In fall 1880 he was chosen as a delegate to the Republican convention. The New York delegation was led by Senator Roscoe Conkling who, with Sharpe, was a leader of the so-called “Stalwarts,” that part of the New York Republican Party that actively and loyally supported Grant for a third term. Their leaders represented old friends of Grant, such as Gen. John Logan of Illinois and Conkling of New York, “old school practitioners of patronage and machine politics who ruled the party in the states like princely fiefdoms” and younger members such as Sharpe. None of them had had any love for Hayes and his Civil Service reform measures, especially after his attempts to drive Arthur, Cornell, and Sharpe out of office. They got their revenge when they successfully froze Hayes out of any consideration for re-nomination and threw their support to Grant. Senator Blaine was the most prominent rival for the nomination and was an old enemy of Conkling’s.
Sharpe was the convention floor leader of the fight for Grant, but his efforts could do no more than hold the Grant vote steady. Nevertheless, he led a vigorous and clever battle. Early in the convention he caused a sensation by offering a “resolution as a substitute for the majority report of the committee on rules [of whom he was a member], that the convention proceed to the nomination for president.” It upset the Blaine faction and “looked as if the Grant men had made bargains somewhere.” The object of the ploy may have been just that—to rush the nomination while the convention believed a deal making Grant the nominee had been made—making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sharpe and Gen. James Garfield made speeches pro and con, as “the most intense excitement prevailed” only to deflate as the measure was defeated with only 276 of the 399 votes needed.67
After 35 ballots, it was more than obvious that the opposition of the anti-Grant forces was too powerful an obstacle to overcome. Yet no other candidate could even get the 306 votes that Grant had secured but could not expand. Finally, the consensus among the non-Grant groups was that a dark horse was necessary.
John A. Garfield was nominated instead on the 36th ballot. John Logan took advantage of the obvious to support Garfield. Grant himself called on the Ohioan to pledge his support, and in the process the “306 stalwarts who stood by the general for thirty-six ballots [including Sharpe] were immortalized in Republican mythology.”68
The next issue was the nomination of a vice-president, and here Sharpe’s influence was crucial because Conkling essentially abandoned a constructive role so angry was he at the defeat of the Grant nomination. It especially galled him that Garfield was a close friend of his enemy Blaine. Conkling was proving to be a bad loser and predicted that Garfield would be handily beaten by the Democrats. He was not about to be cooperative with Garfield’s supporters. They, in turn, came hat in hand to the Stalwarts begging, in the interest of party unity, for them to nominate a candidate for the vice-presidency. Conkling actively discouraged several prominent New Yorkers from accepting the nomination by stating, “the question is, whom shall we place upon the altar as a vicarious sacrifice?”
It was at this time that Sharpe seized control of the issue in defiance of Conkling’s position. Garfield and he had known each other cordially for at least 15 years both in veterans affairs and politics. Sharpe was not about to cast this relationship away, especially when it offered a valuable opportunity for the New York party. He suggested Chester A. Arthur to an important group of Stalwarts who then sounded out Arthur. A New Yorker on the ticket was vital for carrying that state for Garfield. But Conkling, who could not have Grant and would not help Garfield, vehemently opposed it. In Sharpe’s presence, Conkling “bitterly opposed placing a Stalwart upon the ticket and expressed in unmeasured terms his disapprobation of Arthur’s acceptance.” On their way back to the convention, Sharpe told former Brigadier General Woodford of the pungent flavor of Conkling’s invective, and of Arthur’s calm assertion of the propriety of his action. On the floor of the convention, Conkling “flatly refused Sharpe’s request to put Arthur in nomination.” Sharpe was not to be thwarted and persuaded another New York delegate, Woodford, to place Arthur’s name in nomination. The ploy succeeded; Arthur was nominated much to his own gratified amazement. His ambitions had never looked beyond election to the U.S. Senate. Nevertheless, he was still much influenced by his friend Conkling. The two of them sat out much of the election and went fishing.69
The sure Democrat victory evaporated with their nomination of Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock. A political novice with little interest in active campaigning, he was beaten by Garfield with the help of the New York Republicans, especially Sharpe, who assumed the mantle of leadership in the absence of Conkling. As the campaign began in earnest, Sharpe helped organize a major political event at the Republican National Headquarters on 5th Avenue. Before a crowd of over 10,000 Sharpe delivered a memorable stem winder of a speech “in a clear, full voice that was heard distinctly almost to the limits of the extreme edge of the throng,” laying out in powerful words the achievements and virtues of the party’s nominee:
He is associated with all the trials and triumphs of the party. He was associated with Ulysses S. Grant [cheers] in maintaining the honor of the flag, which, he says sweeps the ground and touches the stars. [cheers] He was associated with Abraham Lincoln in the grand measures which the boys in Blue were sustained. He has been associated with the Republican statesmen of every name and state in leading the country through the dark days which were the natural results of an exhausting war. Squatter sovereignty, human slavery, and secession and Rebellion and the rag baby of paper money fill the graves which mark the history of the Democratic Party, and not one of these corpses that does not give evidence of the blows of James A. Garfield. [cheers and applause]
The speech built on and on to a crescendo and ended mightily with, “Let us answer that bugle call with resolution and alacrity, so that on the morning following the great day in November, we may sing again as we used to sing in Virginia the battle hymn of the republic.” The New York Times wrote:
The closing remarks of Gen. Sharpe were drowned in a cheer that began in the centre of the throng and went rolling back and forth from one end of the vast body to the other. Men waved their hats frantically in the air, the ladies in the adjoining balconies shook their handkerchiefs, and the band played a spirited air, as Gen. Sharpe turned to Gen. Garfield to introduce him. Garfield bowed in acknowledgement, certainly impressed with a man who could whip a crowd into such enthusiasm. Garfield certainly marked him as a man of consequence and as an important ally.
His own speech reflected the party’s support of black rights, a position of which Sharpe was an enthusiastic supporter, in the most dramatic terms. Before the crowed that Sharpe has so warmed up, he finished his speech with the following words:
In all that period of terror and distress no Union soldier was ever betrayed by any black man anywhere and so long as we live we’ll stand by those black allies of ours. We have seen white men betray the flag and fight to kill the union, but in all that long and dreary war you never saw a traitor under a black skin (cheers).
