Our Presidents and how we make them Alexander K. McClure 2381 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Our Presidents and how we
make them
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Our Presidents and how we make them

Author: Alexander K. McClure

Author of introduction, etc.: Charles Emory Smith

Release date: January 3, 2025 [eBook #75024]

Language: English

Original publication: New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1900

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75024

Credits: Carlos Colon, Daniel Lowe, The Lincoln Financial
Foundation and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet
Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK OUR
PRESIDENTS AND HOW WE MAKE THEM ***

Transcriber’s Note
This ebook contains several wide tables that may display poorly on some e-readers.
The HTML version may be a better option for viewing these tables.

A. K. McCLURE

OUR PRESIDENTS
AND
HOW WE MAKE THEM

BY

A. K. McCLURE, LL.D.

ILLUSTRATED

NEW YORK AND LONDON

HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS

1900

Copyright, 1900, by A. K. McClure.
All rights reserved.

CONTENTS

PAGE
The Washington Elections, 1789–92 1
The Adams-Jefferson Contest, 1796 7
The Jefferson-Adams-Burr Contest, 1800–1 12
The Jefferson-Pinckney Contest, 1804 21
The Madison-Pinckney-Clinton Contests, 1808–12 25
The Monroe Elections, 1816–20 32
The Adams-Jackson-Crawford-Clay Contest, 1824 39
The Jackson-Adams-Clay Contests, 1828–32 47
The Van Buren-Harrison Contest, 1836 59
The Harrison-Van Buren Contest, 1840 65
The Polk-Clay Contest, 1844 75
The Taylor-Cass-Van Buren Contest, 1848 94
The Pierce-Scott Contest, 1852 115
The Buchanan-Frémont-Fillmore Contest, 1856 130
The Lincoln-Breckenridge-Douglas-Bell Contest, 1860 154
The Lincoln-McClellan Contest, 1864 183
The Grant-Seymour Contest, 1868 202
The Grant-Greeley Contest, 1872 221
The Hayes-Tilden Contest, 1876 244
The Garfield-Hancock Contest, 1880 270
The Cleveland-Blaine Contest, 1884 288

The Harrison-Cleveland Contest, 1888 316
The Cleveland-Harrison-Weaver Contest, 1892 337
The McKinley-Bryan Contest, 1896 361

ILLUSTRATIONS

A. K. McCLURE Frontispiece
GEORGE WASHINGTON Facing p. x
JOHN ADAMS “ 12
THOMAS JEFFERSON “ 20
JAMES MADISON “ 24
JAMES MONROE “ 32
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS “ 38
ANDREW JACKSON “ 46
MARTIN VAN BUREN “ 58
WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON “ 64
JOHN TYLER “ 70
JAMES K. POLK “ 74
ZACHARY TAYLOR “ 94
MILLARD FILLMORE “ 106
FRANKLIN PIERCE “ 114
JAMES BUCHANAN “ 130
ABRAHAM LINCOLN “ 154
ANDREW JOHNSON “ 182
ULYSSES S. GRANT “ 202
RUTHERFORD B. HAYES “ 244
JAMES A. GARFIELD “ 270
CHESTER A. ARTHUR “ 274

GROVER CLEVELAND “ 288
BENJAMIN HARRISON “ 316
WILLIAM McKINLEY “ 360

INTRODUCTION
The crux of American politics is the quadrennial election of President. In
the ebb and flow of our political activity the flood-tide comes in the
Presidential contests. There are often tumultuous struggles and decisive
events in the intervals, but their political effect and all the issues and
movements of parties crystallize in the recurring conflict for the possession
of the chief executive power.
Our American system makes the President the centre and focus of
political life. He is at once Prime Minister and independent executive. He
blends the functions of what in parliamentary government is the head of the
Cabinet, and what in other government is the head of the State. He is a vital
part of the legislative power without being amenable to its control or
dependent on its life. He is the framer of policies and the arbiter of parties.
All this makes the election of President the central chord and the arterial
force of our broad political action.
The history of Presidential elections, if not the history of the nation, is at
least the history of its determining periods. The successive epochs of our
national progress, with their passionate struggles and controlling influences,
are fully reflected in these contests. After the retirement of Washington the
battles from 1800 for a quarter of a century, which gave the succession of
Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, marked the reaction from federal authority
and the rise of the democratic impulse in the young Republic. Then came
the period running through the three contests and two elections of Jackson,
the heirship of Van Buren, and the cyclonic reversal under “Tippecanoe and
Tyler too” in 1840, which turned on practical questions of internal polity
and signalized the transition from the formative stage of the government to
the inevitable clash between the sections. This was followed by the long
political and moral contention between freedom and slavery, which began
with the success of Polk and the Texas annexation policy in 1844 and ended
with the defeat of the divided Democracy and the election of Lincoln in
1860, when the political combat culminated in the armed and colossal
struggle of the civil war. Since its conclusion and its settlements the nation

