The Writings of Carl Schurz/To Silas W. Burt, February 16th, 1885
TO SILAS W. BURT
In reply to your question as to how the appointment of Mr. Daniel Manning as Secretary of the Treasury would strike me, I have to say that while I think the appointment could be defended I do not think that it would be considered, either in the Democratic party or out of it, as “putting the best foot foremost.” What Governor Cleveland wants is not a Cabinet that can be defended but one that commends itself affirmatively and strongly to intelligent public opinion. The opinion that is formed of the Administration during the first sixty days will be the governing opinion of the succeeding three years and ten months.
My opinion of Mr. Manning, derived from a single interview with him, is altogether favorable, and this opinion has been confirmed by all that I have learned from others; but he is not one of the three or four foremost men in the Democratic party. The Treasury Department should be given to one of these foremost men. So also should the State and Interior. The party is not yet out of the woods. It is not in a position to take risks. Its majorities in the pivotal States are narrow and uncertain. It is under the necessity of doing its very best and of seeming to do so.
The three men of widest and solidest reputation in the Democratic party who may be considered available for Cabinet places are Thurman, Bayard and McDonald. These are the men who have come to the front by ten years competitive examination and this is proved by the fact that they stood next to Mr. Cleveland at the Chicago Convention.
In my judgment a Democratic Cabinet, in this time of trial, should contain all of these men. A Cabinet which did not contain any one of them would not look much like a Democratic Administration. Unless some of the “old hard heads”—the men of experience, and of reputation gained in the combats of the forum and in the competition of statecraft—are found in the Administration there will be no certainty about anything. Intentions may be ever so good, yet the public will never be reasonably sure of what will be done in any given emergency. Mr. Manning has had little more experience with National legislation and administration than Governor Cleveland himself. His reputation is that of a politician rather than of a statesman—a politician of the better class, indeed, but still coming short of what ought to be expected in an office which will be in some sense the keynote of the Administration. The Departments of State and Treasury should be filled by men of whom it will be generally said by intelligent and observing persons in all parts of the country, “We know where to find them; their characters are established, their mettle has been proved, their Carl Schurz 353 intelligence and capacity have been tested.” This is rather more than can be said of Mr. Manning. I have made some inquiries down-town concerning him and I have met almost everywhere the response: “We know nothing of Mr. Manning except as a shrewd politician.” Mr. Hewitt, Mr. McDonald and Mr. Bayard are known for the possession of statesmanlike qualities and of well defined ideas of financial principles. If Mr. Bayard should for any reason not have the State Department I think Mr. Thurman would be the next best man.
The factions in Ohio and Indiana need not deter Governor Cleveland from going into those States for Cabinet officers if he really desires to do so.
One glimpse of the shillelah in his hands will soothe all the factions to silence. Thurman bestrides the factions in his State like a colossus. Both intellectually and morally he overshadows all his compeers in Ohio. McDonald holds a corresponding position in Indiana and is well entitled to it.
If it be said that both these men and Mr. Bayard are Presidential candidates, the answer is that if Mr. Cleveland's Administration proves a success he will himself be the chief beneficiary and will certainly be reëlected. If it is not a success no Democrat will be elected in 1888. Those things should be left to settle themselves. To take a man into the Cabinet or to leave him out because he may or may not have aspirations for the Presidency would be taking a lower and narrower view of the situation than I think Governor Cleveland capable of. It will be safe for him to assume that every Congressman and every governor of a State and nearly all members of the State legislatures have aspirations of this sort and that it will be quite impossible for him to get a Cabinet which will be free from them. The ambition is laudable and I would not give much for a Cabinet destitute of it.
As I have already said, I think Mr. Manning's appointment as Secretary of the Treasury could be defended but it would require a good deal of explanation.
I do not understand what is meant by the phrases “an old men's Cabinet” and “a young men's Cabinet.” What is wanted is public confidence. If this is gained, the years of the [members of the] Cabinet will make no difference.