As the cheering subsided, “General Sharpe took Gen. Arthur by the arm, and leading him to the front of the balcony, introduced him as the ‘Candidate for Vice-President,’ as the crowd erupted in cheers.” It was clear to everyone that it was Sharpe who had brought Arthur to that balcony.70
Sharpe was a tireless campaigner for the ticket, traveling up and down the state giving a speech a day, for example in Lockport, Rochester, Baldwinsville, and Lowville in western New York between October 11 and 14. On October 19 he himself was unanimously renominated for assemblyman by the county convention of Ulster County in Kingston.71 So successful had Sharpe been in his position as speaker that the Democrat opposition did not have a chance. Large numbers of Democrats crossed party lines to attend the Republican convention and to vote for him in the general election.72
The national ticket also swept to victory, vindicating Sharpe’s defiance of Conkling in meeting the Garfield supporters halfway by offering Arthur to balance the ticket. That vindication was reflected in the wire he sent to Garfield: “No congratulations can be warmer than mine.”73 The victory was doubly sweet for he had himself been reelected to the state assembly and his friend and ally, Cornell, elected governor.
Sharpe must have thought he was secure in Garfield’s good will, a thought that was quickly dispelled. Sharpe’s record as speaker seemed to assure him an easy reelection. On January 3, 1881 the members of the New York legislature were stunned to read in the New York Tribune that President-Elect Garfield was supporting another candidate for speaker of the Assembly over Sharpe. Whitelaw Reid, editor of the Tribune, arrived to work the floor, in alliance with several senators and others, to encourage the candidacy of Assemblyman Skinner with hints of patronage from Garfield. That approach backfired badly. The effort collapsed, laughed out of consideration as the mischief of the Reid and Garfield so-called endorsement was dismissed as a falsehood. Yet the fact remains that Reid was considered Garfield’s mouthpiece in the New York press. That should have served as a warning. The sentiment was for Sharpe. One member stormed out and went directly to Sharpe to tell him he had his support. Skinner finally realized he had been led by the nose by this cabal of senators and Reid. His truer friends urged him to withdraw. Seeing the game was up, Reid returned immediately to New York. Representatives of Skinner went to Sharpe to relate that Skinner had folded; they apologized for being part of the sordid proceedings.
Sharpe’s name was now put in nomination by Colonel B. F. Baker, “as that of a man of commanding ability, heroic devotion to his country, of undisturbed courtesy to his opponents when Speaker, and at once frank, fair, and ready to right a wrong when it lay in his power to do it.” Skinner himself seconded the nomination in a chastened tone of party unity. Former speaker Thomas Alvord put an end to all the speeches when he said, “I have known George H. Sharpe for a long time, and I know him to be a very clever and a good Speaker. I move that his nomination be made unanimous.” The nomination was then made unanimous by all 80 members.74
The New York Times described it in the following terms:
[the] dullest and quietest canvas for the Speakership Albany has known in years … that there was no bitterness among General Sharpe’s supporters toward those who for reasons good to themselves supported Mr. Skinner. It rarely happens that a canvass which is a real one closes with such general good feeling and with such an utter absence of the angry talk which often follows a defeat.
It praised Sharpe, saying that “there was not a man among those supporting Mr. Skinner who did not have the highest respect for General Sharpe, as well as for his personal qualities as his record as a soldier and in public life.”75
Clearly, Sharpe’s reputation stood high. The following character sketch illustrates why:
Sharpe’s credible service on Grant’s staff, his cleverness as a Stalwart manager, and his acceptability as a speaker of the preceding assembly, brought him troops of friends. Although making no pretensions to the gift of oratory, he possessed qualities needed for oratorical success. He was forceful, remarkably clear, with impressive manners and a winning voice. As a campaign speaker few persons in the state excelled him. Men, too, generally found him easy of approach and ready to listen. At all events his tactful management won a majority of the Republican assemblymen before the opposition got a candidate into the field. Under these circumstances members did not fancy staking good committee appointments against the uncertainty of Presidential favors, and in the end Sharpe’s election followed without dissent.76
After being sworn in the next day, Sharpe’s address was gracious to his brief caucus opponents and to the Democrats with whom he had worked in the previous session and was met with their warm applause. He was ever the bridge-builder among factions. He made the sound recommendation to give the governor permission to appoint a commission to make recommendations on taxes. He also made a point of stressing the joint responsibility of the Assembly and Senate to choose a new senator in this session. There had already been rumors that the committee appointments would be made “to influence the results.” The Tribune reported that “a majority of members refused to believe that General Sharpe would do such a thing or would manipulate the committees themselves to vote this way or that in the Senatorial contest. Certainly there is everything in General Sharpe’s record to show that he would do none of these things.” It was an ominous foretelling of events that would do much to damage his career.77
So far Sharpe had successfully ridden the coattails of Conkling’s patronage by being his loyal and effective supporter. It was clear he was Conkling’s man in the state assembly. The Times was particularly scathing. Shortly before the inauguration it stated that Conkling “now seeks through Cornell and Sharpe to dragoon the legislature into the most abject submission. Cornell dictates the laws and Sharpe chastises the unruly members who dare to think and act for themselves” who were “ignored and insulted by his creature Sharpe.” In the coming months the relationship between Conkling and Sharpe would undergo enormous strain to the breaking point.78
After the election, Conkling apparently sent Sharpe to see Garfield in February 1881 to mend fences. Asked by a reporter if New York would have a place in the cabinet, Sharpe replied confidently, “Yes, Sir, and a good one.” Although he denied talking about cabinet appointees, it certainly was brought up. Ominously, Sharpe made no impression on Garfield. No New Yorker, much less a Conkling man, was appointed to the cabinet.79
One of Garfield’s first acts was to appoint a new surveyor for the Port of New York, William H. Robertson, without extending the traditional courtesy of a nod from his home state senators. Garfield knew that nod would not be forthcoming because Robertson was a political opponent of Conkling. He had not forgotten Conkling’s petulant refusal to support him at the convention. Conkling was surprised when the New York State Senate and Assembly both voted their support of the Robertson nomination. Up to that point the work of the Assembly had gone smoothly and Sharpe anticipated that it would complete its business in the first week of May and adjourn. He had a personal reason for looking forward to the adjournment, as the press was reporting, “for rumor with its thousand tongues comes up from Washington that he is to be chosen as Minister to Belgium… The appointment, if such shall be made, will be an excellent one for General Sharpe is a born diplomat, as well as an accomplished scholar and linguist.”80
Conkling was about to kill that prospect as he decided to go to war with Garfield. At his bidding, Sharpe was able to force through a motion that the Assembly reconsider its vote. He was also able to get a majority of Republicans in the Assembly to sign a petition to Garfield protesting the nomination.81
Conkling, to his outrage, was not supported in this breach of custom by the rest of the Senate, and then took an enormous political gamble. He resigned and persuaded New York’s newly elected other senator, Thomas C. Platt, to also resign, earning him the title, “Me too Platt.” Conkling planned to demand vindication from the New York State legislature by obtaining reelection for both himself and Platt. Sharpe’s support as the speaker would be vital if his ploy was to succeed.82
But that ploy was one act of arrogance too many. Conkling had ruled the party through a dictatorial style that brooked no discussion or opposition. Power cemented by fear is quickly dissolved when weakness is detected. Conkling had miscalculated badly. His resignation was seen as setting his private political interests against those of his party and state, an act of insufferable hubris. His imperious attempt to manage the process simply drove many former supporters into opposition. One of them was Sharpe, the one man he did not need to alienate. Sharpe saw Conkling’s maneuver as an assault on the American system of government. In a subsequent statement he made to the press, he explained, “Mr. Conkling resigned for the purpose of being a candidate for reelection. He sought to introduce into American politics the English method of resigning and obtaining a reindorsement from his constituents in order that he might wage war upon the Administration untrammeled by party obligations.”