has been engaged in the mighty work of internal upbuilding, never equalled
anywhere else in the world, and the elections have involved the contending
theories.
The narrative of these elections, with the rise and fall of parties, their
divisions and their creeds, presents the outlines of the national
development. For this work Colonel McClure, by experience, taste, and
special knowledge, is peculiarly and pre-eminently fitted. It is doubtful if
any other living American has borne so active and so intimate a part in so
many Presidential elections. Not yet of age, but already a zealous and eager
observer of political movements as a young editor, he attended the Whig
National Convention of 1848 in Philadelphia, and witnessed the nomination
of General Taylor. From that time he has been personally familiar with the
inner workings of every national convention and campaign. Including this
year, there have been twenty-nine Presidential contests in our history.
Colonel McClure has actively participated in fourteen, or practically one-
half of the entire number.
He was born at Centre, Perry County, Pennsylvania, on the 9th of
January, 1828. Spending his youth on his father’s farm, he became a
tanner’s apprentice at fifteen, and remained at this trade for three years. His
schooling was very limited, and his mental equipment was almost wholly
the rich endowment nature had given him and the attainments which his
extraordinary intellectual force brought in after-years. At nineteen he
became the editor of the Juniata Sentinel, and his natural ability and
vigorous pen soon gave him a recognized position and a distinct influence.
Before he was twenty-one he served as a conferee for Andrew G. Curtin in
his Congressional candidacy, and laid the foundations of his long and
intimate friendship with the great War Governor. Speedily called to the
editorship of a more important paper at Chambersburg, his impress
broadened, and in 1853, at the age of twenty-five, he was nominated by the
Whigs for Auditor-General, the youngest man ever named by any party in
Pennsylvania for a State office. Four years later he was elected to the
Legislature, serving in the House and then in the Senate for several years.
His career in that body was brilliant and distinctive. He was independent,
fearless, and aggressive, a ready and trenchant debater, and he displayed
political and parliamentary abilities of the highest order.

In the Republican National Convention of 1860 he played a prominent
part. He and Curtin were potential in leading the Pennsylvania break from
Cameron to Lincoln, and in promoting the nomination of the latter. With
that success he accepted the chairmanship of the State Committee, and
made a dashing and energetic campaign, which resulted in the October State
victory that assured and portended the election of Lincoln. This relation to
the contest and subsequent service with Governor Curtin, in directing
Pennsylvania’s part in the war, placed him on an intimate footing with the
President, and during those dramatic and trying years he was a commanding
figure in the State. Later he settled in Philadelphia in the practice of the law;
became one of the leading spirits in the Republican revolt of 1872 which
led to the Greeley movement; returned to the Legislature, where, free from
party shackles, he waged unsparing war against jobbery and wrong, and
where his forensic talent, his bold attacks, and rare powers of invective and
sarcasm made him at once respected and feared. Finally, he found what was
to prove his higher and truer place, and entered upon what was to be his
main life-work in the establishment of the Philadelphia Times, where he has
had an ample and conspicuous arena for the editorial genius which has
ranked him among the foremost journalists of the country. Here, for twenty-
five years, with ripened experience and mellowed spirit, but with unabated
passion for political movements, Colonel McClure has been both the actor
and the critic in the great and constantly changing drama of public events.
Standing between both parties, bound by neither, but in the counsels of
each, he has been exceptionally informed on all the currents of political
activity. No one has had a broader acquaintance with the public men of his
time, or has been more thoroughly behind the scenes in the shifting
transformations of public action. From his earliest years politics has had an
extraordinary fascination for his fertile mind, and his taste and talent for it
have been equally marked. There has been no national convention of either
party for years that he has not attended, and the episodes and influences
which have turned the decision of the hour have been as familiar to him as
the broader principles which have moulded the general course of action.
Colonel McClure is thus peculiarly qualified, not only to present the large
history of Presidential contests, but to illuminate it with the instructive side-
lights which are as entertaining as they are suggestive. Comprehensive in its
treatment, infused with the very life and spirit of political action, prepared
with complete knowledge, and written in a style of singular charm and

force, this work is not only a labor of love, but a valuable contribution to
the historical literature of American politics.
Charles Emory Smith
Washington, April, 1900

PREFACE
I have endeavored in this volume to supply a want in our political history
by giving not only a detailed and reliable report of the nomination and
election of every President of the United States, but by giving with it many
important sidelights relating to the selection and character of our Chief
Magistrates.
With a personal knowledge of national conventions covering over half a
century, and an intimate acquaintance with the chief actors of both parties in
selecting Presidential candidates, I am able to give the inside movements of
some of our important national struggles which are imperfectly understood.
The inspiration and organization of all the various political parties, great
and small, are concisely presented, and the personal reminiscences of the
struggles of the great men of the country have been most carefully prepared.
Absolute accuracy in the preparation of political history covering a
period of one hundred and twelve years is not to be expected, as record
evidence is at times either imperfectly preserved or entirely destroyed; but
no pains have been spared to make this volume a complete and reliable
history of our Presidents and how we make them.
I am indebted to Edward Stanwood’s “History of Presidential Elections”
and to Greeley’s “Political Text-Book of 1860” for valuable data of the
earlier conflicts for the Presidency. Many of the personal and political
reminiscences given are an elaboration of a series of articles originally
prepared for the Saturday Evening Post, of Philadelphia.
A. K. M.
Philadelphia, March 1, 1900.

