[Footnote 1689: "Suggestions were made that the subst.i.tution of Mr.
Conkling for General Grant would give him the nomination, and there was a moment when General Garfield apprehended such a result. There was, however, never a time when it was possible. The 306 would never have consented unless Grant"s name were first withdrawn by his authority. A firmer obstacle would have been Conkling"s st.u.r.dy refusal to allow the use of his name under any circ.u.mstances."--Boutwell, _Reminiscences_, Vol. 2, p. 269.]
Conkling"s presentation of Grant was largely relied upon to gain the needed votes. Prior to 1876 little importance attached to such speeches, but after the famous oration of Robert G. Ingersoll at Cincinnati, which became influential almost to the point of success, the solicitude exhibited in the selection of dominating speakers const.i.tuted a new phase in convention politics and added immeasurably to the popular interest. By common consent Conkling was named to present the Stalwarts" choice, and in most of the qualities desirable in such an address his was regarded the best of the day.
The lines of Private Miles O"Reilly,[1690] suggested to the Senator on the evening before he spoke, caught the convention as quickly as did Ingersoll"s opening sentences in 1876, and all that followed, save his sarcasm and flashes of scorn, held the closest attention. "His unmatched eloquence," said Brandegee of Connecticut.[1691] This was the judgment of an opponent. "It had the warmth of eulogy, the finish of a poem, the force and fire of a philippic," said the _Inter-Ocean_.[1692]
This was the judgment of a friend. All the art of which he was master found expression in every sentence, polished and balanced with rhetorical skill, and delivered with the emphasis and inflection of a great orator. One critic thought it a revelation to find a man who could be eloquent with studied composure, who could be fervid without wildness, and who could hold imagery and metaphor to the steady place of relentless logic without detracting from their special and peculiar character.
[Footnote 1690:
"When asked what State he hails from, Our sole reply shall be, He comes from Appomattox And its famous apple-tree."]
[Footnote 1691: From his speech nominating Elihu B. Washburne.--Chicago _Tribune_, June 7, 1880.]
[Footnote 1692: Chicago _Inter-Ocean_, June 7, 1880.]
Not content with reciting the achievements of his own candidate, Conkling seriously weakened his oration as a vote-making speech by launching shafts of irony first into Sherman and then into Blaine.
"n.o.body is really worried about a third term," he said in conclusion, "except those hopelessly longing for a first term. Without patronage, without telegraph wires running from his house to this convention, without election contrivances, his name is on the country"s lips.
Without bureaus, committees, officers, or emissaries to manufacture sentiment in his favour, without intrigue or effort, Grant is the candidate whose supporters stand by the creed of the party, holding the right of the majority as the very essence of their faith, and meaning to uphold that faith against the charlatans and guerillas, who, from time to time, deploy and forage between the lines."[1693] As these sabre-cuts, dealt with the emphasis of gesture and inflection, flashed upon the galleries, already charmed with the accomplishment of his speech and the grace of his sentiment, loud hisses, mingled with distracting exclamations of banter and dissent, proclaimed that the spell of his magic was broken.
[Footnote 1693: New York _Times_, June 7.]
Balloting for a candidate began on the fifth day. Many rumours preceded Conkling"s method of announcing New York"s vote, but when his turn came, he explained that although he possessed full instructions concerning the true condition of the vote, he thought it better to call the roll, since several of the delegates preferred to speak for themselves. This plan, so adroitly submitted, made it impossible to conceal one"s vote behind an anonymous total, and compelled John Birdsall, the Queens County senator, to lead in the disagreeable duty of disobeying the instructions of the State convention. Birdsall rose with hesitation, and, after voting for Blaine in a subdued voice, dropped quickly into his seat as if anxious to avoid publicity. Then the convention, having listened in perfect silence, ratified his work with a chorus of hisses and applause. Gradually the anti-third termers exhibited more courage, and after Robertson and Husted had called out their candidate with an emphasis that indicated pride and defiance, the applause drowned the hisses. Woodin"s conduct contrasted sharply with his usual courage. He was an aggressive member of the opposition, but at this moment, when brave hearts, unflinching resolve, and unruffled temper were needed, he stood at the rear of the hall, while Leander Fitts, his alternate, upon whom he cast the responsibility of violating a solemnly uttered pledge, feebly p.r.o.nounced the name "Blaine." The result of the roll-call gave Grant 51, Blaine 17, and Sherman 2.[1694] On the seventeenth ballot Dennis McCarthy, a State senator from Onondaga, changed his vote from Grant to Blaine. Thus modified the New York vote continued until the thirty-sixth ballot, when the Blaine and Sherman delegates united, recording twenty votes for Garfield to fifty for Grant. On this roll-call Grant received 306 votes to 399 for Garfield.[1695] Thus by a strange coincidence the Stalwarts registered the fateful number that marked their strength when the unit rule was defeated. During the thirty-six roll-calls Grant"s vote varied from 302 to 313, but in the stampede, when two hundred and fifteen Blaine men and ninety-six supporters of Sherman rushed into line for Garfield, the faithful 306 went down in defeat together. These figures justly became an insignia for the heroic.[1696]
[Footnote 1694: The first ballot was as follows: Grant, 304; Blaine, 284; Sherman, 93; Edmunds, 34; Washburne, 30; Windom, 10. Whole number of votes, 755; necessary to a choice, 378.]