Conkling added insult to this assault on American precedent by essentially ordering his friends in the Assembly to insure his reelection. This clearly set Sharpe off whose comments were later printed in The New York Times:
So true was this that his friends in Albany were informed by the most expeditious methods. A special messenger was sent from Washington to Albany bearing the letters of resignation, and from the messenger it was ascertained that Mr. Conkling expected immediate steps to be taken by his friends to insure his reelection. I was myself informed from Washington that he was to be reelected. I was also asked to invite him by telegram to meet his friends in New York to consult about the steps to be taken. I refrained from sending any such telegram. Others were urged to send telegrams of like purport… It was notorious in Albany that the messenger who brought the resignations stated without reserve that a reelection was expected by the resigned senators.83
Sharpe also had practical political reasons for seeing Conkling’s attempt at reelection as being badly timed. The Republicans no longer had a comfortable majority in the Assembly, and their own unity had been roiled by a series of disputes. It had been an exhausting five-month session, and the Assembly was ready to adjourn when the Conkling issue was dropped in its lap in late March. Sharpe called a meeting of the Stalwarts but all too few participated and many left before it adjourned. “I expressed myself as being in hope that we would not be called upon to meet such an issue,” he stated. He then traveled to New York in the hope that the facts would convince Conkling’s friends that “some other conclusion would be reached than the one which had been decided upon at Washington.”
At this time Sharpe was sounding out Assemblymen on their views of the matter. One such was C. D. Chickering, a Stalwart Republican, and powerful chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who made it clear that this issue would be ruinous to the party and throw his district to the Democrats. Sharpe then expressed his views forthrightly to Chickering. “Mr. Conkling’s friends will not allow him to be a candidate. I shall go to New York to-morrow and shall advise him to decline to have anything to do with the matter. I do not believe he could be elected if he should be a candidate. I will not ask you to vote for him.”84
On May 21, a Sunday, he called on Arthur and met other senior Republicans who had also called. They all agreed that “Mr. Conkling’s resignation was a blunder, and his present candidacy for reelection a greater one; and from our intimate knowledge of the members and their views we came to the conclusion unanimously that Mr. Conkling’s reelection was problematical.” They also agreed to attempt to induce Conkling to change his mind though they were aware of the “difficulty of presenting any fact to Mr. Conkling that did not coincide with his wishes.” He also observed that Conkling “desired that this reelection should come to him without solicitation… He wanted to be reelected without his appearing to have a hand in it.”85
It was a triumph of hubris over practical politics. Sharpe, as speaker of the Assembly, must have inwardly flinched at the enormous political problem Conkling had thrown to him. Other callers, included Conkling and Platt, arrived, and a general discussion ensued. In no way was it a meeting called for the purpose of Conkling’s friends to encourage Platt and him to seek reelection. Conkling and Platt, the latter in his autobiography, presented a different account of the meeting in which Platt noted that one of his supporters at this meeting, Louis Payn, “prognosticated that we would both be defeated. Speaker Sharpe angrily turned upon Payn and exclaimed, ‘We shall win this battle without any trouble.’ ‘Huh, but you will be the first to desert us,’ retorted Payn.”86
Sharpe would flatly later deny making any speech “encouraging” Conkling to go to Albany. “I never made such a speech. It is a falsehood.” His emphasis was entirely different. Sharpe told Conkling plainly that if he wanted to be reelected, he had to actively seek it in Albany, and that nothing but his presence and the active support of all his friends throughout the state could push through his reelection. “And I added, that with all this, the event was not certain.” The group took an informal caucus of Republicans in the legislature based on a canvass of their views and discovered that the Senate was largely against him and that only half the Republicans in the Assembly would support him. It is an interesting comment upon the power that Conkling had as leader of the state Republican Party that even after this canvass, as Sharpe said, “The question of Mr. Conkling’s candidacy was not discussed, but was taken for granted throughout the interview” by Conkling despite so many reservations. Sharpe was accurate when he said, “And I again assert there was at no time any conference, called or held, for the purpose of deciding upon Mr. Conkling’s candidacy, at which I was present.” It also says much of Conkling’s personal power that he caused many other strong-minded men, such as Sharpe, to hold their tongues in making it emphatically clear, as Sharpe had promised Chickering, to plainly tell him not to run. Sharpe, in a much distressed state of mind, was the first to leave the meeting.87
Sharpe’s account of his conduct at the meeting was thrown into question by the statements of Conkling loyalists. A major issue in subsequent party politics was the contention of other members of the meeting that he did, in fact, enthusiastically support Conkling’s nomination, as Payn stated. Besides Platt and Payn, five other men at the meeting wrote Conkling stating that Sharpe had done so. These were all loyal Conkling men who helped their patron carry his heavy load of spite after his defeat. Whether their statements were a calculated act of political vindictiveness must be balanced against Sharpe’s reputation for integrity. That Sharpe thought so was clear. The Chicago Daily Tribune reported that in June 1882 he was hunting up evidence in New York City “to sustain the statement made by him about Conkling. He is very indignant at the issue of his veracity raided by the ex-senator’s friends. He says he is prepared to stand by every assertion…”,88 as he did to a reporter of the New York Tribune the week before:
Let Mr. Conkling vie the names of the men who advised him to go to Albany. I should like to know their names. I don’t know who they were, and yet I think I would have known if any one knew them. Let Mr. Conkling disclose the names of these men and expose them to the shame of having given him such advice. Whom did he consult at Washington before resigning his place as United States Senator? Did he consult any of his friends there or in this State? He never consulted them. He went back on them, and now seeks to put the blame of his defeat for reelection on their shoulders. Yet, let us know who was responsible for that defeat.89
