The Writings of Carl Schurz/To Charles R. Codman, February 3d, 1887
TO CHARLES R. CODMAN
I thank you for your letter of January 31st as well as the postscript received yesterday. On the whole I must confess that your account of your interview with the President makes upon me a melancholy impression. His mind seems to be controlled by irritation at his critics rather than by an intelligent endeavor to disarm their criticism. That irritation threatens to become somewhat morbid. Last night I saw a letter he had addressed a day or two ago to one of his friends here, in which he expressed the opinion that the Independents were working for the same object as the extreme spoilsmen, such as Dana and others, to ruin him.
The explanations he gave you do not explain anything. It certainly does not justify his submission to Gorman's influence when he says that he might have done worse and submitted still more. It does not explain his unjustified removals and bad appointments when he says that he never pledged himself to reappoint Republicans—which pledge I think nobody ever accused him of making.
When he says that his pledge with regard to removals has been kept, he stands probably alone in saying so. I shall certainly give him credit for believing himself what he says; but in that case he indulges in a delusion decidedly dangerous not only to his success but to his good name. Moreover, he seems to overlook that it is of vastly more importance, practically, what others think of his fidelity to his pledges, than what he thinks of it himself.
His belief that Benton did not make the speeches imputed to him, shows only how easily he permits himself to be deceived by politicians who tell him what he likes to believe.
All this gives me little hope as to the forward steps he is “considering.” A Democratic friend of mine is going to Washington to-day to urge an extension of the civil service rules. I pray he may succeed, in the first place for the sake of reform itself, and then because something is absolutely needed to make the weak position into which the President has put himself, less conspicuous.
As to my personal relations with the President, I undertook the ungrateful rôle of the friend who utters disagreeable truths, because I thought nobody else would do so while it was most necessary. It was an act of self-sacrifice. If for this he “thinks hardly” of me, I am sorry, but not on my own account. I shall always be ready to explain how what I said was meant, but not to apologize for it. When Mr. Cleveland complains of my letters to others instead of answering them, he does not act wisely. If he has done things bad in appearance, and a friend calls his attention to that fact, and he neglects giving explanations to put them in a better light, he must not blame that friend for thinking that those things are as bad as they appear. Lincoln knew better how to treat such differences of opinion between himself and his friends. What shall I say of Mr. Cleveland's plea that he could not “find three or four hours to answer my letters”? Might I not say that he could possibly find those three or four hours where I found three or four months to advocate his election? Seriously speaking, I have been in official position and overburdened with work myself, but I always could find time to answer letters which I really wished to answer.
I assure you, I do not mean to urge a question of courtesy. I simply regret that the President does not do the right things to hold those together who ought to coöperate for common objects. I regret this, because I sincerely wish him well.
Now, as to our report, I think all we have to do is to speak the truth—first because it is the truth, and then because as soon as we Independents do anything to shake the popular belief that we have the courage and can be depended upon to speak the truth under all circumstances, all our moral spirit, all our influence upon public opinion, all our power for good, will be gone. Of course, I do not wish to hurt the President unnecessarily and would therefore speak the truth unfavorable to him as mildly as possible, but it must be the truth.
What you say of the American people doing things without system, while French doctrinaires will insist upon perfection or nothing, is no doubt true. But I do not think those who insist that a President's pledges and orders must mean something, should therefore be classed with the French doctrinaires.
It is evidently desirable that we should have a conference before the report is made, and I hope we may have it soon.