FOOTNOTES:

New York City, Friday, Oct. 12, 1855.Samuel J. Tilden, Esq.,My Dear Sir:—I was nominated for the office of Attorney General of this State, by that portion of the Democratic party of the State called the Hards; you were subsequently nominated for the same office by that portion or section of the Democratic party of the State called the Softs. I look upon the resolutions passed and published by the Convention which put me in nomination (a copy of which I herewith enclose) as truly, emphatically and unequivocally expressing great principles of the National Democracy and of the Constitution. The third resolution, as you will observe, firmly enunciates the great Democratic principle, “That it should be left to the people of the States to determine for themselves all local questions, including the subject of slavery;” it expresses also “an unqualified adherence to the Kansas-Nebraska Bill,” and a firm opposition to “any effort to re-establish the Missouri prohibition.”I approve of these resolutions and have endorsed them, and do now endorse them in letter and spirit. Do you look upon these resolutions as truly and faithfully expressing principles of the National Democracy and of the Constitution? Are you in favorof the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and of the great principle of the exclusive constitutional right and liberty of the people of the Territories on the subject of slavery, thereby affirmed?Do you believe that in the organization of future Territories Congress will have no right or power, under the Constitution as it now is, to prevent the inception, existence or continuance of slavery in such Territories as a domestic or Territorial institution; that the question and subject of slavery as a domestic or Territorial institution, in the absence of any express provision or clause of the Constitution giving such right and power to Congress, will and must of necessity belong exclusively to the people of such Territories—of natural, if not of constitutional right; and that the only constitutional and legitimate way in which a citizen of Massachusetts or of New York can interfere with or act upon that question, is by exercising his undoubted right to move to the territory where the question is pending, and to become a citizen or resident thereof?Are you opposed to the political, verbal “Black Republican” fanatics and demagogues of the North, who, using words for things, oppose this great principle, and call for a restoration of the “Missouri Compromise line?” Are you opposed to the State ticket lately put in nomination in this State, headed by Preston King, and to the declared principles and grounds upon which that ticket was nominated?The opinions, propositions, or principles which would be implied in the affirmative answers to the foregoing questions appear to me to be plainly expressed, or necessarily implied in the resolutions of the Convention which put me in nomination, and of which you herewith receive a copy.Please answer these questions by letter at the earliest possible day; for if you answer them in the affirmative, I shall take great pleasure in immediately laying your letter before the State Committee of the party which put me in nomination, and shall at the same time inform that Committee that I decline any longer to beconsidered a candidate. I will not stand in the way of a union of the Democratic party of this State upon principle. The Constitution and the Union now need the united force of the Democratic party of this State for their protection.With the most sincere desire to promote such a union of that party, and with high regard for yourself personally, I have the honor to be,Your obedient servant,Josiah Sutherland.

New York City, Friday, Oct. 12, 1855.

Samuel J. Tilden, Esq.,

My Dear Sir:—I was nominated for the office of Attorney General of this State, by that portion of the Democratic party of the State called the Hards; you were subsequently nominated for the same office by that portion or section of the Democratic party of the State called the Softs. I look upon the resolutions passed and published by the Convention which put me in nomination (a copy of which I herewith enclose) as truly, emphatically and unequivocally expressing great principles of the National Democracy and of the Constitution. The third resolution, as you will observe, firmly enunciates the great Democratic principle, “That it should be left to the people of the States to determine for themselves all local questions, including the subject of slavery;” it expresses also “an unqualified adherence to the Kansas-Nebraska Bill,” and a firm opposition to “any effort to re-establish the Missouri prohibition.”

I approve of these resolutions and have endorsed them, and do now endorse them in letter and spirit. Do you look upon these resolutions as truly and faithfully expressing principles of the National Democracy and of the Constitution? Are you in favorof the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and of the great principle of the exclusive constitutional right and liberty of the people of the Territories on the subject of slavery, thereby affirmed?

Do you believe that in the organization of future Territories Congress will have no right or power, under the Constitution as it now is, to prevent the inception, existence or continuance of slavery in such Territories as a domestic or Territorial institution; that the question and subject of slavery as a domestic or Territorial institution, in the absence of any express provision or clause of the Constitution giving such right and power to Congress, will and must of necessity belong exclusively to the people of such Territories—of natural, if not of constitutional right; and that the only constitutional and legitimate way in which a citizen of Massachusetts or of New York can interfere with or act upon that question, is by exercising his undoubted right to move to the territory where the question is pending, and to become a citizen or resident thereof?

Are you opposed to the political, verbal “Black Republican” fanatics and demagogues of the North, who, using words for things, oppose this great principle, and call for a restoration of the “Missouri Compromise line?” Are you opposed to the State ticket lately put in nomination in this State, headed by Preston King, and to the declared principles and grounds upon which that ticket was nominated?

The opinions, propositions, or principles which would be implied in the affirmative answers to the foregoing questions appear to me to be plainly expressed, or necessarily implied in the resolutions of the Convention which put me in nomination, and of which you herewith receive a copy.