After the meeting and despite his misgivings, Sharpe was still willing to work for Conkling’s nomination out of his ingrained sense of loyalty. The Boston Advertiser caught his dilemma: “General Sharpe acted on a rather unhappy compromise between events which drifted one way, and personal attachments, since severed, which drew him elsewhere.”90 Almost immediately he ran into his own prediction that the outcome would not be certain. In Albany on May 30, Sharpe, as chairman of the Republican caucus committee, attempted to convene a caucus of Republican members of the legislature to support Conkling’s candidacy. There was a rush out the doors of the Assembly as a majority of members voted with their feet against the caucus. “The face of Speaker Sharpe … wore an ominous blank look of disappointment, and Payn, Denison, and Johnson, standing by the door of the Speaker’s room, looked as if they would like to bite something or somebody.” It did not take a Cassandra to conclude that The New York Times’ headline “Conkling’s Cause Lost,” was prescient.91
Conkling then sent Sharpe a message, asking him to “give notice from the Speaker’s desk on the adjournment of the House that a majority of all the Republicans elected to both Houses having signified their willingness that a caucus be held, one would be held at a time and place decided.” This clearly was not the case that a majority of party members had agreed to such a thing. Sharpe asked the meaning of this request and was told by Conkling’s representative that besides those who had actually signed a request for a caucus, a number of others had expressed a “willingness” for such a meeting. It was hoped that Sharpe would devise such wording as to “not be subject to the charge of falsehood.” Sharpe declined on the spot to be a party to such a ploy. That night he met Conkling, who coldly asked him, “What was the occasion for the failure this morning?” Sharpe described his reply: “I told him I was chairman of the Caucus Committee of the Assembly, and I did not intend, by making such a statement as I was desired to make, to be met by a challenge to produce my proof.”92
It did not help that the next day the Democrats had some fun with Sharpe. Assemblyman Bradley put Sharpe’s name in nomination. The Democrats applauded loudly while Sharpe blushed deeply. Normally Sharpe enjoyed a good-natured joke even at his own expense, but not this time. He was under a great deal of stress which tends to wear a sense of humor thin. He sternly rapped the gavel to quell the noise. He then sent Bradley to withdraw his name which the assemblyman did.93
Sharpe’s serious assistance to Conkling appears to have ended when the former senator tried to pressure him to manufacture a caucus consensus. Now he would support the process that would lead to the election of other candidates. The Stalwart group, which had hung together as an unbroken phalanx for Grant and on so many issues, cracked wide open. Over 20 assemblymen and senators of the Stalwarts refused under any circumstances to vote for Conkling. Sharpe arranged for different groups of two assemblymen and one senator, who were Conkling supporters, to meet with Conkling to drive home just how hopeless his cause was. But as one senator stated, they were “talked out of court.” With the formal caucus procedure non-functional, Sharpe now indicated that he would be guided by an informal caucus if it succeeded. He stated, “I made no secret of my proposed course.” He supported the nomination of former President Grant and former Secretary of State Fish and sent to Conkling to suggest that he withdraw his nomination and support these new nominees. Conkling refused, arrogantly demanding that his opponents make the proposal.94
Then the tide began to run against Conkling. On the day (July 2) that Platt withdrew his nomination to give a boost to Conkling, Garfield was shot by an assassin, who was a public supporter of both Conkling and Platt. The public turned bitterly on Conkling, especially for his vituperative feud with the President. On the 6th, Sharpe, as speaker, was proposing a resolution of the Assembly on the attempted assassination. The Democrats had proposed it, and Sharpe “in fraternal recognition of the action of the minority” offered it in terms that could only drive more nails into Conklin’s political coffin, “recognizing in James A. Garfield a chief magistrate sincerely desirous of fulfilling the responsible duties of his high office with loyal regard to the interest of the whole country.”
The balloting and canvassing had gone on for seven weeks and 32 ballots for Platt’s seat alone. Sharpe as leader of the Stalwarts had kept the group solid for Conkling through the first week in July, but after the attack on Garfield and the public reaction, he knew that he had to cut loose from Conkling for the sake of the Republican Party in New York and for the larger public interest. It was clear to him that the issue had become what The New York Times called “one of the bitterest and hardest fought in the political annals of the State.” The means to this end were prepared by a majority of the Republicans in both houses, who now called for a caucus and nominated Elbridge Lapham for Conkling’s seat and Warner Miller representing Herkimer County for Platt’s seat. As chairman of the party caucus committee, Sharpe was in a position to fight this spontaneous caucus. He chose not to and spoke of acceding to the decision of that caucus. At a stormy meeting of the Stalwarts on July 16, Sharpe put his cards on the table, and, “In plain words he expressed anew the opinions he had rather hinted at than declared outright before, and told his comrades that he intended to abide absolutely by the majority as expressed by the caucus and to vote for both the caucus candidates.” That simple statement provoked a flood of outrage, “that his desertion of Conkling was an act of treachery,” and that his vote for the two nominees would brand him to the people of New York as an “ingrate and political scoundrel.” Louis Payn, who allegedly had predicted Sharpe’s defection, “gave him a piece of his mind,” in direct and crude terms. Sharpe did not hesitate to defend himself and insisted that he would not turn back. He had come to the conclusion that Conkling’s selfish obstinacy had reached a point where his continued support was no longer in the public interest. He had cut Conkling loose.
News of the attacks on Sharpe had spread to the Assembly and the hall buzzed with anticipation when Sharpe took his seat as members of the Senate entered for the joint session to fill Platt’s seat. Before the clerk could read the roll, Sharpe stood. All eyes were upon him as he began to speak. He said that by courtesy his name was at the foot of the roll but that many were aware that he had something to say on the matter and it would be “manly to make the statement at the beginning of the roll.” The chamber was pin-drop quiet.
He explained, “When the election of United States Senators was brought before the Legislature of the State of New York there was one course that was pursued to preserve harmony, and that was that a consultation named a ‘caucus’ should be called by persons authorized to call that caucus in the regular way.” He had tried repeatedly as the caucus committee chairman to call such a caucus but to no avail, being unable to assemble a majority in favor. The hearers understood perfectly that a caucus called by Sharpe and the Stalwart-controlled committee would be directed toward the support of Conkling.
