CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE HAYES-TILDEN PRESIDENTIAL CONTEST.
Nomination of R. B. Hayes for President--His Fitness for the Responsible Office--Political Shrewdness of Samuel J. Tilden, His Opponent--I Enter Actively Into the Canva.s.s in Ohio and Other States --Frauds in the South--Requested by General Grant to Go to New Orleans and Witness the Canva.s.sing of the Vote of Louisiana-- Departure for the South--Personnel of the Republican and Democratic "Visitors"--Report of the Returning Board--My Letter to Governor Hayes from New Orleans--President Grant"s Last Message to Congress --Letter from President Hayes--Request to Become his Secretary of the Treasury.
The Republican national convention of 1876 met at Cincinnati on the 14th of June of that year. After the usual organization the following eight nominations for President were made: Blaine, Morton, Conkling, Bristow, Hayes, Hartranft, Wheeler and Jewell.
The total number of delegates was 754. Blaine was greatly in the lead, receiving on the first ballot 285 votes, some from nearly every state. Morton received 124, Bristow 113, Conkling 99, Hayes 61, Hartranft 58, Jewell 11, and Wheeler 3. There were 7 ballots, in which Blaine steadily held his vote and slightly gained, receiving on the final ballot 351 votes. The vote for Hayes increased at each ballot until on the seventh ballot he received 384 votes, a majority over all.
Undoubtedly Blaine was the favorite of the convention, but the antagonisms that existed between him and Conkling probably defeated his nomination. I still believe that the nomination of Hayes was not only the safest, but the strongest, that could be made. The long possession of power by the Republicans naturally produced rivalries that greatly affected the election of anyone who had been constantly prominent in public life, like Blaine, Conkling and Morton. Hayes had growing qualities, and in every respect was worthy of the high position of President. He had been a soldier, a Member of Congress, thrice elected as Governor of Ohio, an admirable executive officer, and his public and private record was beyond question. He was not an aggressive man, although firm in his opinions and faithful in his friendships. Among all the public men with whom I have been brought in contact, I have known none who was freer from personal objection, whose character was more stainless, who was better adapted for a high executive office, than Rutherford B. Hayes.
Governor Hayes wrote me the following letter in recognition of my aid in his nomination.
"Columbus, O., June 19, 1876.
"My Dear Sir:--I trust you will never regret the important action you took in the inauguration and carrying out of the movement which resulted in my nomination. I write these few words to a.s.sure you that I appreciate, and am gratified for, what you did.
"My kindest regards to Mrs. Sherman.
"Sincerely, "R. B. Hayes.
"Hon. John Sherman."
His opponent, Samuel J. Tilden, was a man of singular political sagacity, of great shrewdness, a money-making man, who professed to represent, and perhaps did represent, as fairly as anyone, the ideas of the New York politicians of the school of Van Buren and Marcy. I knew Mr. Tilden personally and very favorably, as we were members of a board of railroad directors which frequently met. He seemed to take pleasure in talking with me about political events, and especially of the famous New York politicians, of whom Silas Wright and Mr. Van Buren were his favorites. He had acquired great wealth as the attorney of corporations, and was undoubtedly a man of marked ability and sagacity. He had taken an active part in defeating the corruption of Tweed in New York politics. He had been elected governor of the State of New York, as the candidate of reform and honesty in politics.
The long and important session of Congress adjourned on the 15th of August. It had been the arena for long debates, mostly on political topics growing out of reconstruction, and financial measures heretofore referred to. The pending presidential contest also excited much debate in both Houses. The administration of General Grant had not been entirely satisfactory, and the long continuance of the Republican party in power was an element of weakness. The complaints, unavoidable in the most honest administration, and the disappointments of office-seekers, placed that party on the defensive. The south had, by reconstruction, been practically restored to political power, and the body of the negroes had been substantially disfranchised, though legally ent.i.tled to the suffrage. Riots and crimes of every degree were committed in the south, notably in Louisiana, South Carolina and Florida.
Organized mobs and violence had deterred many from voting, and in some cases had prevented even the semblance of a free election.