GEORGE WASHINGTON

THE WASHINGTON ELECTIONS
1789–1792
The first election for President of the United States was held on the first Wednesday of January, 1789, and it was
an election in which the people took no part whatever in most of the States. The election should have been held in
November, 1788, but the Constitution of 1787, that required ratification by nine States to make it the supreme law
of the nation, did not receive the approval of the requisite number of States until the 21st of June, 1788, when New
Hampshire made up the ninth State approving it. Vermont followed five days later, and New York, after a bitter
struggle, ratified the Constitution on the 26th of July. There was then ample time for Congress to make provisions
for a Presidential election in November, but many weeks were wasted in a struggle for the location of the national
capitol, and it was not until the 13th of September that Congress was prepared to pass a resolution declaring the
ratification of the Constitution, and directing the election of Presidential electors.
Communication was at that time very slow and uncertain between the several States, and as Congress did not fix
the time for an election until the middle of September, the first Wednesday of January, 1789, was deemed the
earliest period at which an election could be had. Considering the length of time required to communicate with the
different States, and the extreme difficulty in the States communicating with their people and Legislatures, it was
practically impossible to have a Presidential election in which the people of the country generally could
participate.
None of the States had made any preparation for an election, and the only practical method for choosing electors
was by the Legislatures, as the Constitution provided then, as it does now, that each State shall appoint Presidential
electors “in such manner as its Legislature may direct.” Attempts were made to hold popular elections in New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, but even in New Hampshire and Massachusetts,
after elections had been held after a fashion, the Legislatures of those States finally chose the electors. There were
next to no votes cast in Pennsylvania,[1] Maryland, and Virginia, as there was no contest, the election of
Washington being conceded by all; and whatever votes were cast in the States have never found their way into the
political statistics of the country. Rhode Island and North Carolina had not ratified the Constitution and did not
choose electors, and in New York a bitter contest arose in the Legislature between the friends and opponents of the
Constitution, resulting in a disagreement between the Senate and House that was not adjusted in time for the
Legislature to choose electors. Thus, New York, Rhode Island, and North Carolina gave no votes for President in
the Electoral College of 1789.
There had been no formal nomination of Washington for President and Adams for Vice-President in any part of
the country. In later Presidential elections it was common for Legislatures and mass-meetings to present candidates
for President, but I cannot find a record of any formal presentation of either the name of Washington or Adams as
candidates at the first Presidential election. Washington was accepted as the logical ruler of the Republic, whose
sword had won its independence, and Massachusetts, the State of Lexington and Bunker Hill, was conceded the
second place on the ticket by general assent. Both were pronounced Federalists, and Washington was much more
positive in his partisanship than is now generally believed. He was consulted about the choice of a Vice-President,
and he answered that while he took it for granted that “a true Federalist” would be elected to the Vice-Presidency,
he was unwilling to indicate any preference; but it was generally known that he and his immediate friends
preferred John Adams, who had been one of the committee with Jefferson to prepare the Declaration of
Independence, and who had written a very vigorous pamphlet in favor of the adoption of the Constitution.
It is now generally assumed that there was no shade of opposition to Washington’s election to the Presidency,
but the anti-Federalists, many of whom were opposed to the Constitution, made several ineffectual efforts to defeat
him. It is known that Franklin was approached on the question of being Washington’s competitor, but there is little
doubt that he peremptorily refused. At that time the Presidential electors did not vote directly for President and
Vice-President as they do now. Each elector voted for two men for President, both of whom could not be a resident
of the same State, and the candidate receiving the largest vote, if a majority, was chosen President, and the
candidate receiving the second largest vote for President became Vice-President. Several movements were made,
without ever attaining the dignity of importance, to have votes quietly taken from Washington and given to Adams,
and other movements were made to defeat Adams for Vice-President, but all of them were signal failures. It is
understood that Hamilton, the closest friend of Washington, was not friendly to Adams. There is some reason to

believe that he would have seconded the movement of the anti-Federalists to make George Clinton Vice-President
had it given any promise of success.
The electoral colleges met on the first Wednesday of February, 1789, and elected Washington President, he
receiving 69 votes, being the full number of electors, and John Adams received 34 votes for President, which made
him Vice-President, although he did not receive a majority of the electoral votes. The following table shows the
vote in detail as cast by the Electoral College, all of the men having been voted for only as Presidential candidates:

Robert
George John Samuel John John George John John
STATES. H.
Washington. Adams. Huntington. Jay. Hancock. Clinton. Rutledge. Milton. A
Harrison.
New
5 5 — — — — — — —
Hampshire
Massachusetts 10 10 — — — — — — —
Connecticut 7 5 2 — — — — — —
New Jersey 6 1 — 5 — — — — —
Pennsylvania 10 8 — — 2 — — — —
Delaware 3 — — 3 — — — — —
Maryland 6 — — — — 6 — — —
Virginia 10 5 — 1 1 — 3 — —
South
7 — — — 1 — — 6 —
Carolina
Georgia 5 — — — — — — — 2
Total 69 34 2 9 4 6 3 6 2

The Congress of the Confederation had provided that the new Congress chosen under the Constitution should
meet in New York on the first Wednesday of March to declare the result of the Presidential election and inaugurate
the new Republic, but a quorum of the Senate did not appear until the 6th of April, and on that day the electoral
vote was counted in the presence of the two Houses, and Washington and Adams declared elected. They were
notified of their election as speedily as possible, but it was not until the 30th of April that they were inaugurated.

