their laurels for having kept the State in a prosperous condition, we are unable to say. At any rate there was a persistent belief current that the prosperity of the State had been greater than the returns declared. It appears strange to me, that there should have been such a decrease in the annual value of the manufactured products, in view of the call for war supplies and the prosperous condition of agriculture.'

1 For a résumé of the religious and allied activities in New York State in 1865, see City Mission and Tract Society Reports, 1866, pp. 1-144. For the educational situation in New York State in 1865, see Fairlie, Centralization in New York, passim. Laws of New York, 1795, ch. lxxv, pp. 248-54; ibid., 1844, ch. cccxi, pp. 464-5; ibid., 1854, ch. vii, pp. 230-232; ibid., 1856, ch. clxxix, pp. 285-96; ibid., 1864, ch. ccccclv, pp. 1281-4. New York, Report of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1866. Annual Report of the City Superintendent of Schools, New York City, 1866. City Mission and Tract Society Reports, 1866, p. 132. Annual Report of the Finance Committee of the Board of Education, 1865, no. 13, p. 8. (Documents of the Board of Education.)

CHAPTER III

PARTY POLITICS IN NEW YORK DURING 1865

ALTHOUGH we have found New York State generally prosperous at the close of the War, matters politically were far from satisfactory. New York City at that time was in the grasp of the notorious Tweed Ring, while the State was being mulcted by a corrupt Canal Ring under the Unionist flag.' Further, the fight in New York between supporters of the Union and Copperheads had left many scars, especially as a result of the campaign of the previous year. Horatio Seymour, the Democratic War Governor, had made himself so obnoxious to the supporters of the administration that next to the election of Lincoln his defeat was the end most desired. Reuben E. Fenton, of Chautauqua, was the instrument which brought about Seymour's downfall. Seymour, who had

'As the exposures which shattered these corrupt rings came in the seventies the matter lies without the province of this monograph. "The Union State ticket was:

Governor-Reuben E. Fenton, of Chautauqua.

Lieutenant-Governor-Thomas G. Alvord, of Onondaga.
Canal Commissioner-Franklin A. Alberger, of Erie.
Inspector of Prisons-David P. Forrest, of Schenectady.
Electors-at-Large-Horace Greeley, of New York.
Preston King, of Ogdensburg.

The Democratic ticket was:

New York Tribune, Sept. 8, 1864.

Governor-Horatio Seymour, of Oneida.

Lieutenant-Governor-David R. Floyd-Jones, of Queens.
Canal Commissioner-Jarvis Lord, of Monroe.
Inspector of Prisons-David McNeil, of Clinton.
Electors-at-Large-William E. Kelly, of Dutchess.
Washington Hunt, of Niagara.

44

New York Tribune, Sept. 16, 1864. [44

declared that the war would be a failure, and whose speech at the National Democratic Convention at Chicago was a malignant arraignment of the administration,' was discredited.

When it became known shortly after the polls closed on election day that Lincoln's victory in the country had been overwhelming, the outcome in New York was still doubtful. However, the final returns for the State gave Lincoln a majority of 6,749 over McClellan. On the vote for Governor, Fenton ran ahead of Lincoln's vote by 822. Mr. Fenton received 369,557 and Mr. Seymour 361,264, which made Fenton's majority 8,293.3 In the Legislature the Unionists had the controlling influence. Twenty Unionists and twelve Democrats constituted the New York delegation in the House of Representatives. Roscoe Conkling, of Utica, and John A. Griswold, of Troy, both men of prominence in New York politics through this period, were typical of the men sent to the Thirtyninth Congress.

This Congress, strongly Radical, was presently at cross purposes with President Johnson. The chief political interest of the early Reconstruction period centered around the battle which was waged between the President and Congress. The policy which Johnson pursued

'Public Records of Horatio Seymour, p. 231, Speech Aug. 30, 1864. "This administration cannot now save this Union, if it would. It has by its proclamations, by vindictive legislation, by displays of hate and passion, placed obstacles in its own pathway which it cannot overcome, and it has hampered its own freedom of action by unconstitutional acts." 1Tribune Almanac, 1865, p. 48. In electoral votes for the whole country Lincoln had 179 and McClellan had 21. The popular vote in the State gave Lincoln 368,735; McClellan, 361,986. Lincoln's majority, 6,749.

