M. VAN BUREN TO S. J. TILDEN
"Lindenwald, October 18th, '48.
"My dear Sir,—As you are the man of business, if not the only one in our ranks, you must not complain of the trouble I am about to give you. The enclosed has embarrassed me not a little. Having been pleased with the writer's very successful reply to Mr. Gerrit Smith, which I think we read together, I feel loath to slight him altogether, and yet I can neither do what he suggests without falsifying my position or open a correspondence with him without exposing the act to perversion. I wish, therefore, you would take the trouble to send for him and explain to him my situation upon the said point.
In haste, very truly yours,
"M. Van Buren."
TILDEN ON MR. GREELEY, THE LEGISLATOR, AND THE SLAVERY QUESTION[17]
[From the "Evening Post," Dec. 23, 1848.]
"When we wrote our former articles on the bill of Mr. Douglass we had not seen the letter from Mr. Greeley which was published in Saturday's Tribune (Dec. 16, 1848). The intimation contained in that letter of his sentiments and probable course in regard to that bill if presented in its original form, would not have been allowed to pass without the animadversion which its extraordinary nature calls for, and which we shall now briefly make, not upon the impersonality which edits the Tribune, but upon Mr. Greeley, the legislator, who represents in part the people of this city in the highest councils of the nation.
"When, after having professed to consider the extension of slavery to free Territories as the question of questions involved in the late election—after having for months exhorted all to treat it as far above the other objects of party association, and reproached those who did not so treat it as false to freedom—after having at first distrusted the noble band of Democrats who proclaimed their determination to maintain throughout the canvass and at the polls the sentiments which they had before professed, taunted them with the prediction that they would ultimately surrender principles to a slavish subserviency to party, and at length applauded their constancy when it could no longer be disputed; after having stigmatized as recreant to principle and duty all who should support a candidate for the Presidency not avowedly in favor of the Wilmot proviso; after having denounced General Taylor as identified in interest and association with the slave power, and probably unsound in principle on the greatest of issues; when, after having done all this, the editor of the Tribune, on the eve of election, announced his intention to support General Taylor, to vote for a man because he was available, whom he had denounced for that very reason when nominated as an available; to vote for a man because he would beat Gen. Cass, whom he had denounced when nominated on that express ground; to vote for a man whom, after three months of nice balancing, he found to be a shade less objectionable than another candidate, because it was necessary to make a choice of evils between the nominees of the two old party organizations, no matter how wrong and dangerous the principles of both might be; thus surrendering the great question of freedom in the Territories, in the same manner and for the same reasons, for which most of the supporters of Taylor and Cass at the North professed to surrender it, and uniting with them in presenting the miserable spectacle of a number of electors sufficient to choose the President, all voting for men not representing their sentiments on a question professedly regarded by them as the most important, because there was no chance of electing one who did represent those sentiments; when, in a word, after all his former professions, Mr. Greeley ended in doing precisely what the original Taylor men and the Cass men of the North did, and for precisely the same reasons, and addressed to others precisely the same arguments which had been so long addressed to him in vain, and which he had been so long refuting, he shook deeply—very deeply—the confidence in his sincerity which his apparent zeal in behalf of freedom had inspired. For our part, we were inclined to take a charitable view of his conduct. We thought we saw him struggling in the meshes of party association, and yielding not until he had half satisfied his own conscience that he could vote for Taylor as not so certainly declared as Cass, and therefore not quite so objectionable on the great issue, and at last reconciled to himself by the general sense that it was a little better that Taylor should be elected than Cass. We thought we saw a painful conflict with his self-respect and his sense of consistency—a consciousness that he had not chosen the nobler, even if the more expedient, part—that he was doing at best a doubtful act against which his better nature revolted. We are disposed always to respect, in silence, such manifestations, and not to reproach.
