The Writings of Carl Schurz/To James A. Garfield, January 2d, 1881
TO JAMES A. GARFIELD
Washington, Jan. 2, 1881.
Dear General: You invited me to write you my views on the situation, and I will do so without reserve.
You labor under certain disadvantages as compared with the present Administration, which you should not lose sight of. We came in under a cloud: a disputed Presidential title, hard times, the Republican party in discredit and discord. The Administration goes out with the record of purity and generally successful management; the times are prosperous, the party strengthened morally and numerically. Your Administration will come in under a full blaze of sunshine: good times, a hopeful feeling throughout the country, the character of the party restored and its prospects brightened. We started on a bad state of things; every improvement went to our credit. You start on a good state of things; every failure to keep things in the present good condition, every untoward accident, will go to your discredit. Your task is the more difficult one and will require the more careful handling. We had much to gain, you have much to lose. That is what I mean in saying that you labor under a certain disadvantage.
Upon the success of your Administration will depend the future of the Republican party as well as your own. The two are in a certain sense identical. If you succeed, you should be and will be renominated. If you fail, the Republican party will succumb to the opposition in 1884. Any lowering of the present standard will be looked upon as a failure.
Your success in the best sense of the word will depend upon your management of the public business, not upon the management of party politics, or, at least, upon the latter only in a very small degree. It is now generally recognized that the Republican party in the last campaign was greatly strengthened by the character and success of the present Administration. Indeed, without these things victory would have been impossible. The success of the present Administration was owing exclusively to the conduct of the public business, for political management there was none. If wise political management can go hand in hand with a good conduct of the public business so much the better. But the latter should never be subordinated to the former. The idea that the former can make up for failures in the latter, will prove a disastrous delusion.
You want, therefore, in the first place, a good business Cabinet upon whose intelligence, integrity and energy you can depend. It is desirable that the party be kept harmonious if that is possible, and that to this end the different elements composing the Republican party be properly respected. But it is of infinitely greater importance that every member of your Cabinet give you, by his character and ability, the greatest possible assurance that in his hands the public interests committed to his care be perfectly safe. You will get along much better without harmony in the party than without a perfectly honest and intelligent management of the public affairs. When the former can be obtained only at the expense of the latter, it should be sacrificed without hesitation. It is a great mistake that an Administration cannot sustain itself and succeed in the best sense of the term without an harmonious party at its back. Our experience is that the friendship of certain elements in the party purchased at the price which it would have cost, would have been far more dangerous to our general success than their hostility proved to be. You will undoubtedly go through the same experience, and it will not injure you, if you realize and appreciate it early enough. An Administration faithfully serving the public interest will always be much stronger than any faction in the party, however strong and demonstrative, even if it appear like a majority of it.
Permit me to repeat some of the remarks I made in our conversation here. You should be perfectly sure not only of the ability and general character but also of the political motives of every one of your Cabinet Ministers.
Your Cabinet should be your Constitutional council, not an assemblage of agents of party leaders.
No member of your Cabinet should have reason to think that he owed his position to any other influence than your own free choice.
Especially at the head of the Treasury, the Interior, the Post-Office and the Department of Justice you should have men whom you can count upon to [serve] the public interest and [be] loyal to yourself under all circumstances, without being watched. They should also have the necessary moral courage to say No on all proper occasions whatever pressure be brought upon them. They must be able to say No for you, and even to oppose your own good-nature when necessity requires it. These are the Departments which manage the public service in all the branches that involve the moral and political character and the efficiency of the Administration at home. An unreliable man at the head of any one of them can do much mischief with out your becoming aware of it in time to prevent the consequences.
As to the Treasury, I fear you have lost your best opportunity. It has always been my opinion that Mr. Sherman ought to remain at the head of it, and that it will be almost impossible to find a man that can fill his place. The advantage of the confidence which his retention would have secured to your Administration, and of the ability he would have brought to the discharge of his duties would have far outweighed all the disadvantages possibly growing from the displeasure of some political leaders, which his presence in the Cabinet might have called forth. Of course, I do not know whether his retention is still among the possibilities, but if it is, I would in your place not hesitate a moment between him and some second-rate man who would probably shine only by the contrast.
For the Postmaster-Generalship, which requires only an inferior kind of talent, a man of thoroughly sound character and business ability will be sufficient, but you should be able to depend upon him as a personal friend.
I have heard Wayne McVeagh mentioned in connection with the Department of Justice. In fact, you mentioned him yourself in your conversation here. I think he would be a good selection in every essential respect. He would also be a most excellent feature of your Cabinet in a social respect.
The Interior Department is the most dangerous branch of the public service. It is more exposed to corrupt influences and more subject to untoward accidents than any other. To keep it in good repute and to manage its business successfully requires on the part of its head a thorough knowledge of its machinery, untiring work and sleepless vigilance. I shall never forget the trials I had to go through during the first period of my Administration, and the mistakes that were made before I had things well in hand. It is a constant fight with the sharks that surround the Indian bureau, the General Land Office, the Pension Office and the Patent Office, and a ceaseless struggle with perplexing questions and situations, especially in the Indian service. Unless the head of the Interior Department well understands and performs his full duty, your Administration will be in constant danger of disgrace. Of all men that I know there is not one as well fitted for that place as General Walker, the present head of the Census Office. He has been Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and understands that business thoroughly. You cannot find a man better equipped for it. He possesses large acquirements, great working capacity and extensive knowledge of general affairs, great energy and firmness, and at the same time an excellent temper. His character is of the highest. If he were placed at the head of the Interior Department, I should consider you out of danger at the most delicate point. I have heard it said that he does not represent any political force. If he did not, in the party sense, I should scarcely consider it an objection; for a successful conduct in that branch of the business would soon be felt in itself as a political force.
But he would represent in your Cabinet the liberal Republican element in its best features, and his appointment would, I have no doubt, be hailed by a very large number of Republicans, and just those whose approval a man like you would most keenly appreciate, as a thing of good omen. I earnestly commend this to your attention.
The estimation in which your Administration will be held, will depend in a great measure upon the character of your Cabinet, and that character will be determined not only by the presence of some elements in it, but also by the conspicuous absence of others. I trust it is scarcely necessary to speak to you of such characters as Chaffee, Dorsey, Filley, Hitchcock etc. Any one of them connected in any way with your Administration would sink it at once in public esteem.
I understand that efforts are being made to press upon you Mr. Bowman of Kentucky, as a Southern man. He has been for some time in the employment of this Department as a Commissioner, and my experience leads me to the conclusion that he would by no means be a proper man to take into your official family. Also Mr. Routt of Colorado has been spoken of. He does not possess the necessary ability and I know that the support given him is only ostensible. Some of those who bring his name before you will privately tell you so, as they have told me.
But I do not know whether you desire to have my judgment of persons. If you do, command me, and I shall speak to you with entire frankness. On the whole, whatever you may think at present of the necessity of satisfying everybody and of avoiding unpleasant complications, I have no doubt before you are far advanced in your Administration, you will become convinced that the best policy is to make up your mind clearly as to what you want to accomplish for the public good, and then to select the best men you can find for that purpose and to go straight ahead without fear or favor. “A pound of pluck is worth a ton of luck.” It is pluck in the pursuit of good ends the people admire and they will stand by.
I have to apologize for the length of this letter, and perhaps also for the positiveness of its tone. But I have written you with entire frankness as one who means to be a true friend to you. I see the difficulties and dangers surrounding you and feel anxious about them. When I shall have returned to journalistic work to exercise an influence [on] public opinion, nothing will delight me more than to be able to carry on the business of criticism in the way of support and approval of your endeavors and achievements.