[Footnote 1695: Thirty-fifth ballot: Grant, 313; Blaine, 257; Sherman, 99; Edmunds, 11; Washburne, 23; Windom, 3; Garfield, 50. Thirty-sixth ballot: Grant, 306; Blaine, 42; Sherman, 3; Washburne, 5; Garfield, 399.
Conkling"s peculiar manner of announcing New York"s vote excited criticism. "Two delegates," he declared, "are said to be for Sherman, eighteen for Blaine, and fifty are for Grant." The chairman of the West Virginia delegation, whom the Senator had sought to unseat, mimicking the latter"s emphasis, announced: "One delegate is said to be for Grant, and eight are known to be for Blaine."]
[Footnote 1696: Some months later Chauncey I. Filley, a delegate from St. Louis, caused the Grant medals to be struck for the 306, on which was emblazoned "The Old Guard."]
After Garfield"s nomination the Stalwarts of the New York delegation did not conceal their disappointment. When everybody else was cheering they kept their seats, and while others displayed Garfield badges, they sullenly sought their headquarters to arrange for the Vice-Presidency. Leaders of the Garfield movement, now eager to strengthen the ticket, looked to them for a candidate. New York belonged in the list of doubtful States, and to enlist the men who seemed to control its destiny they instinctively turned to the defeated faction. William M. Dennison, a former governor of Ohio, promptly made their wishes known, confidently counting upon Conkling"s cooperation, since the Senator had been the first on his feet to make Garfield"s nomination unanimous. In doing so he expressed the hope that the zeal and fervour of the convention would characterise its members "in bearing the banner and carrying the lances of the Republican party into the ranks of the enemy."
Conkling"s treatment of Dennison"s request has been variously reported. One version is that he demanded the nomination of Chester A.
Arthur; another, that he sternly refused to make any suggestion.
Contemporary press reports confirm the first, basing it upon his desire to vindicate Arthur and humiliate Sherman; the second is supported by Alfred R. Conkling"s biography of his uncle.[1697] But neither report is correct. Conkling bitterly resented Garfield"s nomination, predicted his defeat at the polls, and did not hesitate to dissuade friends from accepting the nomination for Vice-President.
"The convention has nominated a candidate, but not a President," he said to Stewart L. Woodford. "Since the nomination I have heard from an influential friend at Albany, who declares that Garfield cannot carry New York. Now, the question is, whom shall we place upon the altar as a vicarious sacrifice? Mr. Morton has declined. Perhaps you would like the nomination for Vice-President?" Being a.s.sured that Woodford would accept it if tendered to him, Conkling added: "I hope no sincere friend of mine will accept it."[1698]
[Footnote 1697: "It has been a.s.serted that this nomination was a boon to Roscoe Conkling to secure his support of Garfield. To deny this is almost supererogatory. He sternly refused to make any suggestion."--Conkling, _Life of Conkling_, p. 607-608.]
[Footnote 1698: Woodford"s interview with the writer, October 4, 1908.]
In the event of Grant"s nomination Levi P. Morton had been prominently mentioned as a proper candidate for Vice-President. He was then fifty-six years of age, and had achieved high reputation in banking and financial circles. Though not eloquent according to the canons of oratory, he spoke with clearness, was widely intelligent, and had given careful attention to public questions. Conservative in his nature and st.u.r.dy in his principles, he always advised against rashness and counselled firmness. A single session in Congress had proven his zeal in the performance of public duty, and his fitness for Vice-President was recognised then as it was eight years later when he became the running mate of Benjamin Harrison. Upon his nomination, therefore, Garfield, before the convention had recessed, sent word by Dennison that he desired Morton nominated for second place. Morton, answering that his nomination must not be made without previous consultation with his a.s.sociates, immediately informed Conkling of Garfield"s desire. Conkling replied, "If you think the ticket will be elected; if you think you will be happy in the a.s.sociation, accept."
To this Morton answered, "I have more confidence in your judgment than in my own." Conkling then added: "Governor Boutwell of Ma.s.sachusetts is a great friend of yours. Why don"t you talk with him?" Acting upon this suggestion Morton sought Boutwell, who advised against it. Morton acquiesced and refused the use of his name.[1699]
[Footnote 1699: Mr. Morton"s letter to the author, dated September 14, 1908.]