I entered actively into this canva.s.s, more so than in any previous one. Three days before the adjournment, I made my opening speech at Marietta, Ohio, in which I discussed fully the dangers of the restoration of the Democratic party to power, the probability of their failure to enforce the const.i.tutional amendments, and the protection of the rights of the freedmen. I claimed that the election of Mr. Tilden would result in the virtual nullification of the const.i.tutional amendments, and amount to a practical restoration to power of the old Democratic party. The revival of the rebel claims, the refunding of the cotton tax, and the damages done to rebels, were fully commented upon, as were the outrages committed upon freedmen during the second administration of General Grant, the organization of Ku-Klux Klans, and the White League, and the boldness with which the laws were disregarded in the south.
It is difficult now to realize the condition of public affairs in all the states then lately in rebellion. The people of the south are certainly ent.i.tled to the highest credit for the great change that has recently been made in the government of their states, but it cannot be denied that during the ten years after the war their condition bordered on the despotism of mob rule and violence.
Financial questions, no doubt, entered into the canva.s.s, but in this respect Governor Tilden and Governor Hayes did not materially differ, while public opinion in the southern states was almost a unit in favor of the larger use of paper money. Their bankrupt condition made this policy almost universal there.
I continued until the day of election to make speeches, not only in Ohio, but in several of the states. I engaged in a joint debate with Senator Voorhees, of Indiana, at Columbia City, in that state, in September, which probably had more fun and humor in it than argument. It so happened that appointments were made for each of us at Columbia City, on the same day, and the managers of the two parties concluded that they would have a joint debate, and arranged for it, to which we both a.s.sented. There was a great crowd, and besides Mr. Voorhees and myself, "Blue Jeans" Williams, the candidate for governor, was to open the meeting in his peculiar way, to which, as it would not at all interfere with our debate, I did not object.
The debate was fully reported in the Chicago "Inter-Ocean," and is a very graphic specimen of popular debates in which each side claims to be the victor. I think it would be safe to say that from the close of Congress until the day of election I spoke on nearly every week day in some one of the five or six states which I visited.
The result of the presidential election in November, 1876, was extremely doubtful. It was soon a.s.serted that the majority either way would be very small, and that the probabilities were that Mr.
Tilden was elected. Zachariah Chandler, chairman of the national Republican committee, however, confidently telegraphed, on the morning after the election, that Hayes was elected by a majority of one in the electoral college. Further reports developed that on account of intimidation, frauds and violence, committed in the election in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida, the vote of each of those states was doubtful, and could only be ascertained by the reports of the returning boards. All of their electoral votes were needed to give Hayes the majority of one. Both parties claimed in each of the states a majority of the popular vote. In the heated state of political feeling in those states, it was a matter of grave doubt whether the count of the vote might not result in violence, tumult or war. On the evening of November 11, I received from President Grant the following telegram:
"Philadelphia, Pa., November 11, 1876.
"Received at Mansfield, O., 8:35 p. m.
"Senator John Sherman.
"I would be much pleased if you would join other parties, who have already accepted same invitation, to go to New Orleans to witness the canva.s.sing of the vote of Louisiana.
"U. S. Grant."
I replied that I would go as soon as practicable, and received the following answer:
"Washington, D. C., November 12, 1876.
"Received at Mansfield, O., 4 p. m.
"Hon. John Sherman.
"Unless you can reach there by Friday morning it will be too late.
"U. S. Grant."
I at once started for New Orleans, stopping on the way at Columbus to confer with Governor Hayes, who said he wished I would go to New Orleans, and witness the count, but expressed, in the strongest possible language, his opposition to any movement on the part of anyone to influence the action of the returning board in his favor.
He said that if Mr. Tilden was elected he desired him by all means to have the office. I proceeded to Cincinnati, where I met some of the gentlemen whom General Grant had requested to witness the count. When we arrived in New Orleans I found far less excitement in respect to the count than in Ohio. I there met the other gentlemen who had been, like myself, invited by General Grant.