Please answer these questions by letter at the earliest possible day; for if you answer them in the affirmative, I shall take great pleasure in immediately laying your letter before the State Committee of the party which put me in nomination, and shall at the same time inform that Committee that I decline any longer to beconsidered a candidate. I will not stand in the way of a union of the Democratic party of this State upon principle. The Constitution and the Union now need the united force of the Democratic party of this State for their protection.

With the most sincere desire to promote such a union of that party, and with high regard for yourself personally, I have the honor to be,

Your obedient servant,

Josiah Sutherland.

MR. TILDEN’S REPLY.New York, Thursday, Oct. 18, 1855.Dear Sir:—I have received your letter, offering, on certain conditions, to send your declension to the State Committee of the party by which you were nominated, with my letter of compliance, and to open to me the opportunity of running before that Committee for their nomination in the vacancy.I think that, on reflection, you will see that it is impossible for me to entertain any negotiation, or discuss any conditions, for a fusion of a part of the two State tickets, as proposed by you, or of the entire ticket, as proposed in other quarters. Still less can I initiate such an arrangement for my individual advantage, irrespective of the other gentlemen nominated on the ticket with me, and which, even if not intended for that purpose, may result in a call for some of them to reciprocate your withdrawal. Discussions as to the feasibility, propriety or terms of any union of the two tickets belong not to me, but to the party which nominated me, or its authorized representatives. The only countenance I could, in any event, give to the suggestion would be in retiring myself, and not in being made instrumental in, or even a party to, causing others to do so. Those who have done me the honor tomake me their candidate know that no delicacy toward me need restrain them from anything of this nature which they think it advisable to do. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,Hon. J. Sutherland.[20]S. J. Tilden.

MR. TILDEN’S REPLY.

New York, Thursday, Oct. 18, 1855.

Dear Sir:—I have received your letter, offering, on certain conditions, to send your declension to the State Committee of the party by which you were nominated, with my letter of compliance, and to open to me the opportunity of running before that Committee for their nomination in the vacancy.

I think that, on reflection, you will see that it is impossible for me to entertain any negotiation, or discuss any conditions, for a fusion of a part of the two State tickets, as proposed by you, or of the entire ticket, as proposed in other quarters. Still less can I initiate such an arrangement for my individual advantage, irrespective of the other gentlemen nominated on the ticket with me, and which, even if not intended for that purpose, may result in a call for some of them to reciprocate your withdrawal. Discussions as to the feasibility, propriety or terms of any union of the two tickets belong not to me, but to the party which nominated me, or its authorized representatives. The only countenance I could, in any event, give to the suggestion would be in retiring myself, and not in being made instrumental in, or even a party to, causing others to do so. Those who have done me the honor tomake me their candidate know that no delicacy toward me need restrain them from anything of this nature which they think it advisable to do. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Hon. J. Sutherland.[20]S. J. Tilden.

Hon. J. Sutherland.[20]

S. J. Tilden.

It will be observed that Mr. Tilden made no answer to Judge Sutherland’s inquiries on the vexed question of slavery in the territories. Mr. Tilden was one of the Free soil bolters at the Baltimore Convention of 1848, and supported Van Buren and Adams in the Presidential contest of that year. His views on the subject of Slavery in the Territories, which he did not disclose in this correspondence, were frankly stated five years later in his letter of October 26, 1860, to Judge William Kent. “I never held any opinion,” said Mr. Tilden in the Kent letter, “which could justify either the policy or the organization of the Republican party. If I had done so I should not hesitate to frankly renounce so grave an error. * * * But, in truth, I never adopted the doctrine of absolute and universal exclusion, by federal legislation, of slavery from all territories, and still less that of the exclusion of new slave States, or the philosophical theories on which the doctrines are founded.”

Mr. Kelly’s energetic protests in the Soft Shell Convention of 1855 bore ample fruit in the Convention of the same party held at Syracuse January 10, 1856. The delegates chosen to represent the Softs at Cincinnatiwere headed by Horatio Seymour, and were National Democrats of conservative convictions and feelings. Mr. Kelly was a delegate from the Fourth Congressional District. An able and elaborate address, written by Nicholas Hill, Jr., was adopted by the Convention, and was replete with sound Democratic doctrine of the broadest national character. Not a word of Free soilism appeared in it. The resolutions were of the same conservative kind, and adverted to the triumph of the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill as shown in the recent elections. The fourth resolution was in these words:

“Resolved, That the determination of Congress, avowed in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, to reject from the National councils the subject of slavery in the Territories, and to leave the people thereof free to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, is one that accords with the sentiments of the Democracy of this State, and with the traditional course of legislation by Congress, which under Democratic auspices, has gradually, in successive Territorial bills, extended the domain of popular right and limited the range of Congressional action; and that we believe this disposition of the question will result most auspiciously to the peace of the Union and the cause of good government.”

Thus the principles advocated by John Kelly were embodied in the address and resolutions of this Convention, while those which John Van Buren had urged were entirely rejected. Franklin Pierce was unfortunate in the selection of his political representativein the State of New York, at this important juncture. He was an aspirant for renomination, and his brilliant but unstable counsellor, Prince John, landed him in a Serbonion bog, and left the coveted prize to James Buchanan. John Kelly would have proved a safer adviser for the eloquent and patriotic Pierce. The differences between the two wings of the New York Democracy, led respectively by Horatio Seymour and Greene C. Bronson, were harmonized at Cincinnati, and on motion of Mr. Bayard of Delaware, both were admitted on an equal footing in the National Convention.