After returning to their headquarters at the hotel the Stalwarts, upon the suggestion and insistence of George H. Sharpe, quickly agreed upon Chester A. Arthur, who gave an affirmative response to their appeal.
Conkling was not present at the time, but subsequently in Arthur"s room, where Howard Carroll and several other delegates lingered, he bitterly opposed placing a Stalwart upon the ticket and expressed in unmeasured terms his disapprobation of Arthur"s acceptance.[1700] On their way to the convention Sharpe told Woodford of the pungent flavour of Conkling"s invective, and of Arthur"s calm a.s.sertion of the propriety of his action. At the wigwam Conkling refused Sharpe"s request to place Arthur in nomination.[1701]
[Footnote 1700: Letter of Howard Carroll to the author, dated October 15, 1908.]
[Footnote 1701: Interview of author with General Woodford.]
Upon the rea.s.sembling of the convention California presented Elihu B.
Washburne for Vice-President, a nomination which Dennis McCarthy of New York, amidst cordial and hearty applause from the galleries, seconded in a forceful speech. This indicated that Arthur was _persona non grata_ to the anti-Grant delegates of the Empire State. Jewell of Connecticut, Ferry of Michigan, Settle of North Carolina, and Maynard of Tennessee, were likewise presented. As the call of States proceeded New York made no response in its turn, but when Woodford subsequently proposed the name of Arthur, Dennison responded with a spirited second, followed by delegates from New Jersey, Illinois, Mississippi, Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. This array of backing brought McCarthy to his feet, who withdrew his second to Washburne and moved that Arthur"s nomination, under a suspension of the rules, be made by acclamation. This required a two-thirds vote and was lost.
Then Campbell of West Virginia, amidst the loudest cheers of the evening, seconded the nomination of Washburne. "Let us not do a rash thing." he said. "The convention has pa.s.sed a resolution favouring civil service reform. Let us not stultify ourselves before the country."[1702]
[Footnote 1702: New York _Tribune_, June 9.]
At first Arthur"s strength was confined to the Grant delegation, twenty-five States showing an increase of only seventy votes, thirty of which came from the South. But as the roll-call proceeded New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania brought other States into line, the ballot giving Arthur 468, Washburne 193, and other favourite sons 90.
Arthur"s nomination was a distinct disappointment. To many it was an offence. Within the State leading Republican journals resented it by silence, while others were conspicuously cold; without the State it encountered even greater disadvantages, since his dismissal as collector of customs had advertised him as the enemy of reform, the apostle of bossism, and the friend of whatever was objectionable in politics.[1703] Yet his friends found a creditable record. He had successfully opposed the well-known action of Jonathan Lemmon, who sought to recover eight slaves which he incautiously brought into New York on his way from Virginia to Texas; he had established the right of coloured people to ride in the street-cars; and he had rendered valuable service in the early years of the war as engineer-in-chief and quartermaster-general on the staff of Governor Morgan. He possessed, too, an inherited instinct for keeping faith with men. In his relations with politicians of high or low degree there was not a trace of dissimulation or double-dealing. His career is a study of the evolution of character. It is not strange, perhaps, that in the days of custom-house investigations and bitter partisan strife, when he was known as an henchman of Conkling, there was a lack of public appreciation of the potentialities of a unique personality, but the Arthur heritage included then as afterward absolute truthfulness, shrewdness of judgment, high-minded patriotism, and consciousness of moral obligation.[1704]
[Footnote 1703: After the nomination John Sherman wrote to a personal friend: "The nomination of Arthur is a ridiculous burlesque, inspired, I fear, by a desire to defeat the ticket. His nomination attaches to the ticket all the odium of machine politics, and will greatly endanger the success of Garfield. I cannot but wonder how a convention, even in the heat and hurry of closing scenes, could make such a blunder."--Burton, _Life of Sherman_, p. 296.]
[Footnote 1704: "I do not think he [Arthur] knows anything. He can quote a verse of poetry, or a page from d.i.c.kens and Thackeray, but these are only leaves springing from a root out of dry ground. His vital forces are not fed, and very soon he has given out his all."
Mrs. James G. Blaine, _Letters_ (February 21, 1882), Vol. 1, p. 309.]