I have always believed in the right of a majority of a body to control its action and if a caucus committee fails to perform its duty I know of no other way in the world than for the majority of that body to call themselves and those who choose to act with them for the performance of that duty.
I am obliged, Mr. President, and have so stated from the time that caucus reached a result to accept its results [applause].
He begged not to be interrupted. For him there had been only one objection to the caucus—that it had gone outside the party rules—but he concluded that it was “not broad enough to affect the great question of the right of a majority to go into a caucus which was denied by its officers.” He added a warning on the dangers of continued party strife over this matter. “Do not think, because the Democratic Party on the floor of this house have, by their course, demanded our admiration and respect, do not fail to remember they will be fertile in expedients to take advantage of this dangerous position.” He concluded by saying, “Mr. President, when my name is called upon this ballot in place of the eloquent leader who in the darkest days has pointed us to the brilliant path of victory, I shall vote for Elbridge G. Lapham.”
In the following debate, Sharpe was excoriated by his fellow Stalwarts for a “mistake that would not soon be forgotten.” In the vote Lapham received 68 votes to Conkling’s 29. Though it was not enough to win, it signaled a crushing defeat for Conkling. The next vote was to fill Platt’s seat and was won by Miller. It would only be a matter of time before Lapham garnered the necessary majority to replace Conkling.
That followed quickly after Garfield died on September 19—and on the 56th ballot. Conkling would lament, “How can I speak into a grave? How can I battle with a shroud?”95
At the October convention preceding the state election that year, Sharpe was still working hard to help Conkling control the proceedings, but the former senator had been wounded mortally by his attempt at reelection. It was up to Sharpe to deliver the conciliatory speech to the anti-Conkling forces, and he did it with such grace that it was greeted by loud applause.96
Despite criticism that he had deserted Conkling, Sharpe’s constituents supported his decision. He was nominated by a party’s Ulster County convention 22 to 2, and handily reelected in the November general election later than year. The New York Times observed:
It is a touching tribute to Gen. Sharpe that here in Kingston, where he is known intimately and respected highly, there was little disposition shown to misinterpret either his words or his actions. His word had always been good, his judgment promoted him to support Miller and Lapham, his utterances were accepted almost without question as the genuine expression of an honest conviction. If elsewhere in the State there may be a lurking hostility or coldness toward Gen. Sharpe for his course in the senatorial contest, his constituents do not, as a rule, share in it.97
Although reelected to the Assembly by a heavy majority in Kingston, the speakership was no longer within his grasp. He could see the price he paid, for his principled stand had earned him the eternal enmity of the Conkling wing of the Stalwarts. That enmity would dog him for the rest of his political life. His immediate prospects were not affected; his constituents in Kingston approved of his actions enough to reelect him that November with a “heavy majority,” despite the state party ticket winning only by a slim margin.98
At the beginning of the 1882 session, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., was a newly elected member of the New York Assembly. This was his first opportunity to see Sharpe, about whom Roosevelt’s biographer, Edward P. Kohn, wrote, his “career seemed to have crossed paths with every prominent American since the Civil War.”99 Sharpe was the Stalwart favorite for speaker while Thomas Alvord was the choice of the Half-Breeds. Both groups were losing the favor of much of the Republican Party. Perhaps in light of his father’s failed nomination to replace Sharpe as surveyor of the Port of New York, Roosevelt penned this appraisal of Sharpe:
In the evening the Republicans held a caucus to nominate our candidate [for speaker]. The contest lay between Sharpe and [Thomas G.] Alvord; the former a ‘stalwart’, a man of ability and shrewd enough to recognize the advantage of being considered respectable, but unless I am mistaken decidedly tricky and unquestionably a machine man pure and simple; the latter a rugged, white headed old assemblyman, a ‘half breed’ or [word unclear] dependent, but a bad old fellow. As a choice of evils I voted for Sharpe—but Alvord was chosen.100
The choice in the end was moot because the Democrats were in the majority. Nevertheless, Sharpe had been beaten by Alvord. The anger at Sharpe for turning against Conkling became venomous at the 1882 state Republican convention for the nomination of governor. The dispute over the direction of the meeting at Arthur’s home had become all-too public. Accusations that could not be papered over were made by Conkling’s men. The New York Times observed, “It was easy to see that the Conkling men had not got through with Gen. George H. Sharpe. The task set for him to demonstrate his repentance for having said something about an alleged conference Conkling declared to be false—had not been fully performed.” Not only had Sharpe not repented; he had aggressively sought to disprove Conkling’s allegation. Sharpe’s speech nominating Secretary of the Treasury, Charles J. Folger, “was received for the greater part in grim silence.”101
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle commented in later years that “Conkling never recovered either happiness or power and was a spite factory until he died,” adding Sharpe among others, “to the number of those whom he decorated with his hate…” Platt, on the other hand, played a better game, learning that “implacable antipathies pay as poorly in politics as anywhere else,” earning great influence in the party, though Sharpe and he remained wary of each other.102
Overshadowing his reelection to the Assembly was Sharpe’s role as a kingmaker, for Arthur was now president. Arthur had had himself immediately sworn in to office in New York but repeated the ceremony in the White House. Sharpe was conspicuous by his presence in a very select group that included the cabinet, General Sherman in full uniform, ex-Presidents Grant and Hayes, the Chief Justice and two associate justices, six senators, and one representative. Sharpe was the only private citizen attending the ceremony. When Arthur returned to the city on September 29, it was in the company of Sharpe.103
Sharpe’s friendship with Arthur grew in the space once dominated by Conkling. The latter’s attempt to dictate policy to his old friend and now President Arthur had roused the genial former sidekick into a lion of independence. With his friendship with Conkling shattered, that with Sharpe grew deeper. When Arthur vacationed in the Catskills it would be in company with Sharpe and his wife. Sharpe received a thank you note from Arthur’s black servant, Alexander Powell, for the kindness shown him by General and Mrs. Sharpe. “Upon my word, I was never better treated in any place I have chanced to be with his Excellency.”104
Sharpe also spent much time in Washington as a presidential advisor who added luster to the administration by his good council, which included the appointment of Frederick T. Frelinghuysen to be Secretary of State. Mark Twain would write, “[I]t would be hard indeed to better President Arthur’s administration.”105
Sharpe surely felt himself in an awkward position. He was close to both Grant and Arthur, but the two had gradually fallen out. Arthur had initially asked Grant’s advice on appointments. Perhaps overly impressed with the prerogatives of the office, Arthur came to resent any further advice or requests for appointments. Within two years they were no longer speaking. It was a delicate situation for Sharpe, but he did not forget to help Grant when he could.106
