Harper's Weekly Editorials on Carl Schurz/Mr. Schurz and Mr. Blaine

active public man and a party leader is in an unfortunate position when he writes the history of affairs in which he has taken a prominent part, or treats of other public men with whom he may not only have differed, but who may have successfully opposed his political projects or thwarted his personal ambition. account of or of, view of or of , of or of, would have been read with interest, but they could not be accepted as more than the views of interested political diarists of an opponent or a rival. When Mr. was asked if he had kept even a diary during the war for the Union, he said that he had intended to do so, and had procured a book for the purpose, but had decided that inevitably it would be regarded as an apologia, a defence, however unconscious, of his own public views and conduct, and therefore that it would be labor lost. It was not a wise conclusion, as the diary of shows. Such journals are most serviceable. They are the testimonies of interested and partisan eyewitnesses and actors. They are not history but they are among the most valuable materials of history. This is the way in which Mr. history must be regarded. His estimates of the public men of his time are those of a party leader who is yet engaged in party controversy and is still animated by political ambition. They are, therefore inevitably the pictures of a party pamphlet, moderated and restrained by the historical tone, but not tempered by the historical spirit.

This is especially true of his portrait of Mr.. Both Mr. and Mr. are by taste, talent, and training public men. They are of about the same age, and their public career has been devoted to the same political controversies. They have both been senators and members of the Cabinet. Mr. also has been Speaker, Mr. a foreign minister and a general in the Union army; Mr. has been also a candidate for the Presidency, and Mr. was by far the most powerful and effective of his opponents upon the stump. In no Presidential campaign has one speech been a more trenchant and terrible statement and argument against a candidate than Mr. Brooklyn speech against Mr. . It was the armory of the campaign for Mr. opponents, and no single speech of the campaign contributed so largely to the result. These facts were not absent from the mind of Mr. writing immediately after the election, and inevitably his personal feeling affects his view of Mr.. Again, Mr. is essentially a partisan in politics, Mr. essentially an “independent.” Like every partisan, Mr. identifies certain principles at all times and under all circumstances with a particular party, and is subject, like all other men, to the spirit which seeks the success of party rather than the triumph of principle. Mr., regarding not only the special party policy, but general political principle, sees party tendency to be often dangerous to political honesty and good government, and holds that temporary defeat may be more serviceable to the true party policy, to public character, and to politics themselves, than success in a particular election. This difference implies a difference of personal temperament, of political philosophy, and of the true grounds of political action, which, when combined with the natural bitterness of ambition baffled by such differences, totally disqualifies Mr. to estimate Mr. fairly. He does not say, for he cannot, that Mr. has ever devoted his ability to the defence of an unsound national policy, or to the extenuation of public abuses, or to the promotion of any but the best and wisest measures, or that he has ever been accused or suspected of prostituting public place to his private advantage. An original and earnest Republican, and usually in sympathy with that party, Mr. supported Mr. in 1872 and Mr. in 1884, and upon both occasions he acted with other conscientious, independent, and patriotic Republicans.

It cannot be truthfully said, however, that his course allows instability of political principle and vacillation of conduct, unless it be held that unwavering support of a party under all circumstances is the best test of such stability. Lord , indeed, said that he meant by supporter one who would support him when he was wrong. But Lord also said “that dd morality ruins everything.” This also is a general opinion in “practical” political circles. But it was not the opinion of, with whom Mr. undoubtedly agrees. Mr. was a Federalist, but in opposing a candidate of his party be said for himself and the friends who acted with him:

&ldquo;We approve of the customary mode of nominating candidates, and have uniformly concurred in it; that concurrence certainly involved our tacit consent to be bound by the nominations which should be so made. But it is equally certain that such consent did, does, and ever will rest on the condition, trust, and confidence that such nominations only be made as we would or can support without transgressing the obligations we are under to preserve our characters and our minds free from humiliation and reproach. .... Adherence to party has its limits, and they are prescribed and marked by that Supreme Wisdom which has united and associated true policy with rectitude and honor and self-respect.&rdquo;

This is a wiser and more manly view of party and of party relations than that which holds honor and patriotism to consist in “sticking to the party through thick and thin.”

The contemporaries of both the public men of whom we speak easily perceive the injustice and the possibly unconscious reason of Mr. estimate of Mr. . But whatever the final history of our recent politics may say of Mr., it will say of Mr. that his career has conspicuously illustrated the virtues of fidelity to conviction, of official integrity, and of political independence, which our public life has too often lacked, and that the highest political principle and every sound public policy and wise reform have found in him an able and fearless advocate.


 * Page Image at Wikimedia Commons