They were Messrs. Stanley Matthews, Ohio; J. A. Garfield, Ohio; E.
W. Stoughton, New York; J. H. Van Alen, New York; Wm. D. Kelley, Pennsylvania; Job E. Stevenson, Ohio; Eugene Hale, Maine; J. M.
Tuttle, Iowa; J. W. Chapman, Iowa; W. R. Smith, Iowa; W. A. McGrew, Iowa; Sidney Clarke, Kansas; C. B. Farwell, Illinois; Abner Taylor, Illinois; S. R. Haven, Illinois; J. M. Beardsley, Illinois; John Coburn, Indiana; Will c.u.mback, Indiana; C. Irving Ditty, Maryland.
At New Orleans I was for the first time introduced to the members of the returning board, who, under the laws of Louisiana, were required to verify the count and whose return was final. We met also a large number of gentlemen who were there at the request of the national Democratic committee to perform the same duty that had been imposed upon us by General Grant. These gentlemen were John M. Palmer, Illinois; Lyman Trumbull, Illinois; William R.
Morrison, Illinois; Samuel J. Randall, Pennsylvania; A. G. Curtin, Pennsylvania; William Bigler, Pennsylvania; J. R. Doolittle, Wisconsin; George R. Smith, Wisconsin; J. E. McDonald, Indiana; George W. Julian, Indiana; M. D. Manson, Indiana; John Love, Indiana; Henry Watterson, Kentucky; J. W. Stevenson, Kentucky; Henry D.
McHenry, Kentucky; Oswald Ottendorfer, New York; J. B. Stallo, Ohio; Lewis V. Bogy, Missouri; James O. Brodhead, Missouri; C.
Gibson, Missouri; John Lee Carroll, Maryland; William T. Hamilton, Maryland; W. G. Sumner, Connecticut; P. H. Watson, Ohio; F. R.
Coudert, New York.
Before my arrival a correspondence had occurred between what was called the Democratic visitors and the Republican visitors in regard to our respective duties. This correspondence, all of which was reported to President Grant, resulted in the attendance of a certain number of each of the bodies of visitors at each session of the returning board, and thus a constant surveillance of the proceedings of the board was had. At the same time we received from the returning board the following letter:
"State of Louisiana, Office Board of Returning-Officers,} "New Orleans, November 18, 1876. } "Sir:--At a meeting of the board of returning-officers, held this day, the following preamble and resolution, introduced by General Thomas C. Anderson, was unanimously adopted, viz:
"Whereas, This board has learned with satisfaction that distinguished gentlemen of national reputation from other States, some at the request of the President of the United States, and some at the request of the national executive committee of the Democratic party are present in this city with a view to witness the proceedings of this board in canva.s.sing and compiling the returns of the recent election in this state for presidential electors, in order that the public opinion of the country may be satisfied as to the truth of the result and the fairness of the means by which it may have been attained; and whereas, this board recognizes the importance which may attach to the result of their proceedings, and that the public mind should be convinced of its justice by a knowledge of the facts on which it may be based, therefore, be it
_Resolved_, That this board does hereby cordially invite and request five gentlemen from each of the two bodies named, to be selected by themselves respectively, to attend and be present at the meetings of the board while engaged in the discharge of its duties, under the law, in canva.s.sing and compiling the returns, and ascertaining and declaring the result of said election for presidential electors, in their capacity as private citizens of eminent reputation and high character, and as spectators and witnesses of the proceedings in that behalf of this board.
"J. Madison Wells, "Chairman Board of Returning-Officers.
"Hon. John Sherman, St. Charles Hotel, New Orleans."
On the same day I answered in behalf of my a.s.sociates as follows:
"St. Charles Hotel, } "New Orleans, November 18, 1876.} "Sir:--I have received your note of to-day, with a copy of the resolution of the board of returning-officers of the State of Louisiana, and have communicated the invitation contained in it to the gentlemen who are here at the request of the President of the United States to witness the canva.s.sing of the vote at the recent election in this state for presidential electors, and am instructed by them to inform you of their acceptance of the invitation, and that they will designate a committee of five of their number to attend the meetings of the board. And I take this occasion to express my thanks for the courteous terms of this invitation, my deep sense of the importance of your proceedings, and my confident hope that they will be so conducted as to convince the public mind of the justice of your finding.
