An Old War Horse to a Young Politician: [Private and Confidential]

WASHINGTON, D. C., April, 1884.

MY DEAR Nephew,&emdash;Four years ago, shortly before the presidential conventions were held, I addressed you a letter containing a number of practical hints of a political nature.¹ They were drawn from the commodious and well-filled storehouse of my own experience, and if, like Dean Swift’s servant, you are good at drawing inferences I may have given you all the advice you need on this head ; and yet, such is my consuming desire to see your own public career prove a conspicuous success that I am constrained, on the inspiring eve of another of our great quadrennial campaigns, to place a few more suggestions at your service.

Some months ago I made the acquaintance of an intelligent foreigner, who manifested a great deal of curiosity in regard to the workings of party machinery in our republican system. He had traveled extensively in the United States, seen a good many nominations made, and spent a fortnight in Washington while Congress was in session. Finding that I was a veteran American statesman (I heard the landlord tell him I was, while we were cementing our friendship with something hot), he plied me with questions, a good many of which were decidedly leading. First premising that all I had to say was to be regarded as well under the rose, I answered him fully and freely, and the more salient portion of our conversation I now reproduce for your benefit. ‘T. F.”, you will understand, is the short for Intelligent Foreigner, and “ Y. U.” for Your Uncle.

I. F. Are not the majority of your conventions called to disorder rather than to order ? Is not discord the rule, and accord the exception ?

I. U. Decidedly not. An experience extending over well-nigh half a century enables me to assert, without fear of successful contradiction, that generally unanimity and what our newspapers neatly style the best of good feeling prevail at such gatherings of representative Americans. The opening exercises of a convention are commonly inclusive of a resolution referring memorials of the temperance and woman’s rights people and cognate combustibles, along with everything else that cannot conveniently be cut and dried beforehand, “ to the appropriate committee when appointed,” — that’s the usual phrase. This expedient goes far to secure the best of good feeling. When the political waters are unusually troubled and troublesome, a brand of sweet parliamentary oil, known as “ the previous question,” is of great assistance in calming them. Do you follow me ?

I. F. You interest and enlighten me exceedingly. Pray proceed.

Y. U I recall just here a remark of my friend the late lamented Colonel Smith. The colonel is not, perhaps, as well known in foreign political circles as he deserves to be. He once said to me, when this topic was on the carpet, “ I regard it of such vital importance that there should be naught but the best of good feeling at a convention that, by Gad, sir, I ’ll have it, if I have to fetch it with a club.” There you have the colonel, — a natural born political leader.

I. F. The colonel must have been a statesman who possessed in a marked degree the courage of his convictions.

Y. U. Yes, indeed. And if I say it, who should n’t, I myself am of his sort. I was chairman of our memorable state convention of 1869, and before we got down to business I was reluctantly compelled to make up my committee on contested seats in such a manner as to exclude no fewer than seven well-meaning but impracticable delegates, who — this in strictest confidence — had been fairly elected to sit in the convention. You see, I learned, on good authority, that the seven were not assimilative in their nature; that they might take a notion to move to amend the report of the platform committee, or to insist upon their own ideas of a ticket. So I had them thrown out, and seven gentlemen, hastily summoned, whose credentials I myself quietly manufactured while the convention was in recess, were substituted in their place. I may add that I have seldom been called upon to discharge a more painful public duty. But private feeling must be sacrificed to the common party weal.

I. F. Did the result meet your expectations ?

Y. U. Well, there was some friction in the convention. Still, we managed to nominate by acclamation the ticket that had been made up in my office ten days before; the platform went through with scarcely a word of dissent; and just before we adjourned, by a vote of one hundred and ten to twenty-four, a resolution was adopted that “it is the unanimous opinion of this body — and we point to it with pride — that never did more of the best of good feeling characterize a political gathering of this great commonwealth.”

I. F. Is n’t that out of the ordinary, — passing a resolution committing a convention to unanimity by a majority vote ?

Y. U. It is. I ’ve never resorted to achieving unanimity in that way, except in cases of pressing necessity.

I. F. You were speaking about platforms. Does not an occasional plank that enters into such structures give the party considerable embarrassment, — the temperance or the woman’s suffrage plank, for example ?