"But what shall we think, what shall we say, of the spirit exhibited and the sentiments expressed in the following passage of Mr. Greeley's letter, which we have read with astonishment and regret:
"'... And now to revert to the main question—the organization of the new Territories, and the allowance or disallowance of slavery therein—I have been confidently hoping for an early and peaceful adjustment of the whole vexation. The bills of which Mr. Douglass, in Senate, gave notice on reaching this city—to provide for the organization of California as a State and New Mexico as a Territory—were signs of promise. Upon the basis here suggested, it seemed to me practicable to settle the whole difficulty without farther excitement or peril. I thought we should ultimately agree to permit New Mexico, as well as California, to take the requisite steps for organizing as a State, and bring them both into the Union in the course of the next two years, leaving them free to frame their own institutions. This done, the North would be morally certain that slavery would not be tolerated in either State, and the South would save the point of honor by the almost certain defeat (in Senate) of the Wilmot proviso, which, to an established and admitted State, is confessedly inapplicable. And thus would close the grave of agitation with regard to slave territory.'
"And the letter then proceeds to say that 'the bright sky has been overcast' by the modification by which it is proposed to annex the portion of New Mexico east of the Rio Grande to Texas, which is stated as the only objection to the bill.
"The first remarkable thing in this letter is the spirit in which it speaks of the question of extending slavery to the Territories now free. If the only thing to be done was to get rid of a troublesome question, Mr. Greeley's mind would seem to be directed exactly to the object. If the writer were one of the conservatives of the Syracuse convention of 1847, who laid the Wilmot proviso on the table, or one of the Whig Dough Faces of the Philadelphia convention, who 'kicked it out' of that body, the terms in which the measure is spoken of would be very characteristic. To adjust 'the whole vexation'—'to settle the whole difficulty without farther excitement or peril'—'to close the grave of the agitation,' was precisely what they desired to do. But if there is something more to be done than to evade this great question in order to save party arrangements from embarrassment—if it is of any importance to make freedom in the Territories certain instead of leaving it to chance—if the opinion, which has been so frequently and earnestly maintained by Mr. Greeley, as well as all who profess to be friends of freedom, that for this purpose an express enactment by Congress ought to be made, be not an utter imposture and fraud, then we submit that the spirit manifested in this letter is not that in which this great question should be treated.
"The second remarkable thing in the letter—and by far the most remarkable—is the mode in which it purposes to adjust 'the whole vexation.' A Territory extensive enough to make thirteen States as large as New York has been acquired; it is wholly unoccupied, except by a small population in a few localities. The question is, shall slavery be allowed to be established in it during its territorial condition? Neither party to the controversy regards as of practical moment the territorial condition, except as it will influence and practically control the conditions, in this respect, of the States which are to be formed out of the Territory. And it is gravely proposed at once to declare this Territory, which is in no proper situation to be formed into States, and which nobody would think of forming into a State now except for the purpose of getting rid of the necessity of acting on this subject, to be a State. And this is called by Mr. Greeley 'settling,' instead of dodging, the question!
"Gen. Cass proposed, in his Nicholson letter, to leave to the scattered inhabitants who are to be found in some small portions of this vast region to decide the question by a territorial legislature. Mr. Greeley, in his letter, proposes to leave it to precisely the same individuals 'free to frame their own institutions' by a State legislature.
"What essential difference is there between the two plans, so far as the extension or restriction of slavery is concerned?
"Suppose that on the 3rd of March next, at the close of the session, Mr. Greeley's plan should be adopted; that on the 3rd of July a territorial legislature should be elected; and that on the 3rd of September it should meet and adjust the 'whole vexation.' Or suppose that on the 3rd of March Gen. Cass's plan should be adopted; that on the 3rd of July a State legislature should be elected; and that on the 3rd of September it should meet and decide the question.
"Would it be important whether the government were called 'State' or 'territorial,' so long as it had equal power to act on this subject, and constituents and representatives were the same, assumed their functions at the same time, in the one case as in the other? Would it affect in the slightest degree the actual extension or restriction of slavery which should be decreed by them?
"But Mr. Greeley evidently thinks that this little change of names gets him over the whole difficulty. And he touches what he obviously regards as the point of the case when he adds that 'the Wilmot proviso' is 'to an established and admitted State' confessedly inapplicable.
"Without discussing the authority of Congress to insert a restriction against slavery in the act of admission, which was done with most of the Northwestern States, it is true that after a State has been established and admitted the Federal legislation has no power to apply to that State the 'Wilmot proviso'; and that by the unconditional conversion of a territory into a State Congress divests itself of that power. But it is not easy for anybody—except Mr. Greeley—to see how the reference of the question, even when confessedly within its jurisdiction to a territorial legislature, as proposed by Gen. Cass, is more objectionable in a moral point of view than the voluntary divestment of that jurisdiction for the very purpose of shirking off the question upon the same legislature called by a different name. Gen. Cass's plan has some advantages over that adopted by Mr. Greeley.
