MR. LINCOLN AND MR. SEWARD.

IT

T is to be regretted that Mr. Charles Francis Adams, in his "Memorial Address on the Life, Character, and Services of William H. Seward," should have permitted himself to do injustice to Abraham Lincoln. Any attempt to canonize Mr. Seward by detracting from the merits of his chief weakens the encomiums bestowed. Mr. Adams has claims to consideration by reason of his talents, acquirements, social position, and public service; but his estimate of the character, capacity, executive ability, and relative position of the Chief Magistrate and his Secretary of State betrays a want of just discrimination and correct knowledge of each. A greater error could scarcely be committed than to represent that Mr. Lincoln "had to deal with a superior intelectual power" when he came in contact with Mr. Seward. The reverse

was the fact. In mere scholastic acquirements "Mr. Seward, never a learned man," may have had the advantage, though in this respect there was less difference than is generally supposed; while "in breadth of philosophical experience and in the force of moral discipline" the almost self-taught and reflective mind

of Mr. Lincoln, which surmounted difficulties and disadvantages that his Secretary never knew, conspicuously excelled. In the executive council and in measures of administration the Secretary had influence, not always happily exercised; but the President's was the master mind. It is empty panegyric to speak of the Secretary of State as chief, or to say his suggestions, save in his own department, were more regarded or had even greater influence than those of others. His restless activity, unceasing labors, showy manifestations, and sometimes incautious exercise of questionable authority which the President deemed it impolitic to disavow, led to the impression, which Mr. Adams seems also to have imbibed, that the subordinate was the principal, and have induced him, to use his own words, to "award to one honors that clearly belong to another."

Far be it from me to derogate in the least from the merits and services of Mr. Seward, for I was a witness to his assiduity, and to some extent a participant and coadjutor with him in the labors and trials that the Administration encountered in troublous times. But it was not necessary in stating his merits, even in eulogy, to undervalue and misstate the worth, services, and capabilities of the remarkable man who was at the helm and guided the Government through a stormy period. Unassuming and unpretentious himself, Mr. Lincoln was the last person to wear borrowed honors. He was not afflicted with the petty jealousy of narrow minds, nor had he any apprehension that others would deprive him of just fame. He gave to Mr. Seward, as to each of his council, his generous

confidence, and patiently listened, if he did not always adopt or assent to the suggestions that were made. To those who knew Abraham Lincoln, or who were at all intimate with his Administration, the representation that he was subordinate to any member of his Cabinet, or that he was deficient in executive or administrative ability, is absurd. Made on a solemn occasion as was this address, and published and sent out to the world in a document which purports to be not only eulogistic but historic, it is essential that the errors thus spread abroad should be corrected. Mr. Adams had not an intimate acquaintance with Mr. Lincoln, and evidently but a slight general knowledge of his character. With admitted great disappointment and disgust, he, in May 1861, received the intelligence that this lawyer, legislator, and political student of the praries, whom he did not know and with whom he had not associated, had been preferred by the Republican representatives at Chicago over a Senator from the Empire State with whom he was intimate and familiar, who had long official experience, which he seems to have considered essential, was acquainted with legislative management, and whose political and party sympathies accorded with his own. His prejudices as well as his partiality were excited, and from the beginning he misconceived the character and undervalued and underrated the capabilities and qualities of one of the most sagacious and remarkable men of the age.

In his statements of the political career of Mr. Seward, and of the structure and condition of parties from the days of the Monroe administration, one is compelled to believe the eulogist has, as he expresses

it, plunged in "the Serbonian bog of obsolete party politics." Yet politics and parties are an essential part of the history of the country, its men and the times, and the author himself has made politics the study of his life. Mr. Seward was also emphatically a party politician. He had a fondness for political studies and employment, and was at all times active and faithful in the service of each of the several political parties to which he belonged. Whether "the chief characteristic of his mind was its breadth of view" may be questioned by some who look to his general course and form their opinion of his "characteristics" from it and his acts. If not, as is asserted, a "philosopher studying politics," he was kind and affable, of a genial temperament, calm and subdued under reverses, and to his credit never manifested the malevolence and acerbity which too often characterize intense political partisans. Among his party associates he always occupied a decidedly prominent place, by reason of his sociability and urbanity as well as of his ability. He was quick of apprehension, prolific in suggestions and expedients, and endowed, if not with eloquence or a commanding presence, with a readiness and facility of expression in speech or writing which enabled him in consultations, and when associated with others, to carry personal influence equal to any, and much greater than most of his contemporaries. He had not, however, an executive mind which could of itself magnetize and subordinate others, or the mental strength to take the helm and steadily guide and direct the policy of the government or of a party. Henry Clay once said, "Mr. Seward is a man of no convictions." This may not have been strictly true, yet he

會

was not a man of fixed principles, whose convictions would not yield to circumstances or be modified by expedients, some of which might be scarcely worthy of consideration. He could be as tenacious as any in adhering to a measure or policy so long as his associates, or those friends in whom he trusted, maintained the position; but alone, he had not the will, self-reliance, and obstinancy to plant himself on the rock of principle, meet the storm, and abide the consequences.

Mr. Seward was a politician-a partisan politician of the central school-with talents more versatile than profound; was more of a conservative than a reformer, with no great original conceptions of right, nor systematic ideas of administration. So far as his party adopted a reforming policy he went with it, and he was with it also in opposing actual reforms by the Democrats. The representation that he was a veteran reformer, or the leader of the anti-slavery movement or of the Republican party, is a mistake. He was neither an Abolitionist nor a Free-soiler, nor did he unite with the Republicans until the Whig party virtually ceased to exist in most of the states, and was himself one of the last to give up that party, of which he had been from its commencement and in all its phases an active member. It was with reluctance he finally yielded, when the feeble remnant of that organization disbanded. The Republican party, with which he then became associated, was not of mushroom growth. It was years maturing." Mr. Seward, whose friends claim for him its paternity, was a Whig at its inception. He neither rocked its cradle nor identified himself with its youth, but gave it cheering words, as