"John Sherman.
"Hon. J. Madison Wells."
A similar invitation was extended to the Democratic visitors, and substantially the same reply made. The returning board then proceeded to perform its duty under the law. At each session the Republican and Democratic visitors were present, and I neither know of nor have ever heard of any act being done or testimony taken by the board except in the presence of committees of the two bodies of visitors. The proceedings of the returning board were reported for each body of visitors and for the returning board, and all the evidence taken was not only delivered in the presence of the two visiting bodies, but was reported to the President and was published by Congress. Whatever opinions may be expressed as to the correctness of the findings of the returning board, there can be no doubt that its proceedings were open, fair and impartial. The board arrived at the conclusion that the Republican electors received a majority of the votes cast in Louisiana at that election, and were ent.i.tled to cast the vote of the state for President of the United States.
During the great excitement over this controversy, and also over that in South Carolina and Florida, exaggerated statements, without the slightest foundation, of frauds and improper conduct on the part of the returning officers were made and published. As to the action of the returning board of Louisiana, I feel bound now, after a long lapse of time, to repeat what was reported to General Grant by the Republican visitors, that it made a fair, honest and impartial return of the result of the election. In concluding our report we said:
"The proof of violence and intimidation and armed disturbance in many other parishes, is of the same general character, although more general and decisive, as to the five parishes particularly referred to. In the others, these causes prevailed at particular polling places, at many of which the Republican vote was, to a considerable extent, prevented.
"We hope to be able to furnish full copies of all testimony taken by the board, that the justice of its conclusions may be appreciated.
It is a tribunal, from which there can be no appeal, and, in view of the possible consequences of its adjudication, we have closely observed its proceedings and have carefully weighed the force of a large ma.s.s of the testimony upon which that adjudication has been reached.
"The members of the board, acting under oath, were bound by law, if convinced by the testimony that riot, tumult, acts of violence, or armed disturbance did materially interfere with the purity and freedom of election at any poll or voting place, or did materially change the result of the election thereat, to reject the votes thus cast, and exclude them from their final return. Of the effect of such testimony, the board was sole and final judge, and if, in reaching a conclusion, it exercised good faith and was guided by an honest desire to do justice, its determination should be respected, even if, upon like proof, a different conclusion might have been reached by other tribunals or persons.
"To guard the purity of the ballot; to protect the citizen in the free and peaceful exercise of his right to vote; to secure him against violence, intimidation, outrage, and especially murder, when he attempts to perform his duty, should be the desire of all men, and the aim of every representative government. If political success shall be attained by such violent and terrible means as were resorted to in many parishes in Louisiana, complaint should not be made if the votes thus obtained are denounced by judicial tribunals and all honest men as illegal and void."
Pending the action of the board I wrote to Governor Hayes the following letter, giving a general view of the testimony:
"State of Louisiana, Executive Department,} "New Orleans, November 23, 1876. } "My Dear Sir:--I have not written you sooner, for the progress of our visitation will be known to you through the papers sooner than from my letters, and the telegraph office here is more public than a sheriff"s sale. We sometimes hear of private telegrams before they are delivered. The action of the returning board has thus far been open and fair and only confirms the general result known before. We are now approaching the contested parishes. To five of them, viz: Baton Rouge, East and West Feliciana, Morehouse and Ouachita, the evidence of intimidation is so well made out on paper that no man can doubt as to the just exclusion of their vote. In these parishes alone we ought to have a majority of 7,000, but under the law the entire return must be excluded of all election districts where intimidation has affected or changed the result.
If this is done the result will give the Hayes electors majorities aggregating 24,111, and the Tilden electors 22,633, but in almost every parish the official return varies somewhat from the stated majorities, and thus far slightly reduces the Republican majority.