It has been said that William L. Marcy desired John Kelly, in place of John Van Buren, to be made the mouthpiece of the Administration in New York at this critical period. But from the day of Pierce’s election John Van Buren had been assiduous in his attentions to him. He went early to Concord before the inauguration, and was closeted with the President elect.[21]He was with him at the White Sulphur Springs, in Virginia, just before the Syracuse Convention of 1855. Mr. Van Buren was a man of varied and fascinating accomplishments, and found it an easy task to capture the President’s heart. Notwithstanding the preference of Mr. Marcy for John Kelly as administration leader in New York, on Prince John was bestowed that distinction. William L.Marcy, with the exception of De Witt Clinton, the greatest Democratic statesman the Empire State has yet furnished to the country, died at Ballston Spa, New York, July, 4, 1857.

Mr. Kelly won a national reputation by his brilliant course in the Syracuse Convention of 1855. His services in the cause of the Democracy were recognized on all sides before he took his seat in Congress at the meeting in December of that year. General Cass, successor of Mr. Marcy in the State Department, introduced and welcomed his old New York supporter of 1848 into the councils and friendship of the Administration of Mr. Buchanan. John Kelly entered the field of Federal politics, as a member of the Thirty-fourth Congress, under favorable auspices for a successful career.

FOOTNOTES:[10]Ingersoll’s Hist. Second War between the United States and Great Britain. Vol. 1, p. 439.[11]Message of President Madison to Congress, March 9, 1812. Vt. Gov. and C., Vol. V., 478-9. Henry himself for $50,000 revealed the matter to Madison. Ibid. Committee on Foreign Relations Ho. Rep. June 3, 1812, also arraigns England. Ibid, 499.[12]January 14, 1811, in the debate in the House of Representatives upon the erection of the Louisiana purchase into a State, Josiah Quincy, of Massachusetts, opposed the measure. “He expressed his deliberate opinion that so flagrant a disregard of the Constitution would be a virtual dissolution of the bonds of the Union, freeing the States composing it from their moral obligation of adhesion to each other, and making it the right of all, as it would become the duty of some, to prepare definitively for separation, amicably if they might, forcibly if they must! This declaration, the first announcement on the floor of Congress of the doctrine of Secession, produced a call to order from Poindexter, delegate from the Mississippi Territory.” Hildreth’s Hist. U. S., Vol. III., p. 226.[13]Vol. 2, p. 723.[14]Generative Principle of Political Constitutions, p. 19.[15]Jefferson’s Complete Works. VII., 159.[16]Address by Hon. John J. Ingalls at Ossawatomie, Kansas, August 30, 1877, on the dedication of a monument to John Brown and his associates.[17]John Randolph of Roanoke. An Address delivered before the Literary Societies of Hampden-Sidney College, June 13, 1883, by Daniel B. Lucas, LL.D.[18]New YorkHeraldAugust 31, 1855.[19]“New York Hards and Softs,” p. 70.[20]New York Hards and Softs, pp. 71-2.[21]New York Hards and Softs, p. 39.

[10]Ingersoll’s Hist. Second War between the United States and Great Britain. Vol. 1, p. 439.

[11]Message of President Madison to Congress, March 9, 1812. Vt. Gov. and C., Vol. V., 478-9. Henry himself for $50,000 revealed the matter to Madison. Ibid. Committee on Foreign Relations Ho. Rep. June 3, 1812, also arraigns England. Ibid, 499.

[12]January 14, 1811, in the debate in the House of Representatives upon the erection of the Louisiana purchase into a State, Josiah Quincy, of Massachusetts, opposed the measure. “He expressed his deliberate opinion that so flagrant a disregard of the Constitution would be a virtual dissolution of the bonds of the Union, freeing the States composing it from their moral obligation of adhesion to each other, and making it the right of all, as it would become the duty of some, to prepare definitively for separation, amicably if they might, forcibly if they must! This declaration, the first announcement on the floor of Congress of the doctrine of Secession, produced a call to order from Poindexter, delegate from the Mississippi Territory.” Hildreth’s Hist. U. S., Vol. III., p. 226.

[13]Vol. 2, p. 723.

[14]Generative Principle of Political Constitutions, p. 19.

[15]Jefferson’s Complete Works. VII., 159.

[16]Address by Hon. John J. Ingalls at Ossawatomie, Kansas, August 30, 1877, on the dedication of a monument to John Brown and his associates.

[17]John Randolph of Roanoke. An Address delivered before the Literary Societies of Hampden-Sidney College, June 13, 1883, by Daniel B. Lucas, LL.D.

[18]New YorkHeraldAugust 31, 1855.

[19]“New York Hards and Softs,” p. 70.

[20]New York Hards and Softs, pp. 71-2.

[21]New York Hards and Softs, p. 39.

Back to Index Next