1900. 
 
 The Presidential Problem 
 
 FROM THE STANDPOINT OF 
 
 PRACTICAL POLITICS, 
 
 TOGETHER WITH A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE 
 
 NATIONAL CONVENTIONS 
 
 REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIES 
 
 FOR HALF A CENTURY. 
 
 The within three articles by Louis G. Hoyt, Esq., Secretary of the N. H. Republican 
 State Committee, were written for the Exeter (N. H.) News-Letter, and are reprinted 
 to satisfy a demand that they be published in pamphlet form. As first published the 
 article on the "Presidential Problem" appeared last. 
 

 
 65699 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL PROBLEM. 
 
 The renominatiou of bothMcKinley and 
 Bryan follows a precedent which has 
 happened but three times in the history 
 of the country, where the same candi- 
 dates have met in two Presidential elec- 
 tions, and in each instance the victorious 
 party in the first contest has been defeat- 
 ed in the second. 
 
 In 1824 and in 1828 JohnQuincy Adams 
 and Andrew Jackson were the opposing 
 candidates of the two great parties. 
 Adams won in 1824 and Jackson in 1828. 
 
 In 1836 and in 1840 Martin Van Buren 
 and William Henry Harrison were the op- 
 posing candidates. Van Buren won in 
 183G and Harrison in 1840. 
 
 In 1888 and in 1892 Benjamin Harrison 
 and Grovcr Cleveland were opposed to 
 each other as the Republican and Demo- 
 cratic candidates. Harrison w^on in 1888 
 and Cleveland in 1892. 
 
 Should McKinley be elected this fall, it 
 will be the only instance in our history 
 where a candidate for President has suc- 
 cessfully met the same opponent in two 
 national contests. 
 
 PARTY MAXAGEMENT. 
 
 Few people realize the immense respon- 
 sibility which will devolve upon party 
 management as represented by national 
 and state committees during the next 
 few months. 
 
 Apparently trivial matters happening 
 at a critical time in the closing hours of 
 a campaign have defeated the ambition 
 of some of our greatest men, and changed 
 the whole character of our national 
 policy. 
 
 Every word from now on publicly 
 spoken by Mr. McKinley or Mr. Bryan 
 will be flashed as news items to -the four 
 quarters of the country and made the 
 subject of general discussion. The oppo- 
 sition will seek to distort every sentiment 
 uttered by either into meanings never in- 
 tended, but such as will tend to give party 
 advantage. 
 
 Experience has shown this danger to 
 be so great that parties demand of candi- 
 dates that they place themselves entirely 
 in the hands of the party management, 
 and we have but two instances where 
 Presidential nominees have refused to be 
 thus subservient, and in each case the 
 party has suffered defeat in consequence. 
 
 Blaine's mistakes. 
 
 The most recent of these cases is that 
 of James G. Blaine, whose ability as a 
 manager for others was superior perhaps 
 to that of any man of his day, but who 
 made a lamentable failure as a manager 
 for himself. 
 
 Blaine not only directed his national 
 committee to use the Cleveland scandal, 
 which proved such a mistake, but digni- 
 fied a similar scandal concerning himself 
 by instituting a libel suit against a news- 
 paper publisher. His permitting himself 
 to be entertained by Jay Gould during the 
 canvass gave the opposition papers an 
 opportunity to point to this as evidence 
 that he was under the influence of Wall 
 street, and his giving Dr. Burchard an 
 opportunity to address him in behalf of a 
 delegation of ministers in the Fifth 
 Avenue Hotel in New York, while on his 
 
way home from his western tour on the 
 eve of the election, without having Dr. 
 Burchard's address first submitted to him 
 for inspection, were mistakes lie never 
 would have allowed others to make, and 
 but for which Blaine would have been 
 President. He lost New York by only 
 1200 votes, and Dr. Burchard's address 
 wherein he alleged that Blaine's fight 
 against the Democratic party was a fight 
 against "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" 
 was responsible for this result. Mr. 
 Blaine made no allusion to it in his reply. 
 As a result the words were prominent in 
 scare headlines in all the Democratic 
 papers of the state the next morning, and 
 were impressed so forcibly upon the 
 Catholics that Blaine lost a considerable 
 part of that voLe which otherwise would 
 have gone to him, and by this trivial in- 
 cident was the life ambition of one of our 
 greatest statesmen defeated. 
 
 A change of less than GOO votes in New 
 York state would have changed the re- 
 sult in the nation. 
 
 THE OLD PROBLEM. 
 
 The adoption by the Democrats at Chi- 
 cago in 1896 of a platform favoring the 
 free coinage of silver at a ratio of 16 to 1 
 placed safely in the Republican column 
 Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, 
 with a total of 52 electoral votes, states 
 which had before been doubtful. The re- 
 sult in these states had for some years 
 been the determining factor in our Presi- 
 dential elections. 
 
 While Indiana bears the unique distinc- 
 tion of being the only state which has 
 cast her electoral vote for the winning 
 candidate in every Presidential election 
 since 1856, New York's only exception 
 is when she voted for Seymour in 1868, 
 omitting iu both cases the Tilden-Hayes 
 contest, where by counting in certain 
 Southern states for Hayes which had 
 given Democratic majorities, he was 
 given a majority of one in the electoral 
 college. But unlike Indiana the vote of 
 
 New York has determined the result in 
 the nation in four recent elections. 
 
 In 1876 New York state cast its vote 
 for Tilden and would have elected Hayes, 
 without these Southern states. In 1880 it 
 cast its vote for Garfield, and its support 
 would have elected Hancock. In 1884 it 
 voted for Cleveland and would have elect- 
 ed Blaine. In 1888 it voted for Harrison, 
 and its vote would have re-elected Cleve- 
 land. 
 
 THE NEW PKOBLKM. 
 
 With these three Eastern states against 
 the Democrats a new pi'oblem in practical 
 politics was presented, of carrying the 
 the country for Bryan without their aid. 
 It was realized by all that the Chicago 
 platform declared for principles which 
 had a large following in the West, and 
 that their declaration would create new 
 political conditions the exact efi'ect of 
 which it was difficult to determine. 
 
 Indiana had for. some years been the 
 only Western state that had been reckon- 
 ed doubtful, although in 1892 Wisconsin, 
 for the first time in its history, and Illi- 
 nois, for the first time since it voted for 
 Buchanan in 1856, went Democratic, and 
 Ohio and Michigan divided their electoral 
 votes. 
 
 It was evident that the silver issue was 
 going to take some of these Western 
 states which had heretofore been safely 
 Republican and place them in the Demo- 
 cratic column, but as no contest had be- 
 fore been fought out on these lines it was 
 uncertain as to how great the changes 
 might be, there being no precedents to 
 guide in forming an opinion. 
 
 Mr. Bryan contended that on these 
 issues he would carry the doubtful state 
 of Indiana, and the Republican states of 
 Kansas, Nebraska, Washington, Wyo- 
 ming, Colorado, South Dakota, Montana, 
 Nevada, California, Oregon, Iowa, Ohio 
 and Illinois. He lost Indiana, but he 
 carried the first eight of these Republi- 
 can states, got one vote in California, 
 
but failed to carry either of tiie last four 
 states, which was fatal to his election. 
 
 The eight that he carried took from the 
 Republicans 39 votes, which, with the 
 one he got in California, gave him 40, or 
 4 more than the vote of New York state, 
 but in doing this he had lost Delaware, 
 Maryland and Kentucky, three Democratic 
 states which gave McKinley 23 votes; 
 so from the 40 votes he gained in the 
 West he had to sacrifice 23 votes in the 
 South, which left him a net gain of only 
 17 votes. 
 
 THE LESSON OF THE RETURNS. 
 
 An examination of the returns for 1896 
 shows that some of the states which 
 went for Bryan and McKinley were so 
 close that they must be placed as doubt- 
 ful in the present contest. 
 
 States which have given the prevailing 
 party a vote of 52 per cent., or less, of 
 the lohole vote cast have always been con- 
 sidered so close as to be doubtful for 
 future results. 
 
 The last election showed the following 
 to be such states, in some cases the 
 states being carried by a plurality merely. 
 
 DOUBTFtTL MCKINLEY STATES. 
 
 Electoral Votes. 
 
 Indiana, 15 50.81 per cent. 
 
 California, 8 49 29 " '' 
 
 Kentucky, 12 48.93 " " 
 
 Oregon, 4 50.01 " 
 
 Four states with 39 electoral votes. 
 
 DOUBTPUL BRYAN STATES. 
 
 Electoral Votes. 
 
 Kansas, 10 51.05 per cent. 
 
 Nebraska. 8 51.93 " " 
 
 So.Dakota, 4 49.09 " ' 
 
 Wyoming, 3 , 51.06 " 
 
 Four states with 25 electoral votes. 
 
 To which should be added one vote 
 from California and one from Kentucky, 
 which went for Bryan, making a total of 
 27 doubtful Bryan votes and 39 doubtful 
 McKinley votes. 
 
 The Democratic proposition will be to 
 hold the doubtful Bryan states and carry 
 
 the doubtful McKinley states, in which 
 event the vote will stand as follows : 
 
 McKinley's electoral vote. 1896 271 
 
 Bryan's " " " 1'''" 
 
 McKinley's majority in 1896 95 
 
 Deducting the above 39 doubtful Mc- 
 Kinley votes from the McKinley column 
 and adding to the Bryan column gives 
 this result : 
 
 McKinley's electoral vote, 1900 232 
 
 Bryan's " " "' « "1^ 
 
 McKinley's majority , 17 
 
 It thus appears that if the Democrats 
 succeed in holding all of their own and 
 carrying all of the Republican states held 
 in 1896 by a vote of 52 per cent., or less, 
 of the lohole vote cast^ McKinley will then 
 have 17 more votes than Bryan, and, of 
 the doubtful Bryan states, Kansas in the 
 last election gave a Republican plurality 
 of 15,000 for governor and Wyoming a 
 Republican plurality of 1,394, showing a 
 Republican tendency, to say the least, 
 while Oregon has just given an increased 
 Republican majority. 
 
 A TOUGH PROBLEM. 
 
 It must be borne in mind that the above 
 computation gives the Democrats every 
 state in the Union in which the Republi- 
 can vote in 1896 did not exceed 52 per 
 cent, of the tohole vote cast for all candi- 
 dates, and not 52 per cent, of the com- 
 bined Republican and Democratic votes. 
 This makes, as the mathematicians say, 
 "a tough problem" for the Democratic 
 managers to successfully solve, but if 
 they succeed in it they will still have a 
 majority against them of 17 votes. They 
 can overcome this only by taking nine 
 more votes from McKinley states and add- 
 ing to their own, which will, of course, 
 make a difference of 18 votes. 
 
 The Republican states in which the 
 
 McKinley vote in 1896 was lowest, aside 
 
 I from those appearing in the above list of 
 
 doubtful McKinley states, are as follows, 
 
6 
 
 the percentajje beiug that of the Republi- 
 can vote to the lohole vote cast : 
 
 Electoral 
 votes. 
 
 Ohio, 23 52.11 per cent. 
 
 West Virginia, 4 52.42 " " 
 
 Delaware, 3 53.41 " " 
 
 Michigan, 14 53.92 " " 
 
 Maryland, 8 54.60 " " 
 
 Illinois, 24 5.5.66 " " 
 
 To these states Bryan will have to look 
 for these additional nine votes. 
 
 The meaning of the above percentages 
 and the difficulty the Democrats will have 
 in overcoming them can be better under- 
 stood when it is said that it would mean 
 the wiping out of a plurality for Mc- 
 Kinley over Bryan of 47,000 in Ohio, 11,- 
 500 in West Virginia, 3300 in Delaware, 
 56,000 in Michigan, 32,000 in Maryland, 
 143,000 in Illinois. ' 
 
 These are the problems with which the 
 National and State Committees of the 
 two great parties will have to deal during 
 the next few months. ■ The partisans of 
 each candidate in their zeal for tlie cause 
 
 they espouse will, between now and elec- 
 tion, daily elect their respective idols in 
 club rooms and country stores and on the 
 street corners, the sporting man will 
 demonstrate the sincerity of his opinions 
 by wagers regulated only by the size of 
 his pocket book, the Standard Oil Com- 
 pany will sell its petroleum to illuminate 
 the anti-trust transparencies of both par- 
 ties, and the gunpowder combine will 
 run its works night and day to enable the 
 politicians to keep up the courage of their 
 constituents with Hreworks and noise. 
 
 But the committees who have assumed 
 the grave responsibilities of the cam- 
 paign will not be misled by all this out- 
 ward demonstration of patriotism and 
 party loyalty. Their eyes will be fixed on 
 the figures as they appear in the contests 
 of the past, and the election of our next 
 President will largely depend on the wis- 
 dom of their interpretation. 
 
 Louis G. Huyt. 
 
 Kingston, N. H., July 5, 1900. 
 
REPUBLICAN CONVENTIONS. 
 
 That sentiment of liberty which im- 
 pelled the colonists of 1776 to rebel against 
 the mother country had, from time to time 
 during the first half of the pi-esent cen- 
 tury, manifested itself in its sympathy 
 with the colored population of the South, 
 and while the desire for the abolition of 
 slavery on the one hand and its retention 
 on the other had in 185G not shown itself 
 in the open rebellion of any of the states, 
 yet on many occasions it had been threat- 
 ened, and was such a bone of contention 
 in congress and with the people that it 
 not only formed a menace to the nation 
 but a serious drawback to our prosperity 
 as a people. The anti-slavery sentiment 
 of the North was so strong at this time 
 that it only required a spark to ignite it 
 into a flame of indignation which would 
 seriously threaten the continued ascend- 
 ency of the Democratic party, which had 
 been in power continuously since 1800, 
 with the exception of the temporary 
 Whig triumphs of 1840 and 1848. 
 
 This spark was furnished by the pas- 
 sage in 1854 of a bill providing for the 
 organization of two new territories north 
 of latitude 36.30, under the names of 
 Kansas and Nebraska, and permitting 
 slavery therein if the people desired it. 
 This bill looked toward the extension of 
 slavery, repealing the Missouri Comprom- 
 ise of 1820, which expressly prohibited 
 slavery north of 36.30, and aroused the 
 most intense indignation throughout the 
 North. 
 
 THE FIRST REPUBUCAN CONVENTIOX. 
 
 This feeling was so strong in 1856 that 
 it was apparent it would become a lead- 
 
 ing issue in the campaign, although 
 neither of the then dominant parties had 
 the courage to accept the issue in their 
 platforms. The Democrats nominated 
 Buchanan, and the American or Know 
 Nothing party, whose principle of faith 
 was that "Americans must rule America," 
 nominated Millard Fillmore. 
 
 In the convention which nominated 
 Fillmore an eftbrt was made for the 
 adoption of an anti-slavery platform, but 
 the majority of the convention voting 
 against it a large body of delegates seced- 
 ed and nominated John C. Fremont, thus 
 giving birth to the Kepublican party, 
 which four years later came into power 
 and which has practically ruled the coun- 
 try ever since. 
 
 THE LINCOLN CONVENTION OF 1860. 
 
 In the election of 1856 the pivotal states 
 were Pennsylvania and Indiana and the 
 efforts of all parties were made to carry 
 these two states, but the opposition to 
 Buchanan was divided between Fillmore 
 and Fremont, which assured Buchanan's 
 success, but the returns showed that he 
 had carried his own state of Pennsylvania 
 by a majority of only 1025 votes and Indi- 
 ana by a majority of only 1909. Fremont's 
 immense vote in these states and through- 
 out the North, which greatly exceeded 
 Fillmore's, showed that anti-slavery was 
 to be the chief issue between the con- 
 tending parties of the future. 
 
 These figures demonstrated that when 
 the leaders of the llepublican party met 
 in Chicago in 1860 to nominate a Presi- 
 dential candidate their mission was not 
 
8 
 
 so much one of sentiment as of practical 
 politics. 
 
 Volumes of romance have been written 
 as to the success of Lincoln in that con- 
 vention, and his defeat of Seward has 
 been generally attributed to an admiration 
 for the ability Lincoln showed in his de- 
 bates with Douglass, but the returns in 
 the Fremont campaign made it manifest 
 that the national contest then pending 
 was to be decided by the votes of Penn- 
 sylvania and Indiana, and to the desire to 
 nominate a candidate who could best 
 unite the opposition to the Democrats in 
 those states was due Seward's defeat in 
 the convention. 
 
 "William H. Seward in 1860 held a posi- 
 tion as a leader in the Republican party 
 analogous to that of James G. Blaine 
 later, but unlilie Blaine he had few per- 
 sonal enemies. Seward went into the 
 convention with a large majority of the 
 delegates favorable to his nomination, 
 but the argument was advanced that both 
 Pennsylvania and Indiana had their state 
 elections in October, and it was absolute- 
 ly necessary to win the October elections 
 in order to carry these states in Novem- 
 ber, and in each of them it was essential 
 to secure the support of the large Know 
 Nothing vote of these states, in order to 
 carry them for the Republicans. Seward 
 could not command this support, because 
 he had advocated a division of school 
 funds in New Yorli state between Catli- 
 olics and Protestants, and the Know 
 Nothings were hostile to anyone who had 
 a friendly feeling for Catholics, The 78 
 delegates from Pennsylvania and Indiana 
 opposed Seward's nomination for this 
 reason, and were united on Lincoln. As 
 a result of this opposition Seward led 
 Lincoln by only 71 votes on the first 
 ballot, three votes on the second, and was 
 defeated by Lincoln's nomination on the 
 third. 
 
 In the election, of the states which voted 
 for Buchanan in 1856 Lincoln carried 
 Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois. Califor- 
 
 nia and four votes in New Jersey, secur- 
 ing a majority of 57 votes in the electoral 
 college. 
 
 Thus came into power a nevv party, 
 which was destined for greater achieve- 
 ments than have heretofore been accom- 
 plished by any political organization in 
 the history of either republics or em- 
 pires. 
 
 LINCOLN'S RENOMINATION IN 186'1. 
 
 It would hardly be expected that any 
 prominent Republican would allow his 
 name to be used in opposition to Lin- 
 coln's renomination, yet his opponents in 
 the party were so numerous that they 
 held a mass convention at Cleveland in 
 1864, and nominated John C. Fremont 
 for President. The regular Republican 
 convention renominated Lincoln by ac- 
 clamation, and he carried every state in 
 the Union, except New Jersey, Delaware 
 and Kentucliy, the Southern states not 
 voting. At the time of his nomination, 
 however, Lincoln had grave doubts of 
 his re-election, and was so skeptical of 
 the result of the October election in 
 Pennsylvania that he furloughed ten 
 thousand Pennsylvania soldiers to return 
 home, "to vote as they fought." 
 
 GRANT NOMINATED IN 1868. 
 
 The position of General Grant as a pol- 
 itician in 1868 was somewhat like that of 
 Admiral Dewey in 1900 While Grant, 
 like Dewey, had been given his opportu- 
 nities for acquiring distinction by a Re- 
 publican admiuistration in carrying out 
 Republican policies, with which he was in 
 entire sympathy, he had never voted any- 
 thing but a Democratic ticket, and cast 
 his first Republican ballot during his sec- 
 ond term as pi'esident. 
 
 The Democrats realized the demoral- 
 ization in which the war had left them 
 and they early began a movement to nom- 
 inate Grant as their candidate, which 
 likely would have been successful had it 
 not been for the bitter fight the Republi- 
 cans were making against Johnson, who 
 
then had Democratic support, and against 
 whom Grant entertained feelings of in- 
 tense hatred. While Grant was averse 
 to leaving his life position in the army, 
 he tinally consented to accept the Repub- 
 lican nomination, which was given him 
 by acclamation, his majority over Sey- 
 mour in the electoral college being 134 
 votes, but Seymour carried both New 
 York and New Jersey. 
 
 grant's renomination in 1872. 
 
 Grant's administration had been par- 
 ticularly factional, many of his army 
 friends in whom he had placed his con- 
 tidence had proven unworthy of it, and 
 he was severely criticised, but the Re- 
 publican opposition to him went into the 
 Liberal Republican organization which 
 nominated Greeley, so that w^hen the Re- 
 publican convention met in Philadelphia 
 it was harmonious, and Grant was nom- 
 inated by acclamation, and in the elec- 
 tion he defeated the different tickets op- 
 posed to him by the overwhelmingnnajor- 
 ity of 223 votes in the electoral college. 
 
 BLAINE'S AMBITION. 
 
 A sad fatality seemed to follow the 
 presidential ambition of James G. Blaine, 
 which in many respects resembled that of 
 Henry Clay, each of whom had more de- 
 voted admirers than any two men in our 
 history. Clay was twice defeated for 
 nomination in years when his party tri- 
 umphed in the election, and was nom- 
 inated in 1844 only to be defeated by 
 Polk. Blaine was likewise defeated for 
 nomination in the conventions of 1876 
 and 1880, when the Republicans carried 
 the elections, and was nominated in 1884 
 only to be defeated by Cleveland. While 
 the chief ambition of his life was to be 
 president, he had always said he never ex- 
 pected to attain it, but it was owing sole- 
 ly to the mistake of managing his own 
 campaign, to which I shall refer in an- 
 other article, that he suffered defeat in 
 the election. 
 
 THE BLAINE — HAYES CONTEST OF 1876. 
 
 Blaine entered the convention of 1876 
 with a majority of the delegates favor- 
 able to him, but ihe delegates from Penn- 
 sylvania, which was strongly Blaine in sen- 
 timent, were held by instructions to vote 
 for Governor Hartranft of that state, 
 and there were other complications 
 which prevented his having a majority 
 on any one ballot, although a majority of 
 the delegates had during the seven ballots 
 which resulted in the nomination of 
 Hayes actually voted for him. The 
 seventh ballot gave Hayes 384 to 351 for 
 Blaine and 21 for Bristow. 
 
 THE BLAINE-GARFIELD CONTEST OF 1880. 
 
 The most celebrated convention in the 
 annals of either party was the Republi- 
 can convention of 1880, where Grant's 
 memorable 306 delegates, led by Roscoe 
 Conkling, Blaine's bitterest foe, stood by 
 him through 36 ballots, and Blaine's 280 
 delegates through 35. 
 
 James A. Garfield was at the head of 
 the Ohio delegation which was instructed 
 for Senator Sherman, and his speech 
 nominating Sherman attracted such fa- 
 vorable attention that he was looked 
 upon as a possible dark horse in case of 
 a dead-lock between Grant and Blaine, 
 but it was not until the 34th ballot that 
 he had as many as 17 votes, which was 
 increased to 50 on the 35th and on the 
 36th he received the support of Blaine 
 and was nominated. 
 
 THE BLAINE- ARTHUR CONTEST OF 1884. 
 
 The friends of Blaine had made such a 
 stubborn contest In two conventions and 
 he had yielded to defeat with so much 
 grace that the sentiment in favor of his 
 nomination in 1884 was so strong as to 
 make it certain that it was within his 
 reach. He had been defamed in his pre- 
 vious contests without limit, and with 
 the Grant-Conkling influence against him 
 he had little heart to receive a nomina- 
 tion and enter a contest where he would 
 
10 
 
 have to meet not only the abuse of his 
 Democratic opponents, but the vindic- 
 tiveness of the hostile forces within his 
 own party. He, however, allowed his 
 name to go before the convention, and 
 on the fourth ballot received o-ll votes to 
 207 for Chester A. Arthur. 
 
 The vote of New York state defeated 
 him at the polls, and that state was so 
 close that a change of less thau 600 votes 
 out of a total of 1,167,000 would have 
 given him the state. 
 
 THE SHERMAN-HARRISON CONTEST OF 
 
 1888. 
 
 The Republican convention of 1888 had 
 for its leading candidate John Sherman, 
 of Ohio, for whom Pennsylvania had in- 
 structed its delegates, and on the first 
 ballot he had 221) votes, the next highest 
 candidate being Judge Greshara, of Indi- 
 ana, with 111 votes, the others being dis- 
 tributed among ten other candidates. 
 Sherman reached his highest vote on the 
 second ballot, and it soon became appar- 
 ent that he could not be nominated. Ben- 
 jamin Harrison steadily increased his 21 
 votes on the first ballot until he led Sher- 
 man on the seventh and was nominated 
 on the eighth, receiving one-half of Sher- 
 man's strength. New York's delegation 
 steadily supported Depevv. 
 
 HARRISON RE-NOMINATED IN 1892. 
 
 The party was practically united in 
 favor of Harrison's re-nomination in 1892, 
 which took place in the convention on 
 the first ballot. He had aroused many 
 antagonisms in the party during his ad- 
 ministration, and had utterly failed to 
 recognize the work of the leaders who 
 had made his election possible. Blaine, 
 it will be remembered, created surprise 
 throughout the country by suddenly 
 resigning as secretary of state just before 
 the assembling of the convention, and 
 starting for Europe. The opposition to 
 
 Harrison showed itself in the convention 
 in the 192 votes cast for Blaine and 192 
 for McKinley. 
 
 Harrison was badly beaten at the polls, 
 Cleveland carrying New York, Connecti- 
 cut, New Jersey and California, and the 
 strong Republican states of Illinois and 
 Wisconsin, and receiving five votes from 
 Michigan. 
 
 MC KINLEY NOMINATED IN 1896. 
 
 The year 189G found our industrial con- 
 ditions severely depressed and the cheap 
 money heresy gaining headway with the 
 rank and file of both parties in the West 
 and South. The demand for some sort 
 of relief from existing conditions seemed 
 to center on the more liberal use of silver 
 as money, so that each party was forced 
 to yield to the sentiment, the Democrats 
 declaring for the free coinage of silver 
 at a ratio of 16 to 1, without regard to 
 the attitude of other nations, and the 
 Republicans expressing opposition to 
 free coinage, "except by international 
 agreement, which we pledge ourselves to 
 support." 
 
 This attitude of the Republicans on the 
 financial issue caused the withdrawal of 
 3-1 delegates from the western states, 
 after which the convention nominated 
 McKinley by an overwhelming majority 
 over Reed. 
 
 NEW PROBLEMS. 
 
 The attitude of the Democrats on the 
 silver question while strengthening the 
 Republicans in the East weakened them 
 in the West, and created problems in 
 practical politics entirely new in the 
 jiistory of our parties, which I shall take 
 occasion to discuss in another article, 
 after the platforms are made up at Phil- 
 adelphia and Kansas City. 
 
 Louis G. Hoyt. 
 Kingston, N. H., June 4, 1900. 
 
DEMOCRATIC CONVENTIONS. 
 
 To give a history of tlie conventions of 
 the Democratic party would necessitate 
 going bacii to the Congressional caucus 
 which nominated Jeflerson in 1804. 
 
 Prior to this tlie constitution provided 
 that the Presidential electors should 
 meet and eacli vote for two candidates 
 for President, and the candidate receiv- 
 ing the largest number of votes for 
 President, if a majority, should be Presi- 
 dent, and the second largest vote for 
 President should be Vice President, but 
 in 1800 Thomas Jefferson and Aaron 
 Burr, both of the same party, received 
 the same number of electoral votes for 
 Pi'esident, whereby the election went into 
 the House, each state being entitled to 
 cast one vote and that to be determined 
 by a majority of the delegation, a major- 
 ity of the states being required to elect. 
 For 35 ballots Jefferson received the 
 votes of eight states and Burr of six, 
 two states being tied in their delegations 
 and so unable to vote. This made nine 
 states necessary for a choice, and it was 
 not until the 36th ballot that Jefferson 
 was elected by the vote of Vermont, 
 which broke the tie in its delegation by 
 one of its delegates refusing to vote. 
 
 This complication brought about an 
 amendment to the constitution which 
 took effect in 1804, whereby the electors 
 were to vote for one candidate for Presi- 
 dent and one for Vice President. 
 
 At this time most of the electors were 
 chosen by the legislatures of the several 
 states, instead of by popular vote, and 
 were supposed to use their individual 
 judgment in voting for President, with- 
 out any prior understanding or pledges, 
 such as are implied in nominating con- 
 ventions, but the experience of parties up 
 to this time showed the necessity of a 
 
 uniform understanding relative to the 
 candidates to be voted for by the electors, 
 before the latter were chosen. 
 
 After this, and for many years, the 
 Presidential nominations were made by 
 members of congress in a congression- 
 al caucus, and it was not until 1830 that 
 a political national convention was held 
 in this country, brought about by the 
 death of AVilliam Morgan, who, it was 
 claimed, was murdered by the Masons 
 for revealing the secrets of the order, 
 and originating the anti-Masonic party, 
 which attained much power. 
 
 This precedent was followed in 1831 
 by the National Republicans, who nomi- 
 nated Clay, and by the present Demo- 
 cratic party, in 1832, which was called to 
 nominate a candidate for Vice President 
 only, Jackson's claim to selection as 
 President being conceded. At this con- 
 vention the Democrats adopted a rule 
 which required a two-thirds vote to 
 nominate, and which has been the rule of 
 every Democratic convention since. 
 
 From Jefferson's time until ISGO the 
 Democratic party ruled the country, 
 being disturbed only by the temporary 
 Whig triumphs of Harrison over Van 
 Buren in 1840 and of Taylor over Lewis 
 Cass in 1848, neither of which changed 
 the general policy of the country in any 
 material respect. 
 
 It being my intention only to refer to 
 the Democratic conventions which have 
 taken place since that party first met its 
 present adversary in 1856, I will pass 
 along to that time, except to refer to the 
 convention of 1852 which conferred its 
 distinguished honor upon a citizen of 
 "New Hampshire. 
 
 MEW IIAMrSIlIUK IIONOKED IX 1852. 
 
 When the Democratic convention met 
 
 ^•'^ 
 
12 
 
 at Baltimore in 1852 the Whig party was 
 demoralized by the different views of its 
 leaders on the question ot restricting 
 slavery in its territory recently acquired 
 through the annexation of Texas. Pres- 
 ident Taylor began with one policy, 
 which was soon changed by his death 
 and the substitution of another by the 
 elevation to the presidency of Vice Presi- 
 dent Fillmore. 
 
 Webster had cast his lot with Clay and 
 the pro-slavery wing of the party, result- 
 ing in the passage of the Clay Comprom- 
 ise, which declared against the abolition 
 of slavery in the District of Columbia 
 and in favor of the admission of Utah 
 and New Mexico as Territories without 
 restrictions as to slavery. This meas- 
 ure greatly weakened the Whigs, but 
 was so acceptable to the Democrats of 
 the North as to thoroughly unite that 
 party. 
 
 While the Democratic convention of 
 this year was free from any bitterness of 
 feeling, it tools 49 ballots to " nominate. 
 Out of the 2S8 votes in the convention 
 Cass started with 116, which he practi- 
 cally maintained up to the 45th ballot. 
 Buchanan started with !)3, and could do 
 no more than hold his own. Douglass 
 started with 20, and reached 92 on the 
 30th ballot. There was no decisive 
 change until the 35th ballot, when Vir- 
 ginia, whose influence was then potential 
 in Democratic circles, cast a solid vote 
 for Franklin Pierce, whose name had not 
 before been mentioned. Pierce doubled 
 this vote on the next ballot, and remained 
 practically stationary until the 49th, 
 when he received substantially the unan- 
 imous vote of the convention. 
 
 Pierce's majority over Gen. Scott in 
 the electoral college was overwhelming, 
 Scott carrying only Vermont, Massachu- 
 setts, Tennessee and Kentucky. His 
 great victory over the Whigs, who car- 
 ried all the larger states of the Union in 
 the preceding election, except Ohio, has 
 been urged on many occasions since as 
 
 an argument in favor of the nomination 
 of a "dark horse." 
 
 Pierce was a gentleman of the old 
 school, and a very good school it was, 
 too. I remember passing him while he 
 was driving with his wife when I, as a 
 boy, was driving with another boy in one 
 of Hampton's famous "dingle carts," and 
 to our astonishment he saluted us with 
 that genial smile for which he was noted, 
 and with as much consideration as he 
 would give a personal acquaintance. I 
 speak of the incident because he was 
 New Hampshire born and bred. 
 
 THK PIEKCE-BUCHANAN CONTEST OF 1856. 
 
 Pierce's administration had stirred up 
 much sectional strife by his reopening the 
 slavery issue in adopting as a Democratic 
 measure the bill allowing the people of 
 Kansas and Nebraska to decide the ques- 
 tion of slavery for themselves, contrary 
 to the provisions of the Missouri Com- 
 promise of 1820. He was a candidate for 
 re-election in the convention of 1856, and 
 received 122 votes to 133 for Buchanan. 
 His vote, however, gradually fell, and 
 Buchanan's gradually rose, until the 
 latter was nominated on the 17th ballot, 
 and he was the last of the Democratic 
 presidents for many years. The party 
 became hopelessly crushed under the 
 weight of slavery, not to rise until twenty 
 years after the latter had been abolished 
 by the hand of Lincoln. 
 
 THE DEMOCRATIC SPLIT OF 1860. 
 
 The Democratic convention of 1860 met 
 at Charleston, April 23d, under most un- 
 auspicious circumstances, with the party 
 hopelessly divided in its slavery views, 
 and its delegates opposed to each other 
 in bitter rivalry for the enforcement of 
 their several ideas in the party platform. 
 
 The committee on platform made ma- 
 jority and minority reports. Gen. B. F. 
 Butler making a report of his own, and 
 Senator Bayard still another. All the 
 platforms were finally recommitted to the 
 committee, which afterwards made two 
 
13 
 
 reports. Finally the minority report, be- 
 ing the Douglass platform, was adopted, 
 whereupon the Alabama, Mississippi, 
 Florida, Texas, Louisiana and South 
 Carolina delegations withdrew, including 
 Senator Bayard, of Delaware. 
 
 The attendance being so largely de- 
 creased, a rule was adopted that two- 
 thirds of a full convention, being 202 
 votes, should be necessary tor a choice, 
 and the convention proceeded to ballot. 
 Only 252 delegates were present, and of 
 these, Stephen A. Douglass had 145 votes 
 on the first ballot, and maintained this 
 number for 57 ballots, being unable to 
 obtain two-thirds of the vote of a full 
 convention. The convention thereupon 
 voted to adjourn to Baltimore, June 18th. 
 
 The Baltimore meeting soon got into a 
 wrangle over the admission of delegates, 
 which resulted in the retirement of Vir- 
 ginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Cali- 
 fornia, Delaware, and a part of Maryland 
 and Kentucky, and finally of their chair- 
 man, Caleb Cushing. What there was 
 left finally nominated Douglass, but the 
 delegates present not numbering two- 
 thirds of the full convention they had to 
 decide that as Douglass had two-thirds 
 of all of those present he was the party 
 nominee. 
 
 The seceders from this Baltimore con- 
 vention immediately organized a conven- 
 tion of their own and took in the seced- 
 ers from the Charleston convention of 
 April 23d. Caleb Cushing was made 
 chairman, and John C. Breckenridge hav- 
 ing all the votes cast was declared the 
 Democratic candidate for President. 
 
 In the election, while Douglass received 
 only 12 electoral votes to 72 for Brecken- 
 ridge, he received 1,375,157 popular votes 
 to 847,953 for Breckenridge. 
 
 MC clellan's chances in 1864. 
 
 Strange as it may seem at this distance 
 of time, there was a strong feeling in 1864 
 that Lincoln could not be re-elected. 
 Many of the strongest Republican leaders 
 
 shared this feeling, including Chase, 
 Wade, Greeley, Thaddeus Stevens and 
 even Lincoln himself. The country was 
 terribly weary of the war, and when the 
 Democratic convention met at Chicago 
 on August 29 the end was not in sight. 
 
 General McClellan was the popular idol 
 of the Democrats, and it was thought he 
 had not been given a fair chance. He was 
 then in retirement, having been removed 
 from the army of the Potomac in 1862. 
 He was accepted as the nominee of the 
 convention on the first ballot, and could 
 the election have taken place on the day 
 of his nomination his chances for success 
 would have been good, but the delegates 
 had scarcely got home before the country 
 was ringing with cheers for the success- 
 ful arrival of Sherman at Atlanta, "-break- 
 ing the backbone" of the Confederacy, 
 and giving sunshine to us of the North, 
 who had been for so long "waiting 
 for the dawn of peace." As a result of 
 these changed conditions he was over- 
 whelmingly defeated. 
 
 THE SEYMOUR CONVENTION OF 1868. 
 
 In 1868 there was a large liberal Re- 
 publican sentiment in the Democratic 
 party favorable to the nomination of 
 Chief Justice Chase, owing to the way 
 Chase presided over the Johnson im- 
 peachment trial, and in the resolutions 
 of their convention they declared that 
 "President Johnson is entitled to the 
 gratitude of the whole American people." 
 Early in the year there was also a move- 
 ment by the Democrats to nominate Gen- 
 eral Grant, who had never voted anything 
 but a Democratic ticket. Samuel J. Tilden 
 succeeded in stopping both of these move- 
 ments. The convention met on July 4, 
 Horatio Seymour presiding. The lead- 
 ing candidates were George H. Pen- 
 dleton, General Hancock and Thomas A. 
 Hendricks. Finally on the 22d ballot, the 
 convention being unable to unite on any 
 of these, a break was made for Seymour 
 and he was nominated. 
 
 V 
 
14 
 
 THE GREELEY CAMPAIGN OF 1872. 
 
 No administration since Jackson's was 
 so despotic as Grant's, and he alienated 
 from tlie party many of its ablest leaders. 
 There never was a time when so many 
 strong men identified themselves with an 
 open revolt from any party as in 1872. 
 
 The leaders called a convention of Lib- 
 eral Republicans to meet in Cincinnati in 
 May. Charles Francis Adams, Horace 
 Greeley and Lyman Trumbull were the 
 leading candidates before this convention, 
 which nominated Greeley on the sixth 
 ballot by a slight lead over Adams. The 
 Democrats held their convention in July, 
 adopted the Liberal Republican platform 
 and nominated Greeley on the first ballot. 
 The character of Greeley's support loolied 
 lilce his success, but the people were not 
 with him, and Grant's victory at the polls 
 was overwhelming. The Democratic op- 
 position to Greeley found expression in 
 the nomination of Charles O'Conor at 
 Louisville in September. 
 
 THE TILDEN CONVENTION OF 187G. 
 
 Of the political organizers of the coun- 
 try Samuel J. Tilden never had a superior. 
 He was quiet, adroit and sagacious, and a 
 man of large fortune, who had acquired 
 a national reputation through his cour- 
 ageous eftbrts to bring the Tweed ring to 
 justice. When the Democratic conven- 
 tion met at St. Louis in June it was 
 apparent that he was to be the party 
 nominee, but he was bitterly opposed by 
 Tammany and they openly avowed he 
 could never carry New York state, which 
 would be essential for his election. 
 Thomas A. Hendricks was his principal 
 opponent, but Tilden was so far in the 
 lead on the first ballot that he was nom- 
 inated on the second, and Hendricks was 
 taken for vice president. 
 
 This ticket carried all the doubtful 
 states of the North and West, but was 
 defeated by the vote of three southern 
 states which had Democratic majorities 
 on the face of the returns. 
 
