in the convention. Uniformly, in place of the customary blare of trumpets, those papers attempted to keep from the reading public the details of the methods used. The Utica Daily Observer was the chief Democratic sheet to suggest the turbulence in the convention, which it did in a delicate manner. "An agreement so hearty after a canvass so animated, has rarely been reached in any deliberative body." The Ogdensburg Daily Journal was most unkind in its remarks to the discomfited Conservatives who had joined the Democrats at Albany. They were green enough to suppose that because the Copperheads took back seats at Saratoga and Philadelphia, while Doolittle, Randall, Raymond, Weed and Co., reconstructed the Democratic party, they were to have full direction of affairs.... but they failed to read Nasby, and learn that the first and only instinct of the Democracy is office; that however quiet they may be at meetings where no offices are to be bestowed, in nominating Conventions they are as rancorous as wolves." The Syracuse Daily Journal rejoiced that the Albany Regency had completely passed over to the Democrats, taking with it Mr. Pruyn.3 In the same vein Roberts, of the Utica Morning Herald, rejoiced: Le roi est mort: vive le roi. "The head of the Regency has passed away, still the Regency lives and rules." But in more sober tongue he continued that while the ticket was not one that could impel men to special activity, yet it was not one to be despised and called for organization.5 Tammany was first supported in its questionable convention methods outside of New York City by Mr. W. W. Green, 'Utica Daily Observer, Sept. 13, 1866. 5 Ibid. editor of the Syracuse Daily Courier and Union. In a dispassionate editorial he expressed the belief that although part of the State delegates were for Dix, his attitude towards Seymour would have detracted more Democratic votes from him than he would have drawn from the Conservatives, it being admitted that he would have drawn more Conservative votes than any other candidate.' 2 The platform reaffirmed the principles set forth by the Philadelphia Convention of August 14, 1866, and promised to reaffirm and hold inviolable the faith of the Nation to the South. It urged the restoration of the great mass of people in the South to all the rights and functions of citizenship. Further, the platform affirmed that "the centralization of power in this State, not less than in the Union, is fatal to the harmony of our political system. ... Recent legislation at Albany has usurped a supreme yet fitful control of the local affairs which counties and municipalities are entitled to regulate." Lastly, the platform criticised the Radical legislative extravagance and "fraudulent tampering with the public works of the State. At Washington millions have been squandered upon central schemes of local benefactions, and a partisan Congress, while reducing the appropriations for a patriotic soldiery, has not scrupled to enhance its own emoluments of office."3 The reference to the "recent legislation at Albany" resulted from acts of the legislature, which was controlled by Radicals, placing the control of New York City administration largely under boards and commissions. Tammany strongly opposed the interference with their freedom of home rule. 1 Syracuse Daily Courier and Union, Sept. 13, 1866. 'New York World, Sept. 13, 1866. 3 Ibid. 'The most important of these acts were: "An Act to create a Metropolitan Sanitary District and Board of Health therein for the preservation of life and health and to prevent the spread of disease." Laws of editorial opinion of the reference to the Albany From the dearth of con Exactly what was the real State Democratic papers in platform is difficult to gauge. vincing statements it would appear that the Democratic press believed it wiser to pass over the troublesome questions peculiar to New York, and direct the public eye to the principles of the Philadelphia convention alone. As was natural, the Conservatives resented the apparent intention of the Democrats to strengthen their party at the expense of the Conservatives, who had entered into the movement to organize a party founded on the President's policy with bona fide intentions. Several papers reminded the Democrats of their obligations to keep faith. "It seems clear from this statement," remarked the Times, I that Mr. Hoffman was nominated, not as the result of any tacit or other understanding at the Philadelphia Convention, New York, 1866, C. 74, vol. i, p. 114. Passed February 26, 1866. This act was amended April 19, 1866, when special directions as to enforcement and penalties were given. Laws of New York, 1866, C. 686, vol. ii, p. 1462. "An act to amend an act passed April twenty-five, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four, entitled 