken in July, 1845, was reported to be 2,604,495. This was an increase of a little more than seven and one-half per cent. in five years, a much slower rate than formerly had prevailed ; from which the Gov- ernor deduced that emigration from the State-to the west-was much greater than immigration into it. He also noted that emigration from the State was chiefly from the rural districts, and that the increase of popula- tion was mainly in the cities and large towns. Thus, while the increase for the whole State in five years had been 183,574, the increase for the four cities of New York, Brooklyn, Albany, and Buffalo had been 147,767. The employment of the militia in the Anti-Rent war moved the Governor to make some recommendations concerning that department of the public service, which led to the enactment of a new general Militia act and to the adoption of a concurrent resolution urging Congress to enact a national Militia law.
Apart from the matters already mentioned, this ses- sion of the Legislature was singularly barren of im- portant enactments, though it was marked with much political discussion. On the first day a joint resolution was introduced into the Senate dealing almost entirely with national politics. It approved the annexation of Texas, demanded the whole of Oregon up to "Fifty- four forty," favored an Independent Treasury, and con- demned a protective tariff. A substitute was also offered, which said nothing about Texas and looked to a com- promise in Oregon. Neither of the resolutions ever reached a vote, though debates over them extended through many weeks. They were obviously intended as
327
SILAS WRIGHT
1846]
mere propaganda for effect at Washington, where there was intense rivalry between the two factions for Fed- eral recognition and patronage. The President fully approved, of course, the annexation of Texas, which, indeed, had been an accomplished fact for nearly a year. In that attitude the Hunkers supported him, and they expected William L. Marcy, Secretary of War, and Daniel S. Dickinson, United States Senator, to control in their behalf the Federal patronage of the State. On the other hand, Governor Wright and ex-President Van Buren had strongly opposed annexation, and so had John A. Dix, the junior Senator, and it was not easy for the administration altogether to ignore them. The plan of the Hunkers was, therefore, to fortify their position at Washington by making at Albany a great show of zeal for the President's policies.
The chief fight over State politics had to do with the office of Public Printer, then held by Edwin Croswell, the editor of the Albany Argus. Now, the Argus was the organ of the Hunkers, and Mr. Croswell was very much persona non grata with the Barnburners, who had an organ of their own in the Albany Atlas, which had been founded in 1840 and was ably edited by William Cassidy. When, therefore, Mr. Croswell's term of office expired in January, 1846, the Barnburners, being in the majority in the Democratic caucus, nominated Mr. Cassidy to succeed him. Mr. Croswell was a stickler for party "regularity" and the sanctity of the caucus, and could not countenance a bolt against Mr. Cassidy. But neither could he endure the thought of being deposed and of having a factional opponent ac-
328
[1846
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
quire the great power of his place. He accordingly determined to secure the abolition of the office which he could himself no longer hold. In this movement he counted upon the aid of John Young and the Whigs, who of course had no wish to see any Democrat in so influential an office.
A bill was introduced providing that each house of the Legislature should elect its own printer, choosing the lowest bidder. Substitutes and amendments were offered and a protracted debate ensued, the net outcome of which was the passage by the Senate, by a vote of 20 to 11, of a bill abolishing the office of State Printer and providing for the doing of public printing by contract with the lowest bidder. The Whigs and Hunkers voted for this bill and the Barnburners against it. In the Assembly it raised a tremendous storm, the Barnburners opposing it tooth and nail. The wordy conflict was al- together between them and the Hunkers, the Whigs taking no part in it. But when at last a vote was taken the Whigs aligned themselves solidly with the Hunk- ers and the bill was passed, 66 to 53. The Governor promptly signed it and it became law, and thus the office of Public Printer passed into history. As a char- acteristic epilogue to the drama, Mr. Croswell immedi- ately put in a bid for the printing of all public news- paper notices, offering to print them in the Argus abso- lutely free of charge-an offer which of course had to be accepted.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.