Tammany, the white sheep and the black, gathered to Mr. Greeley's fold.

In its desire for a President-in its eagerness to do " anything to beat Grant "-the convention was willing to go to the limits of stultification. Not only did it accept Horace Greeley as its candidate, but it indorsed the "enfranchisement of the negro; "the" equality of all men before the law "-it remembered" with gratitude the heroism and sacrifices of the soldiers

and sailors of the Republic ";

it avowed that the Democratic party should never "detract from their justly earned fame, nor withhold the full reward of their patriotism"; it denounced "repudiation in every form and guise." In a word, the convention was ready to demolish the existing Democratic faith, pillar and cornerstone, for the possibility of aiding in the election of a man who had applied to most of its delegates every opprobious epithet known to the English tongue.

And Horace Greeley promptly accepted their nomination and became the leader of legions he had formerly reviled to the limits of his forceful idiom-to the extremes of his marvellous vocabulary. His position was only equalled by that of Charles Sumner, who, as one adding a final evidence of mental disorder, now came forward with an open letter addressed to certain colored voters, advising them to repudiate Grant and Wilson and cast their ballots for Greeley and Brown. In view of his life-long devotion to the cause of abolition; the bitter sectionalism and race prejudice of that period; the fact of his Civil

Rights bill-the idol of his heart-then pending, and certainly damned before a Democratic Congress, it seems positively incredible that Charles Sumner in his right mind should have done this thing.

He was scored by Nast as a matter of course, also by Curtis, though the latter pleaded that the Massachusets Senator might be spared. In his letter, dated August 1st, Curtis said:

My Dear Nast:

Since Webster's "Seventh of March" speech nothing in our political history has seemed to me so sad as Mr. Sumner's letter. He is my dear friend, a man whose service to the country and to civilization have been immense, who deserves all honor and regard from all honorable men. The position of such a man may be criticized in writing, because in writing perfect respect may be preserved. But it is not so with the caricaturing pencil. You see what I am coming to. You are your own master, and your name is signed to your work. But it is nevertheless supposed that I, as editor, am responsible for what pains me the more because of my friendship and my difference. Besides, the caricature puts a false sense upon what is written, and covers the expressions of the most sincere regard with an appearance of insincerity. There are thousands of good men who feel as I do about it, and I hope that your friendship for me will grant my request that you will not introduce Mr. Sumner in any way into any picture.

Very sincerely yours,

George William Curtis. Just why Mr. Sumner should have been spared on personal grounds, as against the nation's welfare, is not clear. Certainly such an argument was likely to avail little with the impetuous artist in the midst of a fierce campaign. His reply to Curtis was to the effect that the fact of Sumner's heroic past, and the prestige derived therefrom, made the Senator's present attitude all the more of a menace to the cause of right. He called attention to the fact that earlier, Curtis had asked that he should not caricature others of the group who were now, as they had been from the first, Grant's bitter enemies. To this came a reply on August 22:

My Dear Nast:

I am very much obliged by your note. I did ask you not to caricature Sumner, Greeley, Schurz and Trumbull, because at that time I thought it was bad policy-and I think so still!

The exact difficulty which I feel is this, that it is wrong to represent as morally contemptible men of the highest character with whom you politically differ. To serve up Schurz and Sumner as you would Tweed, shows, in my judgment, lack of moral perception. And to one who feels as I do about those men, and who knows that he is about right! every picture in which you defame them is a separate pain. There is a wide distinction between a good-humored laugh and a moral denunciation.

You are very good to have answered me at all. I know how I differ from you and from our friends in Franklin Square upon this point, and I have wished only to free my conscience by protesting. I shall not trouble you any more, and I am,

Very truly yours,

George William Curtis.

Yet at this time Nast was saying with his pencil almost precisely what Curtis was saying with his pen. The difference was, that the editorial, to Curtis, was a sort of inductive mode of warfare, with due preliminaries and approaches, whereas the cartoon came as a sudden and unqualified blow. To Curtis the cartoon was not a gentleman's weapon, at least not a weapon to be used on gentlemen. That he could distinguish no difference between Nast's methods of treating Sumner and Tweed would indicate that his own "moral perception " was more delicate than his visual discernment. Like the bomb and the bayonet, the cartoon to him seemed brutal. But great battles are not fought with the single-stick or even the rapier, and " those vile guns have persuaded many a man not to be a soldier.*

Sumner abandoned the campaign and hurried away to Europe

* In one of the pictures Nast cartooned Sumner as strewing flowers on the grave of "Bully" Brooks. As satire this was a failure, for it conveyed the Massachusetts Senator's real spirit of forgiveness for the man who had struck him down. Sumner, when shown the picture, regarded it sadly.

"What have I to do with Brooks now?" he said. "It was not he, but slavery, that struck the blow."

for rest. That the blow of "Bully " Brooks, more than a quarter of a century before, had left its mark and shadow upon that splendid intelligence can scarcely be doubted. Yet, even had this been realized at the moment, it could not have been considered as a reason for failing to combat a pernicious doctrine, which must be crushed all the more promptly and surely because of the fair name and far-reaching influence of its advocate.

CHAPTER XXVIII

THE CAMPAIGN OF CARICATURE

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

Whoever calls this an "organ" is "a liar, a

villain, and a scoundrel"

Meantime the conflict was at its height. Upon his nomination, Mr. Greeley had promptly surrendered the editorship of the Tribune to Whitelaw Reid, and declaring that his paper was no longer a "party organ" had set about the business of politics. Nast cartooned him as holding out the "New York Trombone," announcing vigorously in his

characteristic phraseology that the instrument "was not an organ." Yet, despite his withdrawal, the Tribune did not fail to bear the marks of Mr. Greeley's personality, and with the Sun and the World, and such Democratic journals as had not repudiated the choice of the Baltimore Convention-with Leslie's as their pictorial exhibit-they made whatever fight was possible for their candidate. The World, it is true, had at first declared against Greeley; and it must have given joy to General Frank Blair to see Manton Marble, who had been for throwing him (Blair) overboard four years before, now turned Sinbad, with an" old man of the sea on his shoulders.