 HANCOCK NOMINATED IN 1880. 
 
 The Democratic convention of 1880 
 met at Cincinnati, and the Democrats 
 based great hopes for their success in the 
 election in the factional quarrels between 
 the Grant and Blaine forces in the Re- 
 publican convention of three weeks be- 
 fore. This was Grant's third terra con- 
 test where he held his 30G delegates 
 through 36 ballots, and his friends had 
 refused to be reconciled to his defeat. 
 Tilden's name was being urged until the 
 second day of the Democratic convention, 
 when he withdrew, owing to the violent 
 opposition of Tammany, who openly 
 threatened a bolt. The three leading 
 candidates were General Hancock, Sena- 
 tor Bayard and Samuel J. Randall, Han- 
 cock being nominated on the second bal- 
 lot. 
 
 CLEVELAND'S FIRST CONTEST IN 1884. 
 
 It fell to the lot of the Democratic 
 convention in 1884 to nominate the first 
 successful candidate it had had for over 
 a quarter of a century. The political 
 mistakes of Garfield's short administra- 
 tion had so impressed themselves on the 
 party that President Arthur's more dip- 
 lomatic course was unable to entirely re- 
 move their injurious efi'ect on Republican 
 harmony. 
 
 The attention of the cation had been 
 called to the able administration of 
 Grover Cleveland as Governor of New 
 York by the immense vote he had re- 
 ceived for that oflice, and his Independ- 
 ence had made a profound impression 
 upon the "mugwump" vote. When the 
 Democratic convention met in 1884 the 
 delegates were aware that New York 
 would be the pivotal state in the election, 
 and although he was earnestly opposed 
 by Tammany, under the unit rule Cleve- 
 land received the solid vote of the New 
 York delegation, and was nominated on 
 the second ballot. Bayard, Hendricks 
 and Randall were his chief but not for- 
 midable opponents. 
 
15 
 
 CLEVELAND'S RENOMINATION IN 1888. 
 
 The Democratic convention of 1888 
 met at St. Louis June 5 and re-nominated 
 Cleveland without a dissenting voice, 
 but he was defeated at the polls. 
 
 CLEVELAND'S GREAT CONTEST OF 1892. 
 
 The Democratic convention of 1892 
 was one of the most remarkable in the 
 history of political parties in that Cleve- 
 land, its nominee, was a resident of New 
 York state, New York was recognized as 
 the pivotal state in the election, and the 
 New York delegation was solid against 
 his nomination. 
 
 The convention proceedings were ac- 
 rimonious to an unusual degree. Cleve- 
 land's forces were led by William C 
 Whitney, and his opponents by that 
 matchless orator, Bourke Cochran. On 
 the first ballot he received 10 more than 
 the necessary two-thirds I'equired to 
 nominate, his chief opponents beiug Sen- 
 ator Hill and Governor Boies, of Iowa. 
 
 After the nomination it was generally 
 conceded by all parties that he would 
 meet defeat at the polls, but although the 
 politicians were against him the people 
 were with him, and he carried New York 
 and all the doubtful states, and the Re- 
 publican states of Illinois and Wisconsin, 
 and received a part of the vote of Cali- 
 fornia, North Dakota, Michigan and 
 Ohio. 
 
 BRYAN AT CHICAGO IN 189G. 
 
 When the Democratic convention met 
 at Chicago in 1896 the country was in 
 a condition of great unrest owing to the 
 existing industrial depression, and there 
 was a persistent determination on the 
 part of a large portion of the voters in 
 the West to attribute all our ills to the 
 restricted use of silver in our monetary 
 system. 
 
 The national committee was in the con- 
 trol of the sound money men of the party 
 and named Senator Hill for chairman, but 
 the Silverites were so suspicious of the 
 intentions of the sound money men that 
 hey bitterly opposed his choice and 
 
 carried the fight into the convention, 
 where he was defeated by a vote of 556 
 to 349. The committee on credentials 
 decided all contests in favor of the free- 
 silver delegates, after which a protracted 
 debate was had over the platform, dur- 
 ing which Governor Russell, of Massa- 
 chusetts made an eloquent and what 
 turned out to be the last speech of his 
 life in favor of moderation, and William 
 J. Bryan, who headed the contested Ne- 
 braska delegation, which had been let in, 
 made his famous "crown of thorns" 
 speech in favor of free silver, after which 
 the sound money plank of the minority 
 was rejected by a vote of 626 to 303. 
 The convention also refused to endorse 
 the Cleveland administration. 
 
 This result so enraged the sound money 
 Democrats that 178 of them refused to 
 vote for a candidate for President, and 
 many returned to their homes with the 
 fixed purpose to repudiate the whole 
 thing by supporting the sound money 
 candidate of the Republicans, among 
 them being Frank Jones and Irving W. 
 Drew, of New Hampshire. 
 
 On the first ballot Bland, of Missouri, 
 led with 235 votes, Bryan being next 
 with 119, the balance being divided 
 among ten candidates. On the second 
 and third ballots Bland continued 
 to lead Bryan, both gaining, and 
 on the fourth Bryan had 280 votes 
 to Bland's 241. On the fifth Bryan only 
 lacked 12 votes of the necessary two- 
 thirds, but before the vote was declared 
 enough delegates changed their votes to 
 give him the nomination. 
 
 In the election the East went solid 
 against Bryan, but he made great gains 
 in the West, carrying many states that 
 had before been loyal to the Republicans. 
 
 Should Bryan be nominated at Kansas 
 City, as he is certain to be, the prece- 
 dents favor his election, but of this I shall 
 speak in my next article. 
 
 Louis G. Hoyt, 
 
 Kingston, N. H., June 15, 1900. 
 
 i 
 
011 695 594 5 • 
 
 1 
 
 - V