"It is less evasive and more manly, frank, and honest.
"It may afford some chance that the fate of the various parts of this immense tract of unsettled lands shall be decided by the people who shall at some future period inhabit them after they shall be organized into distinct Territories, the more densely populated portions having been admitted as States; which might be somewhat better than leaving to a few thousand persons in Santa Fé and San Francisco to fix the destinies of hundreds of thousands of square miles in which not one of these persons ever trod.
"Above all, it would not, in the miserable attempt to avoid the question of slavery in the Territories by admitting a State of boundless dimensions, incur the great and perilous mischiefs which we have pointed out in our two previous articles, to the safety and permanency of the confederacy, and incur these evils without the least necessity or any compensating benefit.
"But Mr. Greeley says that 'the North would be morally certain that slavery would not be tolerated' in the States to be formed. So said Gen. Cass in his Nicholson letter, when he proposed under a little different name to leave the question to be settled by exactly the same persons. So said Mr. Buchanan. So said Mr. Clayton. Yet nobody denounced their contrivances with more indignation than Mr. Greeley. Talk of the Cass 'juggle,' the Buchanan 'compromise,' the Clayton 'trap'—the Greeley and Douglass juggle is worse than any of them."
The prostration of the Democratic party—whether by the defeat of General Cass or by the conditions which procured his nomination, it is inopportune here to discuss—though a great disappointment to Mr. Tilden, was, like most disappointments, good-fortune in disguise. It gave him the opportunity and provocation to devote all his energies and talents for the succeeding quarter of a century to his profession, during which period of its service it rewarded him as the wisest of Israel's kings was rewarded for his obedience—with fame and fortune. In less time than he had spent in making himself a leader of his party in New York, he placed himself in the front rank of the American bar.
It was not until the year 1850 that Mr. Tilden leased his first office for professional purposes after his admission to the bar. It was on the third floor of what was then known as Jauncey Court, now replaced by majestic banking-houses, on the south side of Wall Street, a few doors west of William street. His landlord was Alexander Hamilton, Jr., one of the sons of President Washington's first Minister of Finance. Here is a copy of their agreement, followed by a bill of Tilden's personal taxes for the previous year:
"This is to certify that I have hired and taken from Alexander Hamilton, Jr., the office, consisting of two rooms, on the 3rd floor of the Jauncey Court Building, and marked on a plan of said building No. 1 (it being understood and agreed that if the above premises shall be rendered untenantable by fire, the rent shall cease during the interval occurring from the happening of said fire until the premises shall have been repaired), for the term of three years from the first day of May, 1850, at the yearly rent of four hundred and twenty-five dollars, payable on the usual quarter days.
"And I hereby promise, in consideration thereof, to make punctual payment of the rent in manner aforesaid, and quit and surrender the premises at the expiration of the said term, in as good state and condition as reasonable use and wear thereof will permit, damages by the elements excepted, and not to assign, let or underlet the whole or any part of the said premises, or occupy the same for any business deemed extra-hazardous on account of fire, without the written consent of the landlord, under the penalty of forfeiture and damages. And I do hereby, for the consideration of aforesaid, waive the benefit of the exemption specified in the first section of the act entitled 'An act to extend the exemption of household furniture and working tools from distress for rent and sale under execution,' passed April 11, 1842, and agree that the property thereby exempted shall be liable to distress for said rent; and also, that all property liable to distress for rent shall be so liable, whether on or off the said premises, wheresoever and whensoever the same may be found.
"Given under my hand and seal this day of February, 1850,
in the presence of
"Samuel J. Tilden." [Seal.]
This lease was renewed on the 12th of February, 1853, for three years, to end May 1, 1856, for $550 a year, an increase of $125 a year.
The rent paid for these two rooms by Mr. Tilden does not contrast more violently with the price of equal accommodations now, than his charges for his professional service during his first year contrasts with the rewards for similar work expected by his profession a half-century later, as appears by some of his bills, which follow, at that period: