Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

dawned on me that a cable had been received from Washington announcing my promotion to the grade of brigadier-general of volunteers. It had been quick work, being largely the result of the passage of the Rio Grande at Calumpit, only a week before, and was brought about by a cabled recommendation from the corps commander, Major-General Elwell S. Otis, based on the reports and recommendations of Generals MacArthur and Wheaton. I must confess that I was highly gratified, and nearly forgot the throbbing in my hand.. My wound was not so severe that I was compelled to go to the hospital, but I was allowed to live in quarters, going once a day to have my hand

dressed. In ten days I was allowed to return to duty, though the hand had to be carried in a sling for a couple of weeks more. General Wheaton had been assigned to the command of another brigade for the purpose of participating in important operations on the "South Line," so that, much to my gratification, I was assigned to the command of the First Brigade of the Second Division, and so had my old regiment and the First Montana until they were relieved by two regular regiments. The narrative of the lively fighting around San Fernando, Pampanga, which had been occupied by our troops on the evening of the engagement at Santo Tomas, forms another story.

THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONVENTIONS OF 1880 AND 1884

H

By James Ford Rhodes

JAYES became president on March 4, 1877, and was confronted with a Democratic House chosen in the presidential year. The elections of 1878 resulted in a Democratic House and Senate, and there were few to predict Republican success in 1880. Hayes had alienated the "Stalwarts" by his Southern policy and the party workers by his efforts to reform the Civil Service, but, despite factional troubles, there was a strong undercurrent of confidence in the Republican party, due to the President's wise administration and to the improvement in business and financial conditions. That this was felt by the politicians is evident from the eager competition for the Republican presidential nomination of

The Senatorial triumvirate, Conkling, of New York, J. D. Cameron, of Pennsylvania, and Logan, of Illinois, were first in the field with their warm advocacy of General Grant, whom, in the various ways necessary to bring a man before the country, they put forward as a candidate during the year preceding the convention. Soon after the expiration of his second term, Grant started on a tour round the

world, and was received both in Europe and in Asia with distinguished courtesies never before accorded to an American citizen. Full reports of his progress were given by the newspapers, and every one felt a glow of pride in reading of the honors bestowed upon the representative of his country. When Grant arrived at San Francisco in September, 1879, he was certainly the most popular man in the United States. His reception in that city could not have been more enthusiastic, and the leisurely trip thence to Chicago was attended by a continuous ovation, which was later repeated when he went from his old home of Galena to Philadelphia. The demonstrations were a non-partisan tribute to the first citizen of the country, but as the "Grant boom" was already well in progress, those favoring it did not scruple to make political capital out of the enthusiasm elicited by their candidate. The Senatorial triumvirate had no assurance from Grant that their efforts met with his favor, but Conkling, from intimate association with him during his presidency, knew his man and was well aware that his silence gave consent.

In August, 1879, Grant wrote to Badeau in a private letter, “I am not a candidate

for any office nor would I hold one that required any manoeuvring, or sacrifice to obtain "; and, during the first few months after his home-coming, his position undoubtedly was that if the Republican party unanimously, or nearly so, demanded that he should be their candidate, he would deem it his duty to comply with their wish. Twice he had been unanimously nominated and, as he believed that he had served his country well in the presidential chair, it is not surprising that he thought the nomination might be offered him again with one voice. While the feeling against a third term might have prevented in any case a unanimous call, yet had Grant rounded out his military career by making an excellent president, it is almost certain that, when the Convention met, he would have had a sufficient following to secure his nomination, by a good majority, on the first ballot. Adept as were the Senatorial triumvirate in all the arts of political manipulation, they could not have hoped for success had not Grant been strong with a mass of the people whose thoughts dwelt upon him at Appomattox, rather than in the White House. Those national traditions, to be sure, which implied distrust of the continuance of one man in high office with the possible consequences of personal ambition shaping the country's policy and misusing the patronage, supplied an argument well-nigh unanswerable against a third term directly succeeding the second; but little weight should be attached to these considerations in the case of a former president. Early in 1880 Grant went to Cuba and was out of the country a little over two months. Meanwhile, the Senatorial triumvirate were actively at work. It was argued that Grant was needed to maintain a vigorous Southern policy and to protect the negro at the South in his exercise of the suffrage. Already, through the suppression of the negro vote, the Democrats had secured the House and the Senate and, although a number of Southern States had voted for Grant in 1868 and 1872, and for Hayes in 1876, it was evident that in 1880 the "solid South" (that is, all the former slave States), would be for the Democratic candidate. Moreover, so the argument ran, the Democrats, indignant at the manner of their defeat in 1876, and now having possession of the Senate and the House, would

by fair means or foul "count in" their candidate unless they had for their opponent the resolute and warlike Grant.

Cameron was the first to produce results, having called the Pennsylvania State Convention for the early date of February 4, but he had to encounter in his State a strong feeling for Blaine who, next to Grant, was the most formidable candidate. Cameron, however, was audacious and had a powerful machine. He dominated the Convention, which by a vote of 133 to 113 instructed the delegates to the National Convention to vote for Grant and then, without a division, adopted the unit rule. The unit rule implied that the whole vote of the State should be cast for the candidate in whose favor the instructions were given, and that, on all questions coming before the National Convention, a majority of the delegation should decide how the State, as a whole, should vote. Three weeks later, Conkling followed with his New York State Convention, which he conducted with great skill, although in one respect his task was easier than Cameron's, inasmuch as the sentiment for Grant was stronger in New York than in Pennsylvania. He did not deem it wise or necessary to provide for the unit rule in unequivocal language, but, by deft management, he had the Convention adopt a resolution which implied this rule without arrogantly overriding the minority.

While the Pennsylvania and New York Conventions gave an impetus to the boom for Grant, they showed that instead of the party calling upon him with one voice for its leader, his nomination must be fought for in the manner of ordinary candidates. The attitude of Grant himself reflects the change in his opinion from December 1879 to May 1880. In December, while in Philadelphia, he was asked, "Will you not be disappointed, after such an ovation from San Francisco to Philadelphia, if you are not returned to the presidency?" "No, not at all, but Mrs. Grant would," was his reply. In January George William Curtis thought that, though he did not seek the nomination, he expected it and, before the end of February, the general impression was that he would take it in any honorable way that he could get it. In May, his bosom friend, General Sherman, wrote in a private letter: "Grant is still a candidate, but, instead of being nominated by

acclamation, will have to scramble for it, a thing I cannot help but regret, as his career heretofore is so splendid that I cannot help feeling it impaired by common politics. He could so nobly rest on his laurels, but his family and his personal dependents prod him on, and his best friends feel a delicacy about offering advice not asked." Grant's situation supplies a commentary on the neglect of its ex-Presidents by a great nation, which might give them some official position with a liberal salary or, at all events, grant them a sufficient pension to enable them to live in dignified retirement. For Grant needed a job. He loved city life and the society of rich men, but had not sufficient wealth to reside in New York, unless he could obtain such employment as would give him an addition to his private means. This fact, together with the feeling that, if the country elected him for another term, its careful choice would be a vindication of his two administrations, led him, as events progressed, to grasp eagerly for the prize.

The opposition to Grant kept pace with the movement in his favor and at first was based almost entirely on the deep-seated conviction that a third term was undesirable, but, as the canvass grew in heat, the scandals of his administrations were revived and urged as a reason why the great trust should not again be committed to his hands. Blaine had a large following, and was as good a Stalwart as Grant himself, having indeed coined the appellation. John Sherman, the Secretary of the Treasury, and Senator Edmunds were advocated by those who approved of Hayes's administration, Edmunds being the first choice of the Independent Republicans, while E. B. Washburne, of Illinois, had a certain support.

Logan was the last of the Senatorial triumvirate to do his special work and his Convention did not meet until the 19th of May. In Illinois it had been the custom for the State Convention to choose all the delegates, the district delegates as well as those from the State at large, and this custom was now followed, with the result that a solid delegation for Grant was selected, but, under Logan's management, the proceedings were so high-handed that nine Congressional districts at once entered a protest and it was significant that one of these dis

tricts was Grant's own. Soon afterward there was an indignant mass-meeting in Chicago. It was decided to send antiGrant delegates from these nine districts and carry the contest into the National Convention.

The date fixed for the assembling of this Convention was Wednesday, June 2, and the place Chicago. Before the appointed day, many prominent delegates and the advocates of the several candidates came together in order to settle certain preliminaries by private discussion and conference rather than to carry all dissensions into the great Convention hall. This pre-Convention work had for its centre the Republican National Committee, a body always existent, composed of one member from each State and Territory. The contest in the Committee, and, indeed, in the Convention, until the balloting for candidates began, resolved itself into one between the Grant and anti-Grant forces. A majority of the members of the Committee were opposed to Grant's nomination, but Senator J. D. Cameron was chairman and the fact of his holding this position prompted the triumvirate to a bold plan to secure the organization of the Convention. It was the rule for the chairman of the National Committee to call the Convention to order and then to give way to a temporary chairman selected by the Committee. The Committee's choice would be anti-Grant, but Cameron would recognize a motion from the floor to substitute a Grant man, and on this vote he would apply the unit rule and likewise on any appeal from his ruling. The temporary chairman so chosen would continue the same parliamentary practice, a permanent organization friendly to Grant would be effected and he would be nominated on the first ballot. An analysis of the delegations shows clearly that, if the unit rule could have been enforced, this plan might have been carried out to the letter. The plan leaked out and the anti-Grant men were in dismay, for they lacked cohesion and were supporting several candidates, while the Grant party was like a military force obeying implicitly its leaders. On May 30 Garfield arrived in Chicago, and brought order out of chaos by insisting that the defeat of the unit rule was more important than the nomination of any candidate. He, with a number of other delegates,

representing different candidates, waited upon Conkling and gave him to understand that, on questions of organization, the anti-Grant men would act together. Under this inspiration, which brought jarring elements into union, the majority of the National Committee threatened to depose Cameron as chairman unless this plan of the triumvirate should be abandoned. A compromise was arrived at. Senator George F. Hoar, who was neither for Grant nor for Blaine, was agreed upon as temporary chairman, and the question of the unit rule went to the Convention where the antiGrant forces were in a majority. John M. Forbes, who was the Massachusetts member of the National Committee and an Independent, made this private note of opinion and of the action of the majority: "In spite of the objections to Grant, I preferred him, as being an honest man, to Blaine; but, for the purposes of a fair organization of the Convention, a combination with the Blaine leaders was necessary, and by patience and firmness we prevented the breaking up of the Convention."

The Convention building on the shore of the lake was said to be "one of the most splendid barns that was ever constructed." It held the delegates, alternates, press reporters, officials, distinguished guests, and ten thousand spectators. The acoustic properties were good. Flags and pictures of prominent Republicans covered the walls. The weather was comfortably cool during the first part of the proceedings, and the demand for tickets to the galleries was great. The Convention was called to order at noon of Wednesday, June 2, by Cameron, who, after a few remarks, said that the Republican National Committee had instructed him to place in nomination, as temporary chairman, George F. Hoar. Hoar was elected unanimously and, on taking the chair, made a brief speech, when the Convention accomplished some routine business and, after a session of three hours, adjourned until the next day.

Conkling and Garfield were the heroes of the Convention and led the opposing forces. Conkling stopped at the Grand Pacific Hotel, and, despite his supercilious manner, courted publicity. While eating his breakfast he was gaped at by curious crowds. Frequenting the office, the lobby, and other public rooms, and reclining on

the public sofas, he apparently desired personal homage from the crowd of lookerson who, coming from various States to witness a Convention and shout for their candidate, wandered about the hotels, eager to see the leaders of their party. Perhaps he thought to win favor for Grant by treating the crowd with unusual affability. His entrance into the Convention hall was a studied performance. Waiting until the opening prayer had secured order, he moved with a graceful stride down the long aisle, his physical attractions displayed to the best advantage. And, like a popular actor coming upon the stage, he got his round of applause. But, once in his seat, he laid affability aside and, relishing the contentious part of his mission, he allowed the spirit of domination full sway and, by sarcastic words and sneering tone, irritated his opponents and alienated wavering delegates whom different tactics might have won to his cause. Nevertheless, his leadership was effective in holding the following of Grant together without a break. When Conkling, early on the second day, was arguing in favor of his motion for a recess, Garfield, the time of whose entrance had perhaps been craftily arranged, entered the hall, eliciting a burst of cheers which drowned Conkling's voice. These two, brought into opposition in this episode, remained antagonists throughout the Convention, and it was an encounter of giants. Garfield was fair, conciliatory, persuasive, and in every move and speech made friends for his cause-opposition to the unit rule and the third term.

The first conflict in the Convention hall between Conkling and Garfield occurred early on the third day when Conkling offered a resolution that each delegate was bound in honor to support the candidate, whoever he might be, and all who refused should lose their seats in the Convention. On a roll-call of the States the ayes were 716, the noes 3. On this announcement Conkling moved that all who had voted no had forfeited their votes in this Convention. These three were from West Virginia; they rose in their places and said that they intended to support the nominee, but did not deem the resolution wise. It was a question how the Convention would act, to what extent it might rebuke this exhibition of independence, when Garfield rose and, in

a brief but impassioned speech espoused the cause of the three dissentients, ending with a request to Conkling to withdraw his motion. Garfield had so evidently carried the Convention with him that Conkling, after an exhibition of bad temper and an unsuccessful attempt to draw the presiding officer into the controversy [Hoar had been made permanent chairman], complied with Garfield's request. It is said, however, that he wrote on a newspaper, "I congratulate you on being the dark horse," and sent this to Garfield; or, as another version of the incident has it, the message was written on a card which was passed to Garfield, who read, "Is this the first appearance of the dark horse in this Convention?"

The action of the Convention on the report of the Committee on Credentials was on the whole favorable to the anti-Grant forces. The important decision was that the eighteen anti-Grant delegates from Illinois were given seats. It was during the consideration of the case of Illinois on Friday, the third day of the Convention, that a scene occurred which throws doubt on the claim of a National Convention to being a deliberative body. It was midnight and Emery A. Storrs, an eloquent lawyer from Chicago, in a speech advocating the admission of the entire Grant delegation from Illinois, mentioned almost in one breath "James G. Blaine" and "the grand old silent soldier!" When the galleries resounded in cheers for Grant, Conkling rose and waved his handkerchief to the galleries; these responded with the waving of handkerchiefs and the brandishing of umbrellas. The cheers, accompanied by singing, lasted twenty or thirty minutes, after which followed a wild demonstration for Blaine. Robert Ingersoll, who was on the platform, waved a woman's red shawl. Men took off their coats and used them for flags. Forbes wrote that the enormous audience was made up largely of Grant's Chicago friends; on the other hand, the New York Times [which favored Grant] declared that the galleries were packed with Blaine shouters. Both seem to have been partly right. Forbes wrote further that the delegates "caught the fever, and one faction after another yelled and paraded with the flags about the hall, acting like so many Bedlamites. An enthusiastic woman jumped on a rail behind the chair

man and began to harangue the meeting, balancing herself doubtfully on the narrow edge until ex-Governor Jewell gallantly supported her by both his hands until she could be pacified. In swinging her parasol about, she nearly struck me, just below her, and to avoid further danger I raised my umbrella, and sat safe under her (its) lee until she subsided."

One of the rules which governed the Convention of 1876 had left it doubtful whether the unit rule prevailed and on that account an "unseemly controversy" had arisen. For the sake of avoiding any uncertainty the majority of the Committee on Rules added a clause which in set terms demolished the unit rule. Garfield, being the chairman of the Committee, was again the centre of attraction; he presented the report and made a cogent argument in its favor, at the same time treating the minority with consideration and courtesy. Again he carried the Convention with him and his report was adopted. This action put an end to the hope of nominating Grant on the first ballot and showed that his supporters must win over doubtful delegates by persuasion instead of by force; but, had the unit rule been enforced, Grant would have received on the first ballot enough votes, probably, to secure the nomination.

The majority report of the Committee on Resolutions made no reference to Civil Service Reform, which in 1880 was a vital question, but on the floor of the Convention, Barker, a Massachusetts delegate, moved the addition of a resolution, declaring for it in no uncertain terms. This gave rise to one of the best-remembered sayings of this Convention. Flanagan, of Texas, sprang quickly to his feet declaring," To the victors belong the spoils," and asking, "What are we up here for? I mean that members of the Republican party are entitled to office, and if we are victorious we will have office." This caused general and hearty laughter. Other objections were made and the result looked uncertain, but Charles R. Codman, another Massachusetts delegate, made a vigorous remonstrance against an indicated tendency to shelve the subject, and, after some further discussion, the Civil Service Reform plank was adopted by a viva voce vote.

Not until the evening of Saturday, the fourth day, were the candidates put in nomination. Two speeches were made, which,

« НазадПродовжити »