One piece of advice from Sharpe that Arthur accepted only minutes before his term expired was the restoration of Grant’s rank as full general in order to retire him at full pay. By 1884 Grant’s affairs were in a shambles and his health ruined by untreatable cancer. He had been financially ruined by his investment firm partner. Already in 1881 former Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston, now a Democrat member of the Virginia congressional delegation, had moved to restore these honors to Grant, but the motion had fallen beneath bitter opposition. Now faced with Grant’s rapidly failing health, the issue of his honors was revived. On May 27 Sharpe wrote Arthur from New York that the Democrats in Congress were planning to push the issue to reap the publicity benefits. He recommended that Arthur gather a group of Republican members of Congress to consult publicly on this matter and steal a march on the Democrats. Sharpe was wrapping in the guise of political necessity his own desire and that of Grant’s many other friends to both honor their former general-in-chief and president and to ensure the well-being of his family. Arthur chose this moment to be jealous of his rights as president, refusing to sign a bill that named Grant because it infringed on his executive authority to appoint officers. Senator George Edmunds of Vermont pressed on with a bill nevertheless.107
As the new year crept toward inauguration on March 4, Grant’s decline added new urgency to Edmund’s bill which easily passed the Senate. In the House, the cause was taken up by Democrat Representative Samuel Randall of Pennsylvania, a Union veteran of Gettysburg and former Speaker of the House. With 20 minutes remaining in Arthur’s term, Randall rose in the House to ask for unanimous consent to suspend the rules to bring the Grant matter to the floor. But a contested election in Iowa was still before the House, and the issue leader would not yield. Instead, the man whose seat was at stake jumped to his feet and personally yielded, thus sacrificing his seat in order “to do justice to the hero of Donelson and Appomattox.” The measure passed by acclamation accompanied by Rebel yells. The bill was rushed to Arthur who signed it with less than 10 minutes left in his term. With six minutes before Grover Cleveland was to be sworn in, the president pro tempore of the Senate announced that the President had nominated Grant. All business was suspended in the thunderous applause. Cleveland’s first act was to sign Grant’s commission. Had Arthur been astute to follow Sharpe’s advice of 10 months before, he would have been the one to have basked in the public approval in his last year in office and doing honor to Grant would not have been such a close run thing.
This was the last public service Sharpe could do for his hero Grant. While he had benefited from Grant’s favor, he was sincerely devoted to the man. This final act of devotion was done long after Grant could no longer do anything for him. As Grant’s condition worsened in April, the press was full of day-by-day reports. Sharpe quickly arrived and interviewed Grant’s doctor three times and then accompanied him to Grant’s home. There for over an hour he used all his powers of persuasion in an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the doctor to let him take the dying man to his country house in the Catskills where he thought the mountain air could only help. The general could only speak in a whisper by then, but he could still joke with Sharpe. To the chagrin of the press he refused to discuss Grant’s health with anyone. The general would die on July 23. At the funeral Sharpe walked in the procession to the tomb. Sharpe would be a faithful attendant in the future at the annual dinner held on Grant’s birthday.108
While Sharpe had been busy in Washington, his old Ulster County rival, Thomas Cornell, marshaled his forces against him. The conventions in the three districts of Ulster County were about to be held. Sharpe’s long absences in Washington with Arthur had done nothing to dampen his feud with Cornell, which reached such a degree of animosity that the Kingston Daily Freeman stated in an editorial that the factions were so split “that it would be well to drop both contestants and select a delegate from one of the towns who will represent the whole party and not a part of it.” It turned out to be wishful thinking. In early April Cornell bested Sharpe out of a delegate’s seat to the state party convention in the first district in a vote of 14 to 10, “routed,” in the words of The New York Times, “horse, foot, and dragoons.” Sharpe was shortly again trounced in the second and third districts of Ulster County. His identification as a Stalwart and as an Arthur man worked against him. Defeats in other districts followed. His attachment to Arthur was dragging him down. Recognizing the inevitable, Sharpe announced he would not be a candidate for either the state or national party conventions.109
When the state convention met on April 23 to “vote for control of the organization,” a slim, young Theodore Roosevelt was already a rising power whose presence was worthy of note. Sharpe, “sat constantly by the chairman’s seat throughout the sessions, closely watching the proceedings.” Though defeated for an official seat as a delegate, Sharpe, ever the master politician, had secured a seat at the center of the action weighing every word. He would have been familiar with Roosevelt from their service in the 1882 state assembly. One can imagine with what interest he listened to Roosevelt, whose star was rising as his own could well be setting.110
Sharpe would bide his time for political revenge. Cornell had served in Congress from 1881 to 1883 and was trying to secure the nomination to run again in 1884. Sharpe returned to Kingston for the September 18 county party nominating convention for congressional candidates. The reporter for The New York Times noted that Sharpe, “did not seem to be in happy mood.” He called the convention to order and slipped a knife into Cornell’s reputation by stating that the Congressman chosen must be one who, if elected, would attend to the duties of his office. He then proceeded to crush Cornell’s slate of candidates and with them Cornell’s ambitions to return to Congress. Those who predicted that all this feuding would cause many Republicans to bolt and thereby hand the 17th District of New York to a Democrat were proved wrong as the staunch, liberal Republican James G. Lindsley was elected in November.111
Sharpe’s defeat as a delegate to the Chicago Convention held in early June did much to undercut his ability to push Arthur’s nomination for a second term which he had been pushing strongly. Not being a delegate, however, did not prevent him from going to Chicago to exert what influence he could as an “Arthur leader.” The press was titillated when it leaked out that Sharpe had visited the room of Warren, New York State Republican Party chairman, at 2 a.m. in the morning dressed only in his nightshirt and overcoat for a one-hour close consultation. Prophetically he told a reporter that Senator James G. Blaine (Maine) who was favored over Arthur could not carry New York but that Arthur could. It did not help that Arthur was lukewarm to the idea of a second term and not a dynamic candidate. The vice-presidency had fallen to him almost by accident four years before, and he had done nothing to seek it. He simply did not have the fire in the belly for the contest, especially since his health was not the best. Blaine of Maine won the nomination on the third ballot.112
In July Arthur had honored Sharpe with the appointment as chairman of the U.S. Commission to Central and South America, for the purpose of increasing commerce, and with the rank of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary and a yearly salary of $7,500. Sharpe actively chaired the commission, insisting in public hearings that merchants state clearly what obstacles they were experiencing in the South American trade so that the government could address them. It became clear that Britain had so engrossed trade with the Hispanic Americas that communication with them often had to go through Liverpool. American butter was sold to the British who then re-exported it to Central and South America.