Y U. Not if you have the right sort of a platform committee. A genuine platform builder is born, not made. One of our American statesmen said of a poet on your side of the sea that “ he had nothing to say, but he said it splendidly.” A platform builder worthy the name must know how to earn pretty much the same encomium. To illustrate : Just after the war I was called upon, the night before our state convention, by an unusually energetic and accomplished woman. She was the principal of a large and flourishing seminary in one of our leading cities, and brought a good deal of patronage to a close ward which it was very desirable that our party should carry. I realized that it might he possible for her to control a good many votes, if she made up her mind to do so, and naturally was anxious not to offend her. Well, she said to me, “ General, here is a resolution that I desire to have inserted in the platform of your convention. The Woman’s Suffrage Association, of which I am president, prepared it as expressive of what the members unanimously demand, and I was authorized to present it. Will it go into your platform ? ” I took the paper she handed me, and found that it read about this way : —

Resolved, That this convention is heartily in favor of throwing open suffrage to women upon the same terms that male voters now exercise it.

I made haste to inform her that I would submit the resolution to the platform committee, and that I had no doubt they would give it due consideration. She bowed, and withdrew. Of course I knew that no such plain, direct resolution as that could get through. But I also knew that a delegate with a genius for the task was to be the chairman of the platform. I gave him the resolution, carefully explained the importance of not offending the lady who offered it, and besought him, as he loved his party, to do his best. His eyes kindled, — I have a suspicion that one of them winked, — and he promised to do his best. He was as good as his word. In the platform which he reported, and which was adopted without a dissenting voice, my lady’s resolution read : —

Resolved, That the noble women of this State, by their multitudinous, welldirected, and most fruitful labors during the rebellion, revealed a patriotism so ardent as to demonstrate that they are the lineal descendants of the women of the Revolution in spirit as well as in blood ; and that this convention, recognizing this great and gratifying fact, and the related fact that woman equally with man has a sphere, records itself as heartily in favor of whatever tends to make her sphere what it was designed by Heaven to be.

I F. Admirable ! Did you succeed in carrying the seminary ward on that plank ?

Y. U. No, we did n’t. But it was n’t the plank’s fault. I suspect that the other side became desperate, and used money. But I merely mention this resolution as an illustration of the style in which bothersome planks are turned out. Now and then the temperance people grow aggressive, and threaten that if the parties do not take a decided stand they will run an independent ticket.

I. F. That must put you to your trumps.

Y. U Oh, we manage it. The platform says that “ we are in favor of judicious legislation on the temperance question; ” or that " we demand that all needed reforms that commend themselves to the majority as timely and practical should be vigorously prosecuted in the proper manner.” You catch the idea, — something that sounds well, is non-committal and capable of two interpretations.

I. F. Your explanation is lucidity itself. Let us pass to another point. You were speaking just now of the other side using money. Are you opposed to obtaining votes in that way ?

Y. U I say that peace has her victories, no less renowned than war’s. If it is all proper — and everybody admits it is—to pay bounties to help secure war’s victories, it cannot be improper to help secure such an important peace victory as the triumph of the right in an election by paying men to vote the correct ticket who otherwise would either not vote at all or vote wrong. But just as no nation will pay bounties except in an emergency, so I am opposed to buying votes except in the close districts. Indeed, such is my repugnance to securing the triumph of the right by sordid means, and such my desire to cultivate in every one of my fellow citizens a love of the ballot for its own sake, that many a time I have — of course without ostentation — paid out counterfeit money at the polls to those desirous of selling their political birthright.

I. F. You regard such tactics, I take it, as an heroic method of educating these selfish persons in their political duties.

Y. U. Well, I don’t know as I ever thought about it in precisely that way, but it comes to that.

I F. Now if you will permit me a rather comprehensive question, let me inquire what you regard as the best preparation for public life in the States.

Y. U That is rather comprehensive. I am afraid it would tax the wisdom of a Solomon to frame an answer that would exhaust it. But speaking of Solomon suggests a partial response. He has left on record the admonition, “ Get wisdom, get understanding, and with all thy getting get understanding.” Now were I to revise that piece of advice for the benefit of a young man bent upon a public career, it should read, Get wisdom, get understanding, and with all tby getting get the inspectors of election. I. F. The inspectors of election ! Pray explain.

