it gave him a certain influence in New York, was viewed with abhorrence by many, with distrust by the whole country. His management was, however,

adroit; and the lobby under his direction, though often profligate, unscrupulous, and always debauching and corrupting, contributed at times largely to the success of his party and the promotion of Mr. Seward. The personal influence of Weed was enhanced and made effective by his apparent self-abnegation and uniform and persistent refusal to accept any office himself, while all around him were seeking office and legislative favors. His labors were not as disinterested as represented; for if he declined place he loved power, and it was his pride and ambition to manage the government of New York when the Whigs were successful and in the ascendant, to say who might hold office, to control measures, and to prescribe the policy and direct the movements of his party-not always perhaps judiciously or honestly in either respect; but the administration in that State, its measures and men, were nevertheless his. The mental force, magnetism, system, and will of the man were artful, but imperious and indisputable with his party, yet were shrewdly and in general discreetly exercised. Mr. Seward, ever preadvised and consulted, was his exponent in the Legislature and in party councils, and the advocate or opponent of the measures and men as prescribed, with his concurrence by Weed. Although the latter never sought office for himself, he always wanted high place for Seward, who was his cherished and almost idolized political offspring, with whom he never disagreed, and who never went counter to him. The two always

acted in concert. It was interesting to witness their joint operations. Weed's mind had by far the greatest vigor, Seward's the most pliability. It was so in their anti-masonic days. It was so to the close. Weed's apparently disinterested labors were selfish, yet given with devoted and unsparing fidelity to his friend Seward, who might wear the honors while he was the substantial power behind. Their ideas of government were always personal, when their party was in power they were the state. Mr. Adams "strongly suspects "Mr. Seward owed many obligations" to Mr. Weed. It was never suspicion among those who knew them, but an unquestioned and indisputable fact. Mr. Seward himself acknowledged it with apparent satisfaction. I once heard him declare, others being present, "Seward is Weed and Weed is Seward. What I do, Weed approves. What he says, I endorse. We are one." "I am sorry to hear the remark," said the late Chief Justice Chase, "for while I would strain a point to oblige Mr. Seward, I feel under no obligations to do anything for the special benefit of Mr. Weed. two are not and never can be one to me."

Mr. Adams declares, as historical truth:

The

"The fact is beyond contradiction that no person ever before nominated, with any reasonable probability of success had so little of public service to show for his reward. . . . The President elect was [in the winter of 1861] still at home in Illinois giving no signs of life. . . That which appeared most appalling was the fact that we were to have for our guide through this perilous strife a person selected partly on account of the absence of positive qualities, so far as was known to the public,

and absolutely without the advantage of any experience in national affairs, beyond the little that can be learned by an occupation of two years in the House of Representatives. . . . . It was clear, at least to me, that our chance of success would rest upon an executive council composed of the wisest and most experienced men that could be found. So it seemed absolutely indispensable. on every account that not only should Mr. Seward have been early secured in a prominent post, but that his advice at least should have been asked in regard to the completion of that organization. But Mr. Lincoln as yet knew little of all this. His mind had not even opened to the nature of the contest. From his secluded home in the heart of Illinois, he was only taking measure of his geographical relations and party services, and beginning his operations where others commonly leave off, at the smaller end. Hence, it was at quite a late period of the session before he had disclosed his intention to put Mr. Seward in the most prominent place. . . . It is the duty of history, in dealing with all human events, to do strict justice in discriminating between persons, and by no means to award to one honors that clearly belong to another. I must then affirm, without hesitation, that in the history of our government, down to this hour, no experiment so rash has ever been made as that of elevating to the head of affairs a man with so little previous preparation for his task as Mr. Lincoln.

...

Mr. Lincoln could not fail soon to perceive the fact that whatever estimate he might put on his own natural judgment, he had to deal with a superior in native intellectual power, in extent of acquirement, in breadth of philosophic experience, and in the force of moral discipline. On the other hand, Mr. Seward could

not have been long blind to the deficiencies of his chief in these respects."

Those who read and give credit to these representations, and others of similar purport through the address, will receive very erroneous impressions of the two men to whom they relate, as well as of the administration to which they belonged, and in which each bore an important part. It was not Mr. Lincoln who conformed himself and his policy and general views to Mr. Seward, but it was Mr. Seward who adapted himself with ease and address to Mr. Lincoln, and, failing to influence, adopted and carried out the opinions and decisions of his chief. In that respectflexibility and facility of change among friends—no person possessed greater dexterity and tact than the Secretary of State. It made him a pleasant assistant, companion, and coadjutor; but his character not being positive, nor his convictions absolute, he was not always reliable, being deficient in executive will and ability. Mr. Lincoln, who is represented as ignorant of the condition of the country when elected, and "whose mind had not yet opened to the nature of the crisis," better understood, if we may judge from what they did, the popular sentiment and the public requirements than senator or representative, ambassador or cabinet minister. In his "secluded home" he was not an inattentive and indifferent observer, but watched and studied public measures and public necessities, and more correctly appreciated the actual condition of affairs than the heated politicians engaged in factious strife for party ascendency in the national and state

capitals. While statesmen and legislators of "experience" in Congress were waiting and watching for new appointments, neglectful of the coming storm, anticipating apparently little else than a severe party conflict, "utterly without spirit" to concert measures -exhausting their time and energies in frivolous wragnles, and accomplishing nothing-with confessedly "no leader at hand equal" to the emergency-the President elect, "in the heart of Illinois," comprehended the situation, and rose above merely personal and party contentions to the dangers, necessities and political condition of the country. Wholly powerless, however, he was compelled to witness without being able to prevent the disintegration in progress, and the accumulating embarrassments that were soon to confront him, without a single effective demonstration from any of his professed friends in Congress, who prided themselves on their superiority, and on an official "experience" in which they deemed him deficient, but which experience they considered indispensable for a competent executive. Of what value was the " experience" of senator or representative in that crisis? What executive or legislative ability did they exhibit? Experience rightly improved is valuable in public official life, but it is not to be denied that it often blunts the mind, and by familiarizing with, renders it indifferent to evil.

The two great parties of Democrat and Whig were in their day scarcely more apart in their character or more diverse in their purposes than the opposing elements which met in convention at Chicago in 1860. It was by no means a personal contest as represented.

t