In a bow to his former general-in-chief, Sharpe along with the other members of the commission called on Grant at his home to solicit his views. Grant’s reputation has suffered from the scandals of his administration; even the Society of the Army of the Potomac at its 1883 reunion had defeated his nomination for president of the society, no doubt to Sharpe’s intense chagrin. Now Grant’s suggestions to the commission showed a wide-ranging understanding of the issues and made sound recommendations, such as a reform of the consular service to “act as drummers for manufacturers of the United States.” Unfortunately, his suggestions were never to be transformed into legislation. Arthur was to be out of office in less than a year. A new administration, especially a Democratic one, would be unlikely to support Grant’s and Sharpe’s recommendations.113
Sharpe also led the commission on fact-finding trips to Mexico, Central, and South America. For Sharpe the job was no sinecure but the opportunity to perform a valuable public service. Arthur rather than simply rewarding friendship had chosen an extremely well-qualified man for the job—cosmopolitan, skilled in languages, astute, and from his time at the Custom House, familiar with American trade with Latin America. With the election of the Democrat Grover Cleveland in November, whose views opposed the commission, Sharpe resigned in order that the President might be served by someone more in harmony with his position.114
Sharpe and Arthur vacationed at Sharpe’s summer place in the Catskills that August and on their way had some unexpected excitement. They travelled on a special train on the Ulster and Delaware Railroad at record-breaking speed along the numerous curves of the line. Rain was pounding through an open window, which were unusually large for this special train. Sharpe got up to close it when a sharp turn of the car along a curve nearly threw him out the window. He was barely saved by a reporter who instantly grabbed him by his coattails. Given how stout Sharpe had become by then, it must have taken a strong man.115
About that time in early September upon the resignation of the Secretary of the Treasury, a rumor spread quickly that Arthur would appoint Sharpe to fill that post for the rest of his term. The rumor had credence because Sharpe, it was noted in the press, was “one of the President’s warmest personal friends, and was his constant companion during his extended visits to the White House and during the President’s return visit to General Sharpe’s residence in the Catskills.” The rumor quickly collapsed as the White House denied it. It may have been a trial balloon, but there is no evidence of it. However, the Chicago Daily Tribune of September 18 stated that Sharpe had been offered and declined the appointment.116 The friendship shared by these two men was so pronounced that it would lead to more than a few insinuations of cronyism in the press.
Frustrated to secure his friend the presidential nomination, Sharpe switched his efforts to push Arthur for senator of New York in November and December. However, he could not summon the support in the legislature in the face of Platt’s opposition. Again, Arthur’s interest was tepid. Sharpe may have had some satisfaction for having played Cassandra at the June Republican convention. Blaine lost the election to Grover Cleveland by losing New York by 1,149 votes or 0.10 percent, the margin of victory for the Democrat, just as Sharpe had predicted.117
The charges of cronyism arose again early in 1885 as Arthur’s term was about to expire. The previous year the army’s judge advocate general, Brig. Gen. David G. Swaim, had been court-martialed for financial improprieties and was suspended from his position. Arthur clearly wanted to reward Sharpe with appointment to the position and exerted his influence to have Swaim dismissed from the service. The army was opposed to Sharpe’s appointment and the President’s unseemly influence on his behalf and strung out the final court-martial proceedings until Arthur’s term expired. It became a “contest between the court martial and President Arthur, the one desiring to preserve Swaim long enough to head off Sharpe, the other being credited with an intention to get Swaim out soon enough to get Sharpe in.” The army’s delaying tactics won out; Fabius Maximus would have been proud. The appointment was also doomed by the opposition of a number of Republican senators who opined that no nomination the President made for the office was “likely to be confirmed.” President Cleveland reinstated Swaim who then resigned.118
Arthur’s premonitions about the fragile state of health came true; he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died on November 17, 1886, at the age of 57. Sharpe served as a pall bearer along with General Sheridan, Robert Todd Lincoln, and Cornelius Vanderbilt. Conkling also attended the funeral and, seeing Sharpe, remarked to a friend, “Is that Gen. Sharpe over there?” When confirmed, he mused, “How much older he looks.” Sedentary good living was taking its toll of Sharpe; he was described as “rotund” by this time.119
Sharpe’s influence in Washington dried up with Cleveland in the White House. But his advancing age and increasing waistline did not drain his energy for New York state politics. He again was elected to the Republican state convention held in September and chaired the important Committee on Contested Seats enlivening its report with a dash of humor.
General Sharpe, in closing the debate for the committee, supported its report. In his remarks he said that in the deliberations of the committee-room the principal evidence against the Republicanism of certain delegates seemed to be that they had Irish names. He thought it high time that the fact of a man being Irish should no longer be taken as prima facie evidence that he was a Democrat [laughter].120
Sharpe did not neglect oiling his Ulster County machine either. It ran so smoothly that in September 1886 for the first time he led a unified county delegation to the state convention as the undisputed leader. The next year the wheels went off the machine as Sharpe suffered a complete reversal of fortune. He was decisively defeated in the party election to select delegates for the state convention on September 10. The New York Times reported that the reason was the allegation that had been floating around since the 1884 presidential nomination contest that Sharpe had not supported John G. Blaine, the party’s eventual candidate. “The General had again and again denounced the statement as a malicious lie,” but apparently to no avail. The rumor may well have been the work of Cornell. If so, it was payback. The lingering animosity of the pro-Conkling Stalwarts also played a role. The New York Times commented, “Ulster County for years has been a capital school in which to study politics, but even the flouters never anticipated such a situation…” This reverse effectively ended his influence in Ulster County politics for the time being. Sharpe may have been down, but he was not out. He gave up his law practice and devoted his efforts for the time being to his duties as president of the National Bank of Roundout.121 He would tilt no more with Cornell who died in March 1890. Cornell’s son-in-law, Coykendall, was all too happy to continue the animosity, viewing it almost as an inheritance.