Washington’s second election was quite as unanimous as the first, both at the polls and in the electoral colleges.
No opposition electoral tickets were formed in any of the States, as the re-election of Washington and Adams was
universally accepted. The Presidential electors of that day were appointed in accordance with the obvious spirit of
the Constitution, that meant to provide an entirely dispassionate and independent tribunal in the Electoral College
to exercise the soundest discretion in the choice of a President and Vice-President. No pledges were asked or given
by any one named as an elector, and each one was free to vote according to the dictates of his own judgment. Had
there been opposition electoral tickets, they would have logically run on opposing lines with distinct obligations on
the part of each side as to how their votes would be cast, but no such question arose until the first battle between
Adams and Jefferson in 1796.
There was no organized opposition to the administration of Washington at the close of his first term, but the
Democratic sentiment, so ardently cherished by Jefferson, had been steadily growing, and with two such able and
aggressive opposing partisans as Jefferson and Hamilton in the Washington Cabinet, it was only natural that
opposition to the Federal policy would gradually take shape to be effective when the overshadowing personality of
Washington became eliminated from the politics of the country. Jefferson and Hamilton often had serious
differences in the Cabinet, and Washington uniformly sided with Hamilton. Washington had little personal and no

political sympathy whatever with Jefferson, and only one of Jefferson’s rare tact and sagacity could have remained
in the Washington Cabinet and fashioned the great opposition party that carried him triumphantly into the
Presidential chair four years after Washington’s retirement. As opposition to the re-election of Washington and
Adams would have been entirely fruitless, it was wisely not attempted, and the election passed off in almost as
perfunctory a manner as did the first election in 1789.
Rhode Island and North Carolina had ratified the Constitution, and Vermont became a State on the 4th of March,
1791, and Kentucky on the 1st of June, 1792, giving fifteen States to participate in the second Presidential election.
In nine of the States Presidential electors were chosen by the Legislatures, and by popular vote in New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia, but there were very few votes polled, and
what were cast indicated nothing politically, as there were no opposing electoral tickets.
Washington again received the unanimous vote in the electoral colleges—132 in number—and Adams became
Vice-President by receiving 77 votes for President. When the two Houses met to declare the vote, Vice-President
Adams presided in the House, opened and read the certificates of the votes of the several States, and declared
Washington and himself elected President and Vice-President. The following is the official vote in the electoral
colleges as cast in 1792:

STATES. Washington. Adams. Clinton. Jefferson. Burr.
New Hampshire 6 6 — — —
Vermont 3 3 — — —
Massachusetts 16 16 — — —
Rhode Island 4 4 — — —
Connecticut 9 9 — — —
New York 12 — 12 — —
New Jersey 7 7 — — —
Pennsylvania 15 14 1 — —
Delaware 3 3 — — —
Maryland 8 8 — — —
Virginia 21 — 21 — —
North Carolina 12 — 12 — —
South Carolina 8 7 — — 1
Georgia 4 — 4 — —
Kentucky 4 — — 4 —
Total 132 77 50 4 1

THE ADAMS-JEFFERSON CONTEST

1796
While it was generally accepted that Washington would not be a candidate for a third term, he gave no definite
expression on the subject until he issued his farewell address a short time before the election of 1796. Washington
was an extremely reticent man, and it is possible that, in view of the serious complications between this country
and France, he may have anticipated a contingency that would make him accept a third election to the Presidency,
but it seems to have been well understood by those nearest to him in official circles that he earnestly desired to
retire to private life at the expiration of his second term. He was then the richest man in the country, his wealth
being almost wholly composed of land and slaves, and for twenty years he had been unable to give any attention to
his large business interests. While his election and re-election to the Presidency by a unanimous vote were very
gratifying to him, he greatly preferred the life upon his plantation, where he gave most careful attention to all the
details of its management.
As early as 1793 it was generally accepted by the public that Washington would not be a candidate for re-
election, and that Jefferson and Adams would be the logical competitors for the succession. Jefferson had cleared
his decks for the battle by resigning his office as Secretary of State early in 1794. He was not in harmony with the
severe Federal policy of Washington, and was very positively hostile to the policy of the administration in failing
to support the French Revolution. Jefferson led the Democratic forces of the country; Washington, and Adams as
his logical successor, led the Federal forces, and between them there was an irreconcilable dispute as to the form of
government the new Republic should assume. Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and their associates did not believe
in the capacity of the people for self-government. They favored the strongest possible government, with checks
and balances which could effectually restrain what they regarded as positive and dangerous ebullitions of public
sentiment. They would have made Senators for life and given only the semblance of government to the people.
Jefferson, on the other hand, took the broad ground that the people were sovereign and should rule. He logically
supported the French Revolution against the Bourbon Kings, and cherished the strongest prejudices against
England. As Secretary of State he could not well have remained in the Washington Cabinet the last two years of
the administration, but he doubtless resigned to be entirely free to make his great battle for the Presidency in 1796.
Neither Jefferson nor Adams was nominated for the Presidency in 1796 by any Legislature or mass-meeting of
which there is any record as far as I have been able to ascertain. Adams was the choice of Washington, and the
logical successor to Washington as the Federal candidate for President, and Jefferson stood head and shoulders
over all the Republicans of that day. The title of Republican was adopted by the friends of Jefferson, and the
Democratic party was founded in 1796 by Jefferson under the name of Republican, established as the majority
party of the nation four years later, and it fought and won the Democratic battles under that name until 1824, when
the Jackson party changed the title to Democracy.
If the overshadowing individuality of Washington could have been eliminated from the contest of 1796,
Jefferson would have defeated Adams by a decided majority, but Washington was earnestly enlisted in the support
of Adams, and all the power of the administration was wielded in favor of the Federal candidate. While
Washington was not charged with violent partisanship in his appointments, it is none the less true that when the
issue came between Adams and Jefferson, every Federal official of the country felt bound to support, with all the
power he possessed, the candidate preferred by Washington. Had Grover Cleveland lived in that day, he would
have had ample opportunity to denounce the “pernicious activity” of office-holders with as much reason as he
denounced them a century later in his support of civil service reform.
Not only were the Federal officials aggressively enlisted in favor of Adams, but the personal influence of
Washington, that was greater than that ever wielded by any other official or citizen of the Republic down to the
present time, was a serious obstacle to Jefferson’s success. The people loved Jefferson as the author of the
Declaration of Independence, and a large majority of them sympathized with his liberal ideas of popular
government, but the name of Washington was sacred to a large majority, and his wishes were paramount in
deciding their political action. Such were the conditions under which Jefferson entered the contest against Adams
in 1796.

In this contest, for the first time, there were two candidates distinctly declared as competitors for the Presidency,
and other candidates as distinctly declared as competitors for Vice-President, although all had to be voted for as
candidates for President in the Electoral College. At that time Aaron Burr was in the zenith of his power. He was
one of the most astute politicians of that day, inordinately ambitious, unscrupulous in his methods, and he was
generally accepted by the friends of Jefferson as the candidate for Vice-President.
New York was a Federal State, but it was hoped that by the masterly ability of Burr the electoral vote of New
York might be won for Jefferson, although while there was entire unanimity among the Republicans in support of
Jefferson, there was not equal unanimity in the support of Burr. He failed to carry New York for Jefferson, but
succeeded in carrying it for Jefferson and himself in 1800, and his victory was won so early in the contest by the
election of a Republican Legislature in that State in May, 1800, that he practically decided the battle against
Adams.
The Presidential contest between Jefferson and Adams developed into the most defamatory campaign ever
known in the history of American politics, unless the second campaign of 1800 between the same leaders may be
accepted as equalling it. In no modern national campaign have candidates and parties been so maliciously defamed
as were candidates and parties when Jefferson and Adams fought for power in the contest of the Fathers of the
Republic. Jefferson was denounced as an unscrupulous demagogue, and Adams was denounced as a kingly despot
without sympathy with the people, and opposed to every principle of popular government.
There were few newspapers, but it was the age of the pamphleteer, and the political pamphlets of those days, if
compared with the political asperities of the present age, would make the partisan vituperation of the evening of
the nineteenth century appear as tame and feeble. Nor were political leaders of that day any less unscrupulous than
are the political leaders of the present. The struggles of mean ambition were as common then as now, and political
leaders jostled each other in the most vituperative assaults to give victory to their cause.
The contest ended in November, when the elections were held in the various States. Tennessee had been
admitted to the Union on the 1st of June, 1796, making sixteen States to participate in the choice of a President. Of
these, six States held some form of popular elections, while ten chose their electors by the Legislature. The popular
vote cast at these elections had no material significance. There was but one ticket voted for in nearly or quite all of
the six States which assumed to choose electors by popular vote, as the New England States were solid for Adams,
and the Southern States, where elections were held, were strong in the support of Jefferson. The result was the
election of Adams in the Electoral College by a vote of 71 to 68 for Jefferson, who thereby became Vice-President.
The following is the vote in detail, as cast in the Electoral College, the electors voting only for President:

John Thomas Thomas Aaron Samuel Oliver George John James George
STATES. Adams, Jefferson, Pinckney, Burr, Adams, Ellsworth, Clinton, Jay, Iredell, Washingto
Mass. Va. S. C. N. Y. Mass. Conn. N. Y. N. Y. N. C. Va.

New
6 — — — — 6 — — —
Hampshire
Vermont 4 — 4 — — — — — —
Massachusetts 16 — 13 — — 1 — — —
Rhode Island 4 — — — — 4 — — —
Connecticut 9 — 4 — — — — 5 —
New York 12 — 12 — — — — — —
New Jersey 7 — 7 — — — — — —
Pennsylvania 1 14 2 13 — — — — —
Delaware 3 — 3 — — — — — —
Maryland 7 4 4 3 — — — — —
Virginia 1 20 1 1 15 — 3 — —

North
1 11 1 6 — — — — 3
Carolina
South
— 8 8 — — — — — —
Carolina
Georgia — 4 — — — — 4 — —
Kentucky — 4 — 4 — — — — —
Tennessee — 3 — 3 — — — — —
Total 71 68 59 30 15 11 7 5 3

It will be seen by the foregoing table that Pennsylvania,[2] Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina cast divided
electoral votes for the Presidency between Jefferson and Adams. In Pennsylvania, Adams received 1 electoral vote
to 14 for Jefferson. In Maryland, Adams received 7 to 4 for Jefferson. In Virginia, Jefferson’s own State, Adams
received 1 to 20 for Jefferson, and in North Carolina the vote was 1 for Adams to 11 for Jefferson. In all of these
States the electors were chosen by popular vote, and they were doubtless selected with reference to their character
and intelligence without pledges as to how they should cast their ballots in the electoral colleges. One of the
Virginia electors exercised his admitted right to vote against Jefferson, who had the largest popular following in
the State. It was this independent action of a few electors in 1796 that made both parties draw their lines severely
in the selection of the candidates for electors, and from that time until the present all electoral tickets have been
made up of men who were accepted as solemnly pledged to vote for their party candidates in the Electoral College.

