Letters and Literary Memorials of Samuel J. Tilden, v. 2 — Background and Themes

Legal Strategy and the Tweed Cases

Charles O’Conor’s letter of January 12, 1876, offers a sharp analysis of the opposing counsel in the Tweed civil cases. O’Conor describes the lawyer as “neither wise, learned, nor, properly speaking, able, but essentially a trickster.” He identifies a pattern: the adversary exploits a multitude of judges with equal powers, seeking “one wicked, weak, or manageable” to further his schemes. O’Conor’s language is precise and combative, calling the man a “trickster” and suggesting his methods amount to “piracy, highway robbery, or counterfeiting.” The letter provides a rare inside view of how Tilden’s legal allies assessed their opponents, focusing on procedural manipulation rather than substantive law.

The 1876 Election and Its Aftermath

John Bigelow’s February 1879 letter to William H. Peck dissects Tilden’s political position after the disputed election. Bigelow argues that Tilden could not withdraw from the 1880 race because he was “still the commander in the midst of a campaign in which he had defeated the enemy, but had not yet realized the fruits of victory.” He compares Tilden’s situation to Washington after Yorktown, suggesting that resignation would have disarmed the Democratic Party. Bigelow lists three questions the next convention must answer: whether Tilden was elected, whether Hayes was counted in by fraud, and whether Tilden has forfeited confidence. The letter is a forceful defense of Tilden’s honor and a strategic argument for his continued leadership.

Financial Details and Personal Affairs

Interspersed with political and legal correspondence are detailed financial records. One excerpt lists expenditures for a property, including items such as “Gardener’s Cottage” ($3,045.88), “Plumbing” ($18,964.55), and “Plants in Greenhouse” ($8,901.89), totaling $394,327.23. These figures ground the volume in the practical management of Tilden’s estate. The precision of the accounting—down to cents—contrasts with the broader political narratives. Such entries suggest that Tilden’s correspondents and editors valued meticulous record-keeping, and they offer a concrete sense of the material resources behind the public figure.

Readers should approach this volume as a curated selection of documents, not a complete archive. The editor, John Bigelow, was himself a participant in many of the events discussed, and his choices shape the narrative. Pay attention to the dates and the sequence of letters: the volume moves from 1876 to 1879, tracing the evolution of Tilden’s political fortunes. The financial and legal details are as revealing as the grand political arguments, and the letters’ informal tone often exposes tensions that formal statements would obscure.

Reading Tilden’s letters about the contested election, I remembered sitting in my grandfather’s study, the light falling on pages of Among Famous Books — Themes and Context, feeling the same quiet ache—how careful, principled men build arguments that history simply folds into forgetfulness. That patience, that dignity in defeat, stays with me longer than any victory. Some books are like that, holding sorrow gently.