USA > New York > History of the state of New York, political and governmental, Vol. II 1822-1864 > Part 3
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
With the attitude of the other States toward the vari- ous candidates we need not here greatly concern our- selves, but only with that of New York. In this State DeWitt Clinton was one of the earliest and most aggres- sive advocates of the candidacy of Andrew Jackson. It is probable that the majority of New York Democrats agreed with New England in favoring John Quincy Adams, and it is certain that many of Clinton's oppo- ments did so, among them being James Tallmadge, Henry Wheaton, and Thurlow Weed. But the chief leaders of the anti-Clinton Democracy thought other-
34
[1823
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
wise. They preferred an alliance of New York with Virginia, and knowing that Crawford was Virginia's choice they threw their influence in his favor. This was the course pursued by Van Buren, by Erastus Root, and by the Albany Regency. As the events showed, the Democratic leaders sadly blundered, and once more they frittered away the influence that New York should have had in national affairs. Meantime Samuel Young, Peter B. Porter, and others supported Henry Clay, and a few prominent Democrats favored Calhoun.
There now arose two issues of great importance con- cerning the method of choosing the President of the United States. One related to the nomination of candi- dates, and the other to the choice of Presidential Elec- tors. For many years, as we have seen, the nominations had been made by Congressional caucuses. This was in two respects a highly objectionable system. The Con- stitution of the United States obviously intended that nominations should not thus be made at all, but that the Electoral College should be free to choose whomever it pleased for President, unhampered by any preceding designations. The selection of candidates by Congres- sional caucuses, for whom the Electors would be mor- ally bound to vote, was thus obviously a violation of the spirit of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the nation tacitly approved such action, and that violation or dis- regard of the intent of the Constitution has always pre- vailed. After the abandonment of Congressional caucuses nominations were made as at present by party conventions, and under both systems the Electoral Col- lege has practically had nothing to do, in all ordinary
35
GOVERNOR YATES
1823]
cases, but to declare a result predetermined in the election at which the members of the College were chosen. A second objection to the Congressional caucus was still stronger, so much so that it compelled in time an abandonment of that institution. That was, that for Congress to select the President, or to select a candidate who was bound to be elected President, was a gross in- fringement upon the independence and coordinate status of the latter officer, making him practically a creature of Congress.
1485709
The other great issue concerned the manner of the choice of Presidential Electors in the State of New York. Thus far they had been selected and elected by the Legislature. But in 1823 a vigorous widespread demand was made that they be chosen by the people of the State at a general election. The leader in urging this great reform was Henry Wheaton, who, though still a young man, was unmistakably rising into a promi- nence which before many years was to become national, if not world-wide. He had already been Reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States, editor of the National Advocate during the War of 1812, a Judge Advocate of the army, a Justice of the Marine Court of New York City, and a member of the Constitutional convention of 1821. Later he was associated in the prac- tice of the law with Benjamin F. Butler and Daniel Webster, for twenty years was a distinguished diplo- matic representative of the United States abroad, lec- turer on law at Harvard University, and wrote "Ele- ments of International Law," one of the world's great classic authorities.
36
[1823
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Both of these issues should, of course, have been con- sidered and determined purely on their constitutional merits. Yet both were dealt with according to the exigencies of partisan or factional politics. Crawford was supposed to be the strongest candidate in the nation, and was second only to Adams in New York. But he was the leader by a mere plurality, and not by a clear majority over all. At the time of the Florida treaty (1819), Adams insisted upon having Spain declare Texas to have been a part of the Louisiana Territory, and thus to have come into our possession in 1803. Had that provision been permitted to stand in the treaty the Texas Revolution and the Mexican War would both have been avoided. But Crawford and others, in a jealous desire to prevent Adams from secur- ing the great prestige which such an arrangement would have given him, prevailed upon Monroe to strike it out. At that time it was Crawford and the field against Adams. Now, in 1823, it was Adams and the field against Crawford.
Crawford's friends wanted the nomination to be made by a Congressional caucus as usual. If that were done they were confident that Crawford would win. For a similar reason the supporters of all the other candidates opposed a caucus. So the Albany Regency in New York, favoring Crawford, was for a Congressional caucus and also for the choice of the Presidential Electors by the Legislature according to custom. In pursuance of these aims, on April 22, 1823, a Legislative caucus was called at Albany at which resolutions were adopted urging that a candidate for
37
GOVERNOR YATES
1823-4]
the Presidency should be selected as formerly by a Congressional caucus, and that the candidate thus nomi- nated should be supported by the party at the polls. This resolution, which was drafted by no less an author- ity than Erastus Root, was transmitted to Washington as the voice of the Democratic party of the State of New York. But it failed of its purpose, and its only effect was to weaken and discredit New York in national politics. For a majority of the Democratic members of Congress decided to abandon the Con- gressional caucus system of nominations.
There next arose the question of the choice of Presi- dential Electors in New York. In Crawford's interest the Albany Regency opposed any change and insisted that the Electors should still be chosen by the Legisla- ture; it being expected that the choice of men who would vote for Crawford would be assured and that the Electoral vote of New York State would be decisive in the contest and make Crawford President. To this a powerful popular opposition arose, led by James Tallmadge, Henry Wheaton, and others, and a so-called People's party was organized, which in 1823 nominated a number of candidates for the State Assembly. Among them were Tallmadge and Wheaton, both of whom were elected overwhelmingly.
The Forty-seventh Legislature met at Albany on January 6, 1824. It was very strongly Democratic, only a handful of Clintonians having been chosen, while the members of the People's party went into caucus with the regular Democrats. In the caucus for Speaker, General Tallmadge was put forward by the
38
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1824
People's party, but he was decisively defeated by Richard Goodell, of Jefferson county, the candidate of the Albany Regency, and the next day the latter was elected Speaker by an all but unanimous vote. Governor Yates presented a long and, on the whole, statesmanlike message, reviewing an extensive variety of State inter- ests. He dwelt with satisfaction upon the fact that the new Constitution had been put into effect and thus a legal transformation of the State government had been smoothly and felicitously achieved. He proceeded to discuss some matters connected with the courts, the revolutionary movements in South America, the revo- lution in Greece, the militia, the prisons, and the need of a protective tariff for the promotion of agriculture and manufactures. As a result of his recommenda- tions the Legislature adopted a resolution requesting New York's Senators and Representatives in Congress to use their influence to secure such revision of the tariff. The Governor announced with satisfaction the opening to commerce of the Champlain and Hudson canal and the approaching completion and opening of the Erie canal, and urged that measures be taken for the improvement of navigation on the Hudson River and of terminal facilities at New York harbor, in order that the great system of inland navigation might be fully available in all its parts.
The controversial part of his message related to the question of the manner of choosing Presidential Electors and of election of the President. He ex- pressed regret that no uniform method was prescribed by the United States Constitution, and recommended
39
GOVERNOR YATES
1824]
to the careful consideration of the Legislature the question whether New York should not change the system then prevailing in this State. He transmitted to the Legislature a set of resolutions that had been adopted by the Tennessee Legislature-doubtless in the interest of General Jackson's candidacy-condemn- ing the system of nomination by Congressional caucus as contrary to the intent of the Constitution, and urging that the choice of the President should be left to the Electoral College unpledged and uninfluenced by any previous nomination by Congressional caucus or other- wise. The New York Legislature discussed these Tennessee resolutions for some time, and finally disap- proved them. It then adopted resolutions of its own declining to recommend to the New York Representa- tives in Congress that they participate in a nominating caucus, yet expressing the opinion that nomination by such a caucus was not inconsistent with the letter or spirit of the Constitution.