THE JEFFERSON-ADAMS-BURR CONTEST

1800–1
The Presidential contest of 1800 was as revolutionary in its aim and in its
accomplishment as was the Republican revolution of 1860. The Federalists
had practically undisputed control of the Government for twelve years,
under Washington and John Adams, and the power of the Federal party,
with the overwhelming individuality of Washington in its favor,
accomplished the election of Adams over Jefferson in 1796. When the battle
of 1800 opened, Washington was dead, and Hamilton, one of the ablest of
the Washington political lieutenants, was not in hearty sympathy with
Adams.
The Federalists held both branches of Congress, and a tidal wave of
partisan bitterness and personal defamation ran riot, both in Congress and
throughout the country. Our foreign complications with France had become
very serious, and Congress approved what was then regarded as very
extensive preparations for a war that was bitterly opposed by the
Republican minority, the followers of Jefferson. So violent were the
political discussions of the country that Adams, acting in accord with the
Federal theory of a strong suppressive government, demanded and secured
the passage of what are known as the Alien and Sedition laws, which now
rank among the most odious legislative acts in the history of the Republic.
While the Alien and Sedition laws were apparently aimed at those who
were open enemies of the country in war, they were, in fact, intended to
suppress criticism of the administration and to impose the severest penalties
for open hostility to its policy. The first session of the Congress of 1797–98
lasted eight months, and even in the fierce passions of civil war the
Congressional debates did not equal the asperities of the Congressional
debates of a century ago. The first Alien law lengthened the period for
naturalization to fourteen years, and all emigrants were required to be
registered and the certificate of registration to be the only proof of

residence. All alien enemies were forbidden the right of citizenship under
any circumstances.

JOHN ADAMS

Another of the series gave the President the power in case of war to seize
or expel all resident aliens of the nation at war with us, and yet another gave
the President power to deport any alien whom he might think dangerous to
the country, and if after being ordered away he remained in the country, he
was subject to imprisonment for three years and forbidden citizenship. In
addition to these provisions, aliens so imprisoned could be removed from
the country by the President’s order. Such were the general provisions of the
Alien law. The Sedition bill, that was part of the same policy, declared that
any who hindered officers in the discharge of their duties or opposed any of
the laws of the country were guilty of high crime and misdemeanor,
punishable by fine and imprisonment. Those who were guilty of writing or
publishing any false and malicious writings against Congress or the
President, or aided therein, were made punishable by a fine of $2000 and
imprisonment for two years.
These measures were in harmony with the Federal theory of government.
The Federal leaders did not believe the people capable of self-government,
and Adams felt justified in imposing the severest penalties upon all who
severely criticised or violently opposed the administration. Washington was
yet alive and in full mental and physical vigor when these laws were
passed, and it is reasonable to assume that he approved of them, as he could
have defeated them if he had opposed their enactment. Hamilton vainly
protested against the Alien and Sedition laws as a fatal political blunder, but
Federalism had never suffered defeat, and President Adams never doubted
his re-election until the vote was declared against him.
The contest of 1800 had its lines so well defined from the outset that
candidates for President and Vice-President were as clearly indicated,
although without any formal declaration, as national tickets would be
indicated by a national convention of modern times. There is no record of
the Congressional caucus in 1800, but it seems to be an accepted tradition
that the Federals, who had a majority of the House, first called a secret
caucus to confer about the management of the campaign. They did not
formally name candidates, but by general consent Adams was accepted as
the candidate for President and Charles C. Pinckney, of South Carolina, for

Vice-President. Apparently well-authenticated reports tell of a Republican
Congressional caucus held during the same year, but there is no preserved
record of it. If such a caucus was held, candidates were not nominated nor
was any declaration of principles made. The chief object of the Republican
caucus seems to have been to harmonize the friends of Jefferson on Burr as
the accepted candidate for Vice-President, but no preference was expressed
in any formal way. When the Federalists held their first caucus the
Republicans denounced it as a “Jacobinical conclave,” and so severe were
the criticisms of the Philadelphia Aurora, the leading Jefferson organ, that
its editor was at one time arraigned before the bar of the Senate.
The contest of 1800 opened early in the year, the reported Congressional
caucuses having been held in February or March, and from that time until
the election the political discussions were acrimonious to a degree that
would surprise the present generation. Jefferson had cordially united his
friends in the support of Burr, and it was Burr’s magnificent leadership that
carried the electoral vote of New York by winning the Legislature of that
State as early as May. New York had voted for Adams in 1796, and the loss
to Adams of one of the leading States of the Union and its transfer to
Jefferson made the battle next to hopeless for Adams, but he and his friends
fought it out to the bitter end.
No new States had been admitted during the Adams administration, and
the same sixteen States which had elected Adams over Jefferson were then
to pass a second judgment upon the great leaders of the two opposing
political theories of that day. In Pennsylvania the Federalists controlled the
Senate chiefly by hold-over Senators, as the popular sentiment of the State
was strongly for Jefferson. In the three previous elections for President the
Pennsylvania Legislature had passed special acts authorizing a popular vote
for President, but in 1800, the Federals having control of the Senate, refused
to pass a bill for an election whereby the choice of electors was thrown into
the Legislature, and it required joint action of the Federal Senate and the
largely Republican House to provide for a choice of electors even by the
Legislature. The Federal Senators refused to go into joint convention except
upon conditions which would divide the electoral vote, and the Republicans
of the House were compelled to choose between disfranchising the State, as
New York had been disfranchised in 1789, or to concede a large minority of
the electors to Adams.