CHAPTER x.x.xIV
TILDEN, KELLY, AND DEFEAT
1880
The defeat of Governor Robinson did not apparently change party sentiment respecting Tilden"s renomination for the Presidency. No other candidate was seriously discussed. Indeed, the Democratic press continued to treat it as a matter of course, coupling with it the alleged subversion of an election, transcending in importance all questions of administration, and involving the vital principle of self-government through elections by the people. This new issue, dwarfing all other policies, had been for three years the cornerstone of every Democratic platform in state, county, or congressional convention. No argument seemed to weaken it, no event could destroy it. The Republican claim that the vote of three Southern States, as declared at the polls, was the result of terrorism and did not in any sense represent an honest expression of the popular will, made no impression upon it. The well-known fact that Congress, because of the confusion of the situation, had wisely sought a remedy in the Electoral Commission, which was pa.s.sed by Democratic rather than Republican votes, in nowise weakened the force of its appeal. Not even did the disclosure that Tilden"s house had become the headquarter of confidential agents, who sought to corrupt the electors, produce any change in it. The one declaration, patiently and persistently kept before the people, was that Tilden had been elected by the popular vote and defrauded by a false count of the electoral vote, and that the supreme issue in 1880 must be whether "this shall be a government by the sovereign people through elections, or a government by discarded servants holding over by force and fraud."[1705] The reiteration of this proposition made Tilden, it was claimed, the necessary and inevitable candidate of the Cincinnati convention, called to meet on June 22. The party seemed to believe, what Tilden himself had announced from his doorstep three years before, that the country would "never condone fraud," and it did not propose to sacrifice a winning issue.[1706]
[Footnote 1705: Tilden"s letter of June 18, 1880.--_Public Writings and Speeches_, Vol. 2, pp. 502-506.]
[Footnote 1706: "If the Democrats do not nominate Mr. Tilden, they do relinquish the fraud issue--the strength of their canva.s.s."--New York _Sun_, June 22, 1880.]
Nevertheless, many New York Democrats disliked Tilden. Their number, which the cipher disclosures materially increased, grew into threatening proportions after Kelly"s dissatisfaction had settled into a relentless feud. This condition made Tilden"s chances of carrying the State uncertain if not absolutely nil, and encouraged his critics to magnify his weaknesses until the belief generally obtained that serious, perhaps fatal opposition would array itself at the State convention on April 20. Statements as to Tilden"s ill-health likewise found currency. When not displaying evidence of unimpaired mental vigour in the courtroom, he was said to be on the verge of total paralysis.[1707] To his burdens the government also added another by pursuing his income tax. This suit, commenced in January, 1877, and destined to drag through five years until dismissed by the prosecution without costs to either party, was fixed for the April term in 1880, although the United States attorney admitted his unpreparedness for trial.[1708] "Thus was he persecuted with unrelenting virulence by the Administration," says his biographer, "and by the Republican press, which neglected no opportunity of refreshing the memory of its readers in regard to his imputed capacities for wickedness."[1709]
[Footnote 1707: The _Nation_, April 22.]
[Footnote 1708: See district attorney"s letter, Bigelow, _Life of Tilden_, Vol. 2, pp. 254-259, 264.]
[Footnote 1709: _Ibid._]
Meanwhile, to escape interruptions to which Gramercy Park exposed him, Tilden settled in the summer of 1879 at Greystone on the Hudson, three miles beyond the northernmost limit of the city, on the highest ground south of the Highlands. Here he brought a portion of his library; here he mingled with his flocks and herds; and here in the seclusion of a n.o.ble estate, with the comforts of a palatial stone dwelling, he discoursed with friends, who came from every part of the country to a.s.sure him that he alone could keep the party together. Ever silent as to his own intentions Tilden talked of the crime of 1876 until his visitors, imbued with his own spirit, left him thoroughly impressed with the importance of his renomination.
But Tilden did not trust the result to sentiment. Throughout New York Daniel E. Manning and other lieutenants held a tight rein, and when the Syracuse convention a.s.sembled an early roll-call, on a resolution to determine the character of the Committee on Credentials, showed 295 votes for Tilden to 80 against him. If this overwhelming majority shocked the dissenters, it was not less a surprise to the regulars. In the convention of 1876 Tilden mustered, including Tammany, only 201 out of 375; now, after his enemies had exhausted their opposition, he proved stronger than in the closing months of his famous career as a reform governor. The result of this vote settled all controversies, leaving the convention free to appoint electors and to select delegates to Cincinnati.[1710] It was not to adjourn, however, until it had shown a serene and polite contempt for John Kelly. During the morning John B. Haskin, on behalf of the Tammany convention, had presented a resolution expressing a desire for the union of the party and asking the appointment of a harmony committee. Ignoring the a.s.sembly from which he came, the convention treated the resolution as a personal communication from Haskin, whom it a.s.sured, after politely reciprocating his desire for the union of the Democratic party, "that the deliberative wisdom of the national convention will result in such action as will secure the triumph of the Democratic party in the ensuing election."[1711] This bitter rebuff, coupled with the overwhelming majority for Tilden, indicated a conscious strength which deeply impressed the party in other States, and greatly aided in demoralising opposition in New York.
[Footnote 1710: Delegates-at-large: Lucius Robinson, Calvin E. Pratt, Rufus W. Peckham, and Lester B. Faulkner. The last named was chairman of the Democratic State committee.]