With Republican Benjamin Harrison in the White House in 1889, Sharpe once again had a friend in the President. New York Senator Frank Hiscock, in acknowledgment of Sharpe’s services in his nomination, recommended him for appointment to the United States Board of General Appraisers, a body created to exercise judicial and administrative power in appeals made against customs duties. Members were chosen from those who had risen to the top of the legal profession. The appointment was considered to be of a semi-judicial nature and was permanent as with the tenure of federal judges and carried a salary of $7,000 a year, second only to that of justices of the Supreme Court.122
His enemies raised a hue and cry in the press. The New York Times wrote, “Everyone in New York State knows him as a tricky, unscrupulous politician who is true to his Hessian blood, enlists under the banner of the highest bidder.” The Kingston Daily Freeman ran a vituperative editorial against Sharpe quoted in The New York Times that gushed all the bile of the allegations of his betrayal of Conkling and failure to support Blaine. Later that year The New York Times accused Sharpe of being responsible for the loss of the 17th Congressional District to a Democrat for the first time.123
Sharpe brushed off these partisan slings and arrows; he had no illusions as to the fickle and vituperative nature of politics. In July he resigned as President of the National Bank of Roundout in order to avoid any conflict of interest with the new judicial position as an appraiser, although he continued as a trustee of the Ulster County Savings Institute. The next year the bank shuddered under a major scandal. It came to light that the treasurer and his assistant had been systematically robbing the institute for 20 years, and they were promptly arrested. The trustees were stunned, but immediately took action to ascertain the true condition of the bank. Once they determined that the surplus on hand and other assets could not cover the theft, they called on the State Banking Superintendent to take over the bank. That unleashed a three-day run on the bank, which ended only when other Ulster banks came to the rescue, and the trustees publicly announced there was a surplus of funds. The amount withdrawn fortunately did not exceed the surplus. The passbook holders, now reassured, returned their deposits. The press accused the trustees of being guilty of criminal negligence for not having known what was going on. Rather than negligence, the trustees had been systematically deceived. Besides Sharpe, the trustees included two judges, the postmaster, and the editor of a local paper—the pillars of local society. It would be difficult to conclude that so many men had been simply negligent. The theft was described as “most ingenious, and for twenty years baffled the skill of expert examiners in the employ of the state.”124
None of these problems seem to have put any nails in the coffin of Sharpe’s influence. It took him barely a year to reestablish his position in Ulster and he was chosen as one of three delegates to the yearly state Republican convention in 1891. His feud with Coykendall continued a good deal due to sheer momentum. One old Ulster County Republican commented that they did not pull together simply because “They have been opposed to each other so long they would not feel natural if they did.” The next year he controlled the county convention to select delegates to the Congressional District Convention through his son Severyn. Similarly, Sharpe, with the assistance of his “wide awake son” Severyn, dominated the 1892 county convention to select delegates to the national convention to be held in Minneapolis. That Sharpe found the need to use his son was a signal of his last hurrah in Ulster politics. There is no apparent future reference to his active role. It had been an active political life of over 30 years that now came to a gradual end as Sharpe’s continued involvement in veterans’ affairs and the duties as appraiser were enough to occupy his late in life energies.125
Hasbrouck wrote, “The duties of the office would intrigue any man having the quality of intelligence or the expert training which fitted him for a place on the board. Some of the hearings had the foundation of romance.” Sharpe was able to call upon not only his considerable legal background and experience as surveyor of the Port of New York, in which he had run the customs collections, but also upon his fine education and cultured cosmopolitan nature. One hearing bore upon the duties to be levied on the plumes in women’s hats and “brought out [the] most interesting fund of information respecting the habits of birds in other lands, the method of their capture and the quality of the plumage, which in some case were so rare and costly that they justified a duty much more than their weight in gold.”126 Another case involved the custom’s determination to levy a duty of 40 percent on an oriental carpet for which the owner had paid 22,000 francs. Sharpe was able to identify the carpet as an antique over 400 years old and thus entitled to “free entry as an antiquity.”127
Sharpe’s cases were not limited to luxury goods and antiques. Cases ranged from those involving carpet wools (1891) to Cuban tobacco leaf (1898). His shrewd determinations had important consequences for importers of raw materials such as woolens in 1893, involving $1,000,000 in tied up products “and the future importation of $20,000,000 worth of woolen goods.” The range of the board’s decisions covered just about everything that the United States imported. For example, in September 1897 the board took up protests under the old tariff law on importations of oils, paints, chemical products, coal-tar preparations, medicinal preparations, and plants.128
There was occasionally a lighter side to the work of the appraisers. An importer was contesting the duty on kites imported from Japan. He demanded they be taxed at the lower rate for paper, as they were only decorative, than for toys. To prove they were kites the collector ordered several of his senior subordinates to fly them on the roof of the building. The article describing this incident concluded, “As this test may not suit the Board of General Appraisers in New York, the small boys and police may have amusement next week when they look up at the roof of 534 Canal street and see Appraisers Tichenor, Sharretts, and Sharpe flying the Japanese kites.”129
A reorganization of the Board of Appraisers by the Treasury Department in October 1897 lessened Sharpe’s workload. Sharpe had always intended to retire from public life at the age of 70, which he would reach in 1898. That intention unhappily coincided with the death of his wife on February 12, 1898. Her death hit him hard. On the last day of the month he announced his need for absolute rest and his intention to resign as he took 20 days’ official leave. He went so far as to remove his private papers from his office. The Treasury Department almost eagerly announced his intention to resign. Perhaps the McKinley Administration saw his departure as a patronage opportunity. The rest, however, did him good and he returned to his duties at the end of his leave, “apparently improved in health and spirits.” He repeated his desire to resign but left the when up in the air.
These comments encouraged some in “high official quarters” to express the opinion that his resignation “would lead to a more perfect harmony of action.” The reference to “high official quarters” may have been a political euphemism for President William McKinley himself. The justification was a supposed friction on the board. McKinley essentially sought to replace four of its eight members (two Republicans and two Democrats). The New York Times, however, specifically refuted any claims of friction and stated that the work of the board had been harmonious and that Sharpe had “done much of an important character” since his appointment in 1890. Senator Platt, remembering old antipathies, was quick to recommend a replacement for Sharpe. However, Sharpe still had a large number of “strong political friends,” who felt “that such an old and distinguished public servant” was “entitled to much consideration, and they object[ed] to his being forced out of office.”130
The outbreak of the Spanish-American War at the end of April put a stop to any more official encouragement to resign. Neither did Sharpe speak further of resignation. However, the war was short-lived and over by August, and by the end of December “the controlling powers of the Treasury Department” renewed their desire to see him resign. He had already anticipated them in November by asking McKinley to accept his resignation, but this time the President asked him to postpone his departure by a few more months. On February 4, 1899, Sharpe finally submitted his resignation effective on the last day of the month. McKinley replied with a gracious note that acknowledged Sharpe’s reason for putting aside his duties. “I regret that you find your advanced years inconsistent with a continuation in the public service.”131