Y. U. I am aware that “ independent ” politicians, possessing consciences inclined to embonpoint, would hold up their hands in holy horror on hearing such a suggestion. All the same, I affirm that a young man who enters politics with the honorable ambition of spending as much of his life as possible in the public service cannot do better than to get the inspectors as often as he runs for office. I agree with the poet — “ life is real.” Let who will order their political conduct as if life were ideal. If our land were “ the better land ; ” if my party were composed exclusively of cherubim, the opposition exclusively of seraphim, and the Independents were what they think themselves,—a little higher than the angels, — I might alter my advice. But taking things as they are, I don’t. Somebody has said that Napoleon was “ not so much a man as a system.” There is equal reason for contending that an inspector of elections may properly be regarded not so much a mere man as an institution.

I. F. I fail to understand you. How, why, is your inspector of elections an institution rather than a man ?

Y. U. I will explain. You see a man has but one vote. But an inspector has frequently been known to cast

— of course without mentioning to his left hand what his right hand was doing

— several handfuls of ballots in behalf of the men and the principles that have enlisted his patriotic sympathies. There was a time, I believe, in the history of our political system when the duties of an inspector were regarded as purely ministerial; when the product of his voting was not greater than that of any other of his fellow citizens. But instead of the conservative fathers have come up the more enterprising children, and now in some sections of our land the size and character of the majority at any given election depends upon the inspectors. Why, in 1874, when I ran for Congress the third time — But I will not trouble you with such details. I have sometimes conjectured that John Pierpont—one of our American poets, you know — must have had a prevision of the scope of the inspectors who were to come after him when, at a comparatively early day, he wrote of the ballot, —

I never happen upon these lines but I reflect that certain inspectors that have occasionally done me a good turn, if they ever read them, must emphasize “ execute,” and wink wickedly as they pronounce it.

I. F. You quite take my breath away ! Do you mean to tell me it is possible that an inspector of one of your elections can magnify his office, as you express it, without invoking a tempest, a regular cyclone, of non-partisan popular indignation ?

Y. U The question goes to prove that you are unfamiliar with the practical workings of our distinctive governmental system. True, the Constitution of the United States nowhere, either in terms or by implication, provides that inspectors of elections may vote often or copiously, no matter how eager they may be for the success or failure of a particular ticket. True, also, there is a perfunctory prejudice in the American mind against such a magnifying of office, based upon the impression that it is calculated to interfere with the healthy action and development of the right of suffrage. But from the point of view of a man who has long been actively in public life with his eyes open, I cannot but smile at these considerations.

I. F. Smile at them ! Why smile at them, pray ? Are they not of determining influence ?

Y. U. They are, in the unalloyed abstract. But as a practical politician I have respect only unto the concrete (I may say, right here, that I have made most of my money as the president of a concrete-pavement company), and experience has taught me, first, that the American people, as a rule, select inspectors with an eye single to obtaining precisely the sort of men who may be expected to magnify their office; and, second, that in thus paving the way for such magnifying they demonstrate that their much-trumpeted regard for the right of suffrage is largely a conceit, full of stars and stripes, signifying nothing. I purpose, in my public career, to reflect the public sentiment, not the public sentimentality.

I. F. May 1 inquire, then, in accordance with what theory your inspectors are selected ?

Y. U. Well, I should say, speaking out of my ample experience, upon the theory of the survival of the unfittest. During my term of observation it has been the rare exception when a leading citizen has been chosen an inspector. We put our leading citizens forward as managers of charity balls ; their names appear as directors of banks, insurance companies, railroads, and the like ; they sign letters requesting the local soprano to mention the evening when she will ravish their ears ; they recommend dentifrices, soaps, bitters, cements, and new maps of the Holy Land from original surveys. But when it comes to choosing an inspector of elections, an official whose duty it is to see that the right of suffrage is rightly exercised, — a right which is commonly spoken of by Americans as the corner-stone of the republic, — leading citizens remain in the background, and led citizens, of unknown or questionable antecedents, come to the front. Funny, is n’t it ?