There then arose in the Legislature a battle royal over the question of the method of choosing Electors. The Governor had striven to dodge any positive com- mittal on the subject in his message. His nephew, John Van Ness Yates, with far more political inde- pendence and foresight, had perceived that the people wanted a change and had urged the Governor to rec- ommend it. But the Governor would not do so, doubt- less because of his subserviency to the Albany Regency, which formidable body opposed a change because it would probably be to the disadvantage of Crawford's candidacy. Soon after the meeting of the Legislature,
40
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1824
in January, 1824, Henry Wheaton gave notice of his purpose to offer a bill providing for the choice of Presi- dential Electors by the people. This was strenuously opposed by Azariah C. Flagg, who was the editor of a paper at Plattsburg and a veteran of the War of 1812, and one of the chief spokesmen of the Albany Regency. Mr. Flagg did not venture, however, to challenge a direct vote on the issue, fearing that he would be beaten, but cleverly persuaded the Assembly to refer the matter to a committee of nine, of which, of course, he was chairman. Mr. Wheaton was also a member. Of the nine, six were supposed to be favorable to the nomination of Crawford and thus opposed to any change in the Electoral law that would impair his prospects of nomination.
This committee promptly adopted a resolution ex- pressing the opinion that a law ought to be passed at that session of the Legislature vesting the choice of Presidential Electors in the people, Mr. Flagg and the other Crawford men not daring to oppose it. Then Mr. Wheaton proposed a resolution that such election should be made on a general State ticket, to which Mr. Flagg proposed an amendment requiring that a ma- jority of all votes cast should be necessary for a choice. After much debate the resolution thus amended was adopted, though it was evident that it would defeat its own purpose. For the people of the State in their preferences for the Presidency were so evenly divided into four parties or factions that it was quite certain no Electors would receive a clear majority. Then, as there would be no sufficient time between the election
41
GOVERNOR YATES
1824]
day in November and the first Wednesday of Decem- ber to hold a new election, New York would have no Electors at all unless in such emergency they were chosen by the Legislature as of old. It was doubtless the purpose of Mr. Flagg, at the instance of the Albany Regency, to bring about precisely such a state of affairs.
Soon after this bill was passed by the Assembly, by an almost unanimous vote, a call was issued at Wash- ington for the usual Congressional caucus to nominate a candidate for the Presidency. Only 66 members responded, the largest number, 16, being from New York, and the next largest, 15, from Virginia. The result of the voting was that 62 declared themselves for Crawford, 2 for Adams, 1 for Jackson, and 1 for Nathaniel Macon. Of course all who were for Craw- ford attended the caucus, while nearly all of those favoring other candidates remained away. The net outcome was such a revelation of Crawford's weakness as caused many of his supporters in New York to abandon his cause as hopeless. They still retained sufficient numbers in the State Senate, however, to pre- vent passage of the bill that had been passed by the Assembly, one of those who did most to defeat it being Silas Wright, then one of the youngest members of the Senate, but destined later to become the most command- ing figure of his party in the State. The bill was not rejected outright, but consideration of it was postponed to the first Monday in November by a vote of 17 to 14.
This result aroused a storm of public remonstrance and indignation, which was directly chiefly at Martin Van Buren and the Albany Regency, though it fell
42
[1824
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
upon the seventeen Senators who had voted for post- ponement of the bill with sufficient severity to end the political careers of most of them. DeWitt Clinton with grim exultation declared that the impression pre- vailed that Van Buren and his Regency were politi- cally dead and that the impression would produce the event.
The most severe odium fell, however, upon Gov- ernor Yates. He was regarded as having pursued a shifty course and made himself the tool of the Regency -both of which imputations were based upon plausi- ble and, in the minds of many, convincing, grounds. This indictment of him was confirmed when, nine days before the date set for adjournment, the Legislative caucus was held for nomination of a candidate for Gov- ernor and Mr. Flagg, the spokesman of the Regency, practically demanded the Governor's renomination. Objection was made that Governor Yates had incurred widespread unpopularity through his course in the Presidential Electors matter, and that if nominated he would certainly be defeated. It was an open secret that the People's party had in mind the nomination of Samuel Young, who had declared himself in favor of popular choice of Presidential Electors, and it seemed sure that on that issue he would easily carry the State. At first Azariah Flagg defied this prospect and de- clared that if the Governor were to be defeated be- cause of his fidelity to principle he would consider it an honor to be defeated with him. But the members of the Regency were wiser than their zealous spokes- man. They decided to sacrifice Governor Yates for
43
GOVERNOR YATES
1824]
the sake of victory in the election, and to "dish" the People's party, by themselves nominating Colonel Young.
