Peter Cooper's prominent activity in national politics belongs to two periods,—that of the war for the Union, and that of the subsequent controversies over questions of financial policy.

As has been explained, he felt his life to be peculiarly identified with that of the nation born with him; and the idea that this nation should be destroyed in the midst of its triumphant progress was profoundly abhorrent to him. Like many other patriots, he was ready to save the Union by a compromise, if that were practicable. He advocated the purchase and liberation by the government of all the slaves in the United States; he promoted a "peace conference" on the very eve of the war. But when South Carolina had formally seceded and the gauntlet had been cast at the feet of national authority, his course was not uncertain. He was a representative of the New York Chamber of Commerce in the deputation of thirty leading citizens of New York which visited Washington in order to discover what plan Mr. Buchanan (then still President) had in view. They got no satisfaction from the President, but assured themselves of the firm loyalty of Mr. Seward, then Senator from New York.

A few weeks later the bombardment of Fort Sumter put an end to all projects of compromise. At the memorable mass meeting held in Union Square, New York, shortly after the receipt of this news, Peter Cooper, then seventy years old, was among the first to mount the platform. His familiar white hairs and kindly face were recognized by the crowd, which vociferously called for a speech from him. Stepping to the front, he uttered a few ringing sentences which sounded the keynote of the meeting. I quote but one or two:—

"We are contending with an enemy not only determined on our destruction as a nation, but to build on our ruins a government devoted with all its power to maintain, extend, and perpetuate a system in itself revolting to all the best feelings of humanity,—an institution that enables thousands to sell their own children into hopeless bondage.

"Shall it succeed? You say 'No!' and I unite with you in your decision. We cannot allow it to succeed. We should spend our lives, our property, and leave the land itself a desolation before such an institution should triumph over the free people of this country....

"Let us, therefore, unite to sustain the government by every means in our power, to arm and equip in the shortest possible time an army of the best men that can be found in the country."

From that day on his patriotism never doubted or faltered. When the war loan was announced he was the first man at the door of the subtreasury in New York waiting to make payment over the counter of all the money he had been able to collect without business disaster. "In those days," says a friend, "whenever he had nothing else to do, he would go down to the recruiting office and put in a substitute." It is estimated that he must have sent, first and last, about a score of soldiers to serve for him under the flag.

From the first he urged the emancipation and enlistment of the Southern negroes,—a policy which was ultimately adopted with successful results; and when in 1864, at the darkest hour of the struggle, there was danger of a fatal compromise, he actively promoted that great mass meeting in the hall of the Cooper Union which marked the turning-point of the struggle, carried the State of New York for Lincoln, and secured the triumph of the Union.

After the war was over he presided at another meeting, called to favor aid to the disabled soldiers of the nation; and the following paragraph quoted from his remarks on that occasion forms a fitting close to this brief notice of his patriotic activity:—

"If we required a stronger stimulus to urge us to perform our duty, we have only to turn our thoughts back to that fearful day when the armies of rebellion had entered Pennsylvania with the intent to subjugate the North to their domination. Had they been successful, they would have gloried in making us pay for the loss of their slaves and the expenses of their war. I trust that the government will not hesitate to tax my property and the property of every other man enough to provide for the comfort of our disabled soldiers and the families dependent on them for support."

In the financial controversies which accompanied and followed the period of "reconstruction" after the war, and were involved in the payment and adjustment of the national debt, Mr. Cooper appeared as an advocate of the "Greenback" party, and did not seem to realize that this was a complete reversal of his earlier position as a "hard-money" Democrat. I think the clue to this change may be found in his recollection of the war waged by Andrew Jackson on the United States Bank, and a vague feeling that the national banking system instituted by Secretary Chase was open to similar objections. To this may be added his growing inclination in favor of "paternal government,"—which in a man so thoroughly self-supporting and self-reliant can be explained only by the fact that his personal philanthropy overbalanced his political philosophy; that he became more anxious to relieve the distress he saw than to question the wisdom of measures taken for that purpose. Two things are certain: first, that Mr. Cooper's motives in his later political course were thoroughly pure and unselfish; and secondly, that his utterances and publications in this connection show him to be dealing with subjects which he did not understand. This statement is made without regard to the merits of the controversy, or the strength of the arguments contributed to it by others. The simple truth is that Mr. Cooper was too old to make original investigation of such questions, intelligently weighing all the modern conditions of industry and commerce, in which he was no longer an active participant. He accepted in 1876 the nomination of the Greenback party for the presidency; but the issue was already practically dead, and he received but 81,740 votes out of a total of 8,412,833 cast. Undaunted by this defeat, he continued to utter his views. Those who wish to study them in detail may consult the volume "Ideas for a Science of Good Government in Addresses, Letters, and Articles on a Strictly National Currency, Tariff, and Civil Service," which he issued at the age of ninety-two, in the last year of his life. His own summary of his position, given on page 212 of this book, shows that he desired a national legal-tender paper currency, irredeemable in coin, but "interconvertible" with government bonds, and regulated by law as to volume per capita; a "discriminating" protective tariff, "helpful to all the industries of the country, where the raw material and the labor can be furnished by our own people;" and a civil service divorced from party politics, based on personal fitness, with tenure of office during good behavior, moderate salaries, and pensions for the aged and sick, and provision for widows and orphans.