'An act to amend an act entitled, "An act to establish a Metropolitan Police District, and to provide for the government thereof," passed April fifteen, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven,' passed April ten, one thousand eight hundred and sixty." Laws of New York, 1866, C. 84, vol. i, p. 153. Passed Feb. 28, 1866. Metropolitan Fire Department, two acts relating to. Laws of New York, 1866, C. 315, vol. i, p. 719; ibid., C. 756, vol. ii, p. 1637. "An Act in relation to Quarantine in the port of New York and providing for the construction of the permanent Quarantine establishment." Laws of New York, 1866, C. 751, vol. ii, p. 1625. The Registry Law, also, was amended. "An Act to ascertain by proper proofs who shall be entitled to the rights of suffrage." This was a stringent tightening up of the Registry Laws, which placed the metropolitan police largely in control. Laws of New York, 1866, C. 812, vol. ii, p. 1780. 'Pierrepont's Speech before the Convention. Cf. supra, p. 106. but as the result of a meeting of 'several of us' held in New York two months before the Philadelphia Convention assembled; and not as the exponent of its principles, nor for the purpose of carrying into effect its purposes and objects, but as the representative of the Democratic party and for the purpose of promoting its welfare and securing its success.' The Conservatives were further disgruntled over the insertion into the Albany platform of a plank which condemned the several boards and commissions provided for New York City by the Radical legislature. Raymond on October 2, 1866, came out openly in support of the Republican ticket. The Times of that date says: The Philadelphia Convention had indicated a strong desire, on the part of patriotic men in both sections, for a restoration of the Union upon just and Constitutional principles; and there was a large body of people ready to waive their party relations for this specific purpose, and co-operate in measures to give this desired effect. The Democrats believed that they could use this disposition for their own party purposes. They seized upon it, not to co-operate in carrying it out, but to make it do their party work. 3 "We are opposed, out and out, to the election of the Democratic State ticket nominated at Albany, and in favor of Fenton, Woodford, and their associates, on the the Union State ticket," said the Times of October 5, 1866, in answer to a quibble issued by Thurlow Weed in the Albany Evening Journal.^ Thurlow Weed, in a letter to the editor of the New York Times, stated what he understood to be the pur 'New York Times, Sept. 17, 1866. 2 The Police Commission, the Board of Charities, the Emigration Commission, the Central Park Commission and the Board of Health, all came in for condemnation. 3 New York Times, Oct. 2, 1866. 'Albany Evening Journal, Oct. 1, 1866. The two reasons he port of the Albany convention. gave for the preservation of the Philadelphia principle in the convention at Albany were: "First, that the Democratic Party were in a pronounced minority and second, that its odor of disloyalty restrained Republicans, however opposed to Radicalism, from uniting with it as a Party." Weed regretted the action of Judge Pierrepont. That the Democratic Party consented, for the accomplishment of a great national reform, to temporarily merge itself in the National Union Movement, was my understanding and expectation. That, too, was the understanding of the late Mr. Richmond, with whom I held frequent, frank and unreserved conversations. I advised the Philadelphia Convention . . . . that if the Democracy would, by its experience in adversity, learn that it could only restore itself to popular confidence by becoming loyal, a reform Democracy would ultimately recover possession of the Government. And I now avow, unhesitatingly, my conviction, that the Government would be safer in the hands of such Democratic statesmen, as Marcy, Wright and Dix, than with the reckless red radicalism which rules the present Congress. . . . For myself there is nothing political in the past that I would recall. All that I uttered, before and during the rebellion, may be read with approval now, . . . . I differ with Judge Pierrepont and the World in my understanding of the character of the State ticket for which I shall vote.' James Gordon Bennett experienced a change of heart. He had been a firm supporter of the Johnsonian policy, but, Johnson's conduct and the Maine election evidently foretold him of danger. We are convinced from the significant results of the Maine election that this amendment will carry all the Northern States yet to come. . . . We would therefore urge upon President Johnson the statesmanlike policy of a truce with Congress, and 'New York Times, Oct. 9, 1866. |