This repudiation and desertion of him by the Regency for no other reason than that he had served the Regency too faithfully, was much taken to heart by the Governor, who regarded it as a piece of mon- strous ingratitude. But the sequel must have given him grim consolation. For the Regency nominated Colonel Young in full confidence that he would be sup- ported by the People's party and thus be elected almost without opposition. That was not, however, to be. The fact that he had been taken up by the Regency caused the People's party, representing all the elements opposed to Crawford's nomination for the Presidency, to abandon all thought of supporting Young. Instead, they held a little Legislative caucus of their own, at which they made no nomination but adopted resolu- tions condemning the practice of nominating in Legis- lative caucus, calling for the holding in September of a State convention of delegates chosen by the people, and demanding a law for the choice of Presidential Electors by the people at a general election. They in fact issued a call for such a State convention, to meet at Utica on September 21, 1824, to consist of a num- ber of delegates equal to the number of members of Assembly, who should be voted for at primary elec- tions by all citizens who were in favor of popular choice of Presidential Electors and who were opposed to the candidacy of Crawford for the Presidency. It may be added here that Colonel Young was the last
44
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1824
candidate ever nominated by a Legislative caucus. The agitation against that system prevailed, and there- after the method of nominating at popular conventions, which DeWitt Clinton had long advocated, was prac- ticed by all parties.
The opposition to Crawford's candidacy and to the machinations of the Albany Regency was conducted chiefly by the supporters of John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay. The supporters of Andrew Jackson for the Presidency, among whom DeWitt Clinton was counted, held aloof from it and directed a campaign of their own. Closely following the two caucuses at Albany they held a small popular meeting in New York, of which Morgan Lewis was chairman and Cad- wallader C. Colden secretary, and formally nominated Jackson. The logic of events, however, soon caused them to cooperate with the People's party.
This was brought about by one of the most indefensi- ble acts ever committed or ordered by the Regency, which was nothing less than the arbitrary removal of DeWitt Clinton from all connection with the canal system of which he had been the creator. Clinton was at that time the chairman of the Board of Canal Com- missioners, and was devoting himself entirely and with self-sacrificing zeal to the successful prosecution of the great public work that had been committed to him. Although most of his fellow-Commissioners were Buck- tails, adherents of the Regency, they were glad to have him serve as their chairman because of his preëminent fitness for the place. Of course, nobody in the State thought of insinuating the slightest maladministration
45
GOVERNOR YATES
1824]
or misconduct of any sort against him. Nor was there any indication that he was trying to use his office for political purposes, or that he any longer cherished political ambitions.
The temptation to this attack on Clinton arose in the knowledge that the People's party was planning to nominate for Governor General James Tallmadge, who had been the rival of William L. Marcy for the State Comptrollership and who had led the revolt against the domination of the Regency. Now, Tall- madge was a bitter enemy of Clinton, and the Regency -or Van Buren, who seems to have dictated the busi- ness personally-confidently counted upon his voting for the removal of Clinton from office. But the people of the State so generally and so strongly believed in and admired Clinton as a canal-builder, that they were certain to resent bitterly his removal. So if Tall- madge voted for Clinton's removal he would incur the wrath of the people and his candidacy would be de- feated. In brief, it was purposed to do a great wrong in order that odium might fall upon one of the doers of it. A more detestable scheme has seldom been devised.