'Ibid.

Appleton's Ann. Cyclopedia, 1865, p. 588. Unionists-Senate, 21; Assembly, 76. Democrats-Senate, 11; Assembly, 52.

was substantially Lincoln's. He limited the right of suffrage to white men, but favored qualified suffrage for the negroes. The Radicals in Congress were not satisfied with Presidential Reconstruction, being averse to any policy which excluded the negroes from participation in public affairs. There were at least five prominent theories2 in regard to the policy which should be pursued toward the South. Nevertheless, all the various party groups were of one mind in that some conditions should be imposed on the States which had rebelled. At first Andrew Johnson, who held that "Treason must be made odious," was of this opinion. All might have gone well had Johnson called an extra session of Congress or maintained his original policy. By continuing in relationship with his own party, the conservative elements in

1 Fleming, Documentary History of Reconstruction (Cleveland, O., 1906), vol. i, p. 177. McPherson, History of Reconstruction (Washington, 1875), p. 19.

2 Dunning, Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction (New York, 1904), pp. 99-112:

3

4

1. The Southern Theory. War waged against an insurrection of individuals.

2. The Presidential Theory. Indestructibility of a State - suspended animation.

3. Charles Sumner's "State Suicide" Theory.

4. Thaddeus Stevens' "Conquered Province" Theory.

5. Forfeited Rights Theory. Compromise between the above sets.

* McPherson, op. cit., p. 46.

Cf. Autobiography of Oliver Otis Howard (New York, 1907), vol. ii, p. 227.

"Instead the President restored all property rights, except as to slaves, to those lately in rebellion, provided they swore to support the constitution and obey the Emancipation Laws; pardoned those who had taken part in the war; and appointed Provisional Governors for the States lately in Rebellion except Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee. Cf. McPherson, pp. 9-12. Blaine, Twenty Years in Congress (Norwich, Conn., 1884), passim.

it would have modified his own action. Possibly, had Johnson yielded to Congress, when he saw it impracticable to proceed, as did President Grant, the South might have been saved the oppressive Reconstruction measures. But, as the Thirty-ninth Congress assembled, the late rebel States were largely coming into the hands of those who had engaged in the Rebellion. Their legislation apparently indicated a desire to keep out of power the loyal men. They were encouraged in this policy by the obstinacy of Johnson's course. Their attitude took on the nature of defiance and often resulted in insults to the loyal whites and oppressive acts toward the freedmen.3 These causes, together with Johnson's habit of denunciatory declamation, were a potent source for the animosity which arose between Congress and himself.

A majority of the conventions held by both parties

'Colonel A. K. McClure's Recollections of a Half a Century (Salem, Mass., 1902), pp. 61-4.

'For a suggestive view of the Southern attitude in 1865 see The Nation, Nov. 23, 1865, p. 646; Apr. 12, 1866, p. 460. Garner, Reconstruction in Mississippi (New York, 1901), pp. 61-3. Carl Schurz's Report, Sen. Ex. Doc. no. 2, 39th Congress, 1st Sess., p. 3. The Nation, Nov. 23, 1865, p. 646: "We have already commented upon the remarkable power of adaptation and the great practical sense displayed by the Southern people after the resistance in the field had ceased. . . . They laid down their arms, denounced all attempts at guerrilla warfare, acknowledged that their slaves were free, and, in fact, gave the Government to understand that it had only to name the terms on which it would restore civil government in order to have them formally acceded to."

'Henry Wilson, History of Reconstruction (Hartford, 1868), p. 15. 'McCulloch, in Men and Measures (New York, 1888), pp. 373-4, says that these speeches were not induced by intemperance. "For nearly four years I had daily intercourse with him, frequently at night, and I never saw him when under the influence of liquor. I have no hesitation in saying that whatever may have been his faults. intemperance was not among them."