I. F. I am positively dazed! My preconceptions, — how erroneous they were ! Why, it was only last week that I heard one of your orators on the hustings applauded to the echo for the sentiment, “ The American people can have no higher or dearer ambition than to preserve the ballot in all its sacred purity.”

Y. U. Of course ; we always talk like that at a political meeting. I myself have declaimed the same thing scores of times. But elocution is not always candor. Ambition is made of stern stuff, and never of stuff and nonsense. Don’t bo deceived by what is said. Look to what is done.

I. F. Yes ; but have ethical considerations no determining influence in American politics ?

Y. U. Well, the Independents are always prating of what they call “ the higher politics,” and our ministers preach an annual sermon, every Thanksgiving morning, on the public duties of the Christian patriot. I don’t know when I’ve missed hearing one of these sermons, and for years I have signed a note addressed to the pastor of the church which I attend, requesting a copy of his eloquent and timely discourse for publication. But speaking to you from the point of view of a practical politician, I answer your question by asserting that ethical considerations have no more to do with politics, as I and those with whom I am affiliated apprehend them, than they have to do with — well, say faro. Do not misunderstand, me, however; my school of statesmen regard politics not as a serious pursuit, involving moral forces, but as a game. As in any other game, we would scorn to take an unfair advantage. We believe that our opponents are always working to get the inspectors. Hence we are committed to the same task, in order that what may be called the balance of “ wire-pulling ” may not be unduly disturbed. So long as the devil endures we believe in fighting him with fire. Similia similihus curantur.

I. F. Speaking of the Independents, one of them emphatically remarked, in my hearing, the other day, that he was opposed on principle to the candidacy of any man who sought office. What have you to say to that ?

Y. U. I say, Fudge. I have held a dozen important offices, and I am free to confess that not one of them ever sought me. Had I lived up to the absurd injunction, “Let the office seek the man, not the man the office,” the chances are that I would never have figured in public life at all. “ Seek, and ye shall find,”is a good enough precept for me. To expect the office to seek the man is about as rational as to expect the mountain to seek Mohammed. The law of gravitation governs in politics as in physics. The office seek me ? Why, I have personally controlled every one of the caucuses that led to my several nominations.

I. F. I am glad you have referred to the caucus, for I have become much interested in that particular piece of your party machinery.

Y. U. It pleases me to hear you say so, for I am free to admit that I am never so happy as when discoursing about the caucus. It is a source of supreme satisfaction for me to reflect that among my political associates I have long been regarded as the consummate flower of caucus managers. I’ve written in dozens of albums, “ Let me run the caucuses of a nation, and I care not who make its laws.” Now and then I am shocked to see slurs on the caucus in certain newspapers and magazines. But may the day be far distant, and may I not be spared to witness its unhappy dawn, when any one shall presume to lay sacrilegious hands upon it. It was the boast of an earlier republic, —

But with greater reason American statesmen may insist, —

While stands the Caucus, our Government shall stand; When falls the Caucus, our Government shall fall; And when our Government falls, the universe.

I. F. What you say whets my appetite for more. Pray explain the secret of your success as a caucus manager.

Y. U. I think my success has been largely due to the fact that I have not allowed those attending a caucus of my managing to interfere with its workings. I am told that a well-known statesman of an earlier age, who acquired an enviable reputation as a manager of the caucus and related machinery, was of the opinion that it was well to leave something for the caucus or convention to do. The objection to this policy is the objection which a famous spendthrift made to paying his creditors. “ It only encourages them,” said he, “ leading them to form expectations that are never destined to be realized.” Give those attending caucuses any liberties, and in all probability they will abuse them; give them an inch, and they will take an ell. The only wise course for a caucus manager is to insist upon having things all his own way.

I. F. yes; but is n’t there apt to be an element present at a caucus possessing a mind of its own. that is not conformable to the manager’s mind ?