It worked. The Regency waited until the last day of the session. Then, just as members were preparing to vote for adjournment, John Bowman, who had been elected a Senator from Monroe county to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Joseph Spencer, offered a resolution arbitrarily removing DeWitt Clin- ton from the office of Canal Commissioner. No rea- sons were alleged, and there was no debate. The reso-
46
[1824
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
lution was driven through in a few moments, with only three Senators recorded against it. Their names deserve honorable record: John Cramer, Archibald McIntyre, Jedediah Morgan. Five minutes later the resolution was presented in the Assembly. Thurlow Weed has told in his "Autobiography" that, witness- ing the scene from his place as a reporter and know- ing what it meant and would mean, he rushed over to the Assembly chamber and entreated General Tall- madge not to be led into the trap but to forget for the moment his enmity toward Clinton and take a manly and patriotic stand against the outrage; warning him that if he voted for the removal of Clinton he would incur popular displeasure and lose the nomination for Governor. To this wise counsel Tallmadge was deaf. Several members walked out of the chamber to avoid voting. Just one spoke out as the occasion demanded. That was Henry Cunningham, of Montgomery county. He was not a man of polished scholarship or studied eloquence. But under the stress of the moment he sprang to his feet and as if inspired poured forth such eloquence as the Capitol of New York has not often heard. Paying a glowing but just tribute to the genius of Clinton as the canal-builder, and condemning in scathing terms the plot against him, he cried :
"When the contemptible party strifes of the present day shall have passed by, and the political bargainers and jugglers who now hang round this Capitol for subsistence shall be overwhelmed and forgotten in their own insignificance, when the gentle breeze shall pass over the tomb of that great man, carrying with
47
GOVERNOR YATES
1824]
it the just tribute of honor and praise which is now withheld, the pen of the future historian, in better days in better times, will do him justice and erect to his memory a proud monument of fame as imperish- able as the splendid works which owe their origin to his genius and his perseverance."
It was in vain. Two or three others expressed dis- approval of the measure, and then the vote was taken. The deed was done, by 64 ayes to 34 nays. Tallmadge and Henry Wheaton both voted aye, together with most of the People's party. A few minutes later, on April 12, the Legislature adjourned to the first Tues- day in November. And after that, the deluge.
CHAPTER III THE RETURN OF CLINTON
S ELDOM has a greater shock or a greater popular revolt been caused in the State of New York than followed instantly upon the Regency's atro- cious blow at Clinton. Had the thing been announced or threatened in advance there would have risen a tidal wave of protest and opposition against which the Regency-or Van Buren-would scarcely have dared to proceed. Coming without a warning, like the thun- derclap from a clear sky, it produced an equally sud- den explosion. Thurlow Weed was not the only one who, seeing what was done in the Senate, rushed out to give warning of what was afoot. Others bore the news, not to the Assembly but to the people of Albany. As the members of the Legislature made their exit from the Capitol, some shamefaced at what they had just done, some defiant, they met an indignant and impassioned multitude pouring into the building. The people stormed and crowded into the Assembly chamber, organized an indignation meeting with the venerable John Tayler, formerly Lieutenant-Governor, as chairman, and made speeches and adopted resolu- tions passionately denouncing the act. The resolu- tions, drafted by Alfred Conkling, afterward a Judge of the United States District Court, declared-
48
THOMAS J. OAKLEY
Thomas J. Oakley; born in Dutchess county, N. Y., in 1783 ; graduated from Yale college, 1801; lawyer; practiced at Poughkeepsie, N. Y .; surrogate of Dutchess county, 1810-1811; elected as a federalist to the 13th congress and served 1813- 1815; member of the state assembly, 1816, 1818-20; attorney general of New York, 1819; in congress as a Clinton democrat and served from March 4, 1827 to May 8, 1828 when he resigned to become judge of the superior court of the City of New York, which position he held till 1847; chief justice of the superior court of the City of New York, 1847 until his death in New York City, May 11, 1857.
49
THE RETURN OF CLINTON
1824]
"That the removal of DeWitt Clinton, confessedly without any pretense of misconduct, from the office of Canal Commissioner, the duties of which he has for fourteen years discharged with distinguished zeal and ability and without any pecuniary reward, is a most flagrant and wanton violation of public trust, injurious to the interest of the State, and an act of ingratitude and injustice revolting to the moral sense of every honorable man and unparalleled in the political history of this country ;
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.