Y U. Of course a caucus manager is frequently confronted with an emergency that tests his capacity for leadership. But it is generally easy to dispose of the unpleasant persons to whom you allude, by holding them up to the indignation of the meeting as “ sore-heads,” “disorganizes,” “ malcontents,” “foes of harmony,” “sentimentalists,” “ impracticables,” whose going over to the enemy is only a question of time. I myself have brought some of these troublesome folks to terms by simply rising in my place, at a caucus, and inquiring in an injured tone, “ Is not ours a government by parties ? Has not compromise well been called the essence of statesmanship ? Shall we not, as brethren of the same political faith, endeavor to bear and forbear ? ”

I. F. I presume that your caucuses are held at the town halls.

Y. U. At the town halls ? What makes you think so ?

I. F. Because of their importance. As I understand it, the character of the conventions that nominate even the most important public officials depends in large measure upon the character of the caucuses.

Y. U. Ah ! Well, you are mistaken : they are not held in the town halls. They doubtless would be, if caucus managers desired to have them largely attended. But as that is not wanted, it is customary to hold caucuses (with a view to the greatest inconvenience of the greatest number) in the anteroom of a liquor saloon, or the corner of a billiard hall, or the rear of a cigar shop. Such a place of meeting is well calculated to discourage the attendance of the class of voters that the managers are most desirous of having absent, — the class that declines to sneeze when the managers take snuff.

I. F. Suppose, however, these scrupulous gentlemen are present in large numbers, and resolutely decline to carry out the cut-and-dried programme, as you call it ?

Y. U. Now and then a political revival sweeps over the land, and scrupulous voters come forward to the anxious-seat, and solemnly resolve that henceforth they will be faithful to their political duties. For a little while after each of such revivals we managers find it heavy weather. But our consolation, based on experience, is that it won’t last long. The scrupulous voters soon subside, — perhaps I should say backslide. Sometimes, when I find that these gentlemen are liable to outvote me at a caucus, I bring their impudence to naught by simply winking in a peculiar manner at one of my lieutenants. He passes the wink to my other supporters, and they at once allow their animal spirits to overcome them. The result is that the furniture of the room is smashed and hurled about, the lights are extinguished, and a free fight is organized. Such a demonstration often induces a scrupulous voter to resolve that he never will attend another caucus. I dislike extremely to proceed to harsh measures ; but if the recent course of events in this country has taught me anything, it is that if government of the politicians, for the politicians, by the politicians, is not speedily to perish from our country, the rank and file of parties have got to be taught to keep their place. Their place is not at the caucus; or if it is there, let them remember that it is becoming that they should be seen, and not heard. It is for the managers to make the ticket, and for them to vote it.

I. F. Allow me to tell you, in order to my further enlightenment, that I have met with a number of intelligent persons, since I arrived on your shores, who were bitterly opposed to the caucus, and favored its disestablishment.

Y. U. I am aware of the existence of such misguided, unpatriotic individuals, who distrust the efficacy of our American system. By way of dissuading them from their treasonable course I invite all such to fix their eyes upon Switzerland. In the cantons of Uri and Unterwalden all the voting population assembles at stated times and decides who shall be the amtmann. That is to say, there is no caucus. But does the omission make Switzerland any more prosperous than the United States, in which the caucus flourishes like a green bay tree ? On the contrary, do not one hundred persons turn their backs upon Switzerland for the United States, where one person turns his back upon the United States for Switzerland ? To answer these questions is to dispose of all this silly talk aimed at the caucus. When I was abroad, a few years ago, I could not bring myself to enter Switzerland. I said to my friends who urged me to include that country in my tour, “ This war horse of American politics will never voluntarily set his foot upon the soil of a republic that is decaucusized.” If I were a few years younger, I might feel tempted to go out as a missionary to Switzerland, for the purpose of commending the caucus to her practical statesmen.

Such, my dear nephew, was the substance of our conversation. I earnestly hope you will see the force of what I had to say to the Intelligent Foreigner. If you find yourself inclined to challenge any portion of it, take heed, realizing that you are being tempted by your own inexperience. You are a man. Put away childish things, and give over rallying around ideal standards in a real world. Keep your eyes on me. So shall you find some day that my congressional shoes fit you, and that the mantle of my statesmanship falls without crease or wrinkle upon your sufficient shoulders. Affectionately,

YOUR UNCLE.

TO— — ESQ.

William. H. McElroy,