It was finally agreed that each House should nominate 8 electors, and that
the Houses should then meet jointly and each member should vote together
for 15 of the 16 thus nominated. The result was that the Federalists forced
the election of 7 Adams electors with 8 for Jefferson. The Federal Senators,
13 in number, who controlled the Senate against the 11 Republicans, were
heralded by their party papers and leaders as grand heroes, because by the
accident of power in one body of the Legislature not immediately chosen by
the people they had wrested 7 electors from Jefferson, which would have
been given to him either by a popular vote or by a joint vote of the
Legislature.
Rhode Island at this election for the first time chose electors by popular
vote, making 6 States which chose electors by the vote of the people and 10
which chose electors by the Legislature. As the electoral colleges could vote
only for candidates for President, Jefferson and Burr received precisely the
same vote, 73 in number, and Adams received 65, with 64 for Pinckney and
1 for John Jay. The following is the table of the vote as cast in the electoral
colleges:

Thomas Aaron John C. C. John
STATES. Jefferson, Burr, Adams, Pinckney, Jay,
Va. N. Y. Mass. S. C. N. Y.
New
— — 6 6 —
Hampshire
Vermont — — 4 4 —
Massachusetts — — 16 16 —
Rhode Island — — 4 3 1
Connecticut — — 9 9 —
New York 12 12 — — —
New Jersey — — 7 7 —
Pennsylvania 8 8 7 7 —
Delaware — — 3 3 —

Maryland[3] 5 5 5 5 —
Virginia 21 21 — — —
North
8 8 4 4 —
Carolina
South
8 8 — — —
Carolina
Georgia 4 4 — — —
Kentucky 4 4 — — —
Tennessee 3 3 — — —
73 73 65 64 1

It is impossible to give anything like an intelligent presentation of the
popular vote between Jefferson and Adams. In most of the States which
chose electors by popular vote there was practically no contest, as the New
England States voted solidly for Adams, and the Southern States south of
Maryland voted as solidly for Jefferson, with the exception of North
Carolina, where an electoral ticket seems to have been chosen on the
original theory that electors should exercise sound discretion in the choice
of a President, and in the exercise of that discretion 4 of the North Carolina
electors voted for Adams and 8 for Jefferson. Had Pennsylvania been
permitted to give expression either to the popular will or to the decided
Republican majority of the Legislature, 7 of the Pennsylvania votes would
have been taken from Adams and added to Jefferson, which would have
made him 80 electoral votes to 58 for Adams.
Jefferson had won his election, and there should have been no question
about according it to him. Under the electoral system of that day, by which
each elector voted for two candidates for President, Jefferson and Burr each
received 73 votes for the Presidency, and upon the face of the returns were
equally entitled to claim the highest honor of the Republic. True, Burr had
not been discussed or seriously thought of as a candidate for President. He
was accepted by the Republicans distinctly as the candidate for Vice-
President, and the whole battle was fought out on the issue between

Jefferson and Adams. Had Burr been honest and manly, he would have
ended the struggle at once by declaring that the people had elected Jefferson
to the Presidency, and that Burr could not consent to be presented to the
country and the world as seeking to wear the stolen honors of the
Government; but Burr developed his true character as soon as he discovered
that his vote was equal to that given to Jefferson. While he did not make
any open or visible effort to elect himself over Jefferson, he silently
assented to the use of his name, and thus made the Presidency hang in
uncertainty from the time of the election in November until the 17th of
February, when the contest was finally decided in favor of Jefferson, and
Burr stamped with infamy. That he wished to be elected over Jefferson
cannot be reasonably doubted. If he had not permitted the use of his name
without protest as a candidate against Jefferson, there would have been no
discussion and no uncertainty, as the House would have chosen Jefferson on
the 1st ballot.
Jefferson could have accomplished his own election without a serious
contest if he had accepted the proposition of the Federalists to give him the
election, to which he was entitled by the vote of the people, if he would
agree not to remove the Federalists who then filled all the offices of the
Government. Under Washington and Adams, the Republicans were
practically proscribed in national appointments, and Adams had been
specially proscriptive in dispensing the patronage of his administration. One
of the most discreditable acts of his administration was the creation, by his
Federal Congress in the expiring hours of Federal rule, of a number of
judges, to whom commissions were issued by Adams at midnight before his
retirement from office. They were known in political discussions of that day
as the “midnight judges,” and the measure was so odious that it speedily
destroyed itself. Jefferson, while not specially proscriptive in political
appointments, regarded it as inconsistent with his appreciation of executive
duties to give any pledge to the opposition to retain their friends in office.
They naturally assumed that Jefferson would be as proscriptive as Adams
had been, and that their only safety was in making terms with Jefferson,
whose election they could accomplish without difficulty.
It is quite probable that they could have made such terms with Burr, and
it is possible that such conditions were proposed and accepted, but the
Federalists knew that the defeat of Jefferson would be a monstrous

perversion of the popular will; and Hamilton and Bayard, of Delaware, and
other prominent Federalists earnestly opposed all affiliation with Burr. Burr
having failed to announce that Jefferson had been elected President by the
people, and should be elected by the House, and Jefferson having refused to
make terms with the Federalists, the election went into the House under
rules which had been adopted by Congress to meet the special case. Under
the rules, the House was required to retire to its own chamber after the
announcement of the electoral vote showing no choice, and proceed to
ballot for President, and to continue to ballot without adjournment until a
choice was effected. That session of the House continued for seven days.
The balloting began on the 11th of February and ended on the 17th, as the
House, instead of adjourning, simply took recesses from time to time. Each
State could cast but one vote in the House, and that vote was determined by
a majority of the delegation. Where the delegation was evenly divided the
State had no vote. The following is the vote of the States on the 1st ballot,
February 11, 1801:

STATES. Jefferson. Burr. State voted for.
New Hampshire — 4 Burr.
Vermont 1 1 Divided—Blank.
Massachusetts 3 11 Burr.
Rhode Island — 2 Burr.
Connecticut — 7 Burr.
New York 6 4 Jefferson.
New Jersey 3 2 Jefferson.
Pennsylvania 9 4 Jefferson.
Delaware — 1 Burr.
Maryland 4 4 Divided—Blank.
Virginia 16 3 Jefferson.
North Carolina 9 1 Jefferson.

South Carolina — 5 Burr.
Georgia 1 — Jefferson.
Kentucky 2 — Jefferson.
Tennessee 1 — Jefferson.
Total 55 49

Nineteen ballots were taken on the same day, then a recess was taken
until the 12th, when 9 additional ballots were taken, and 1 ballot was taken
on the 13th, 4 on the 14th, 1 on the 16th (the 15th being Sunday), and 1 on
the 17th, making an aggregate of 35 ballots, all of which were precisely a
repetition of the 1st ballot given in the foregoing table. Jefferson received
the vote of 8 States, Burr of 6, and 2 were blank, because of divided
delegations. The vote of 9 States was necessary to an election, and there
was no choice.
On the 2d ballot cast on the 17th, being the 36th ballot in all, Jefferson
was successful, receiving the votes of 10 States to 4 for Burr and 2 blank.
The changes in favor of Jefferson were made by one Vermont member
declining to vote, thus allowing his colleague to cast the vote of the State
for President, and by four from Maryland also declining to vote, by which
the tie in that State was broken in Jefferson’s favor.
In addition to these changes South Carolina and Delaware cast blank
votes, but they did not help Jefferson, as he required the positive vote of 9
States to accomplish his election. It was James A. Bayard, of Delaware, a
leading Federalist, who changed his vote on the last ballot from a vote for
Burr to a blank ballot. Jefferson was thus declared elected President, and
Burr became Vice-President by the mandate of the Constitution, he having
received the highest electoral vote for President excepting that cast for
Jefferson.
It can be readily understood that Burr’s permission of the use of his name
to defeat the election of Jefferson in the House made an impassable gulf
between them, and that contest dated the decline of Burr’s power in the
land. He knew that there could be no future for him, and his restless genius
sought new fields in which to gratify his ambition, ending in his arrest and

trial for treason, and also staining his skirts with the murder of Hamilton.
Hamilton was open in his hostility to Burr in the contest between Jefferson
and Burr in the House, and it was Burr’s resentment of Hamilton’s hostility
to his election that made him seize upon a trivial pretext to force Hamilton
into a duel, in which Hamilton fell mortally wounded at the first fire. Burr’s
public career was thus ended by the Jefferson-Burr contest, and although he
lived many years thereafter, he drank the bitterest dregs of sorrow, and died
in poverty and unlamented.
Adams accepted his defeat most ungracefully. He remained in the
Executive Mansion until midnight of the 3d of March, 1801, when he and
his family deserted it, leaving it vacant for Jefferson to enter, without a host
to welcome him. It was the only instance in which the retiring President did
not personally receive the incoming President in the Executive Mansion,
with the single exception of President Johnson, who did not remain at the
White House to receive Grant; but Johnson was excusable from the fact that
Grant had expressed his purpose not to permit Johnson to accompany him
in the inauguration ceremonies. Jefferson, in marked contrast with the pomp
and ceremony of Federal inaugurations, appeared on the 4th of March clad
in home-spun, and rode his own horse unattended to the Capitol, and after
the inauguration ceremonies returned to the Executive Mansion in like
manner. Both Jefferson and Adams lived for more than a quarter of a
century after their great battle terminated in 1800, and time greatly
mellowed the asperities of their desperate political conflicts. In the later
years of their life, when both had lived long in retirement, they had friendly
correspondence; and it is one of the most notable events in our political
annals that Jefferson and Adams, who stood side by side in presenting the
Declaration of Independence to Congress, and who had fought the fiercest
political battles of the nation as opposing leaders, both died on the same day
—the natal day of the Republic—July 4, 1826.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

THE JEFFERSON-PINCKNEY CONTEST
1804
The election of Jefferson in 1800 was a complete revolution in the
political policy of the new Republic, and it maintained its supremacy for
sixty years. The Republican party that triumphed with Jefferson never
suffered a defeat until after the name of the party had been changed to
Democracy under Jackson. John Quincy Adams, who was elected President
in 1824, was nominated and supported as a Republican, as were Jackson,
Crawford, and Clay, and the Whig triumphs of 1840 and 1848 stand in our
history as accidental victories without changing the general policy of the
Government in any material respect. It may be accepted as a fact that from
1800 until 1900, the full period of a century, there have been but two
political policies established and maintained in the government of this
country. The Democratic policy ruled from 1800 to 1860, and from 1860 to
1900 the Republican policy has maintained its supremacy, notwithstanding
the two Democratic administrations of Cleveland. They were but temporary
checks upon Republican mastery, as the Whig successes of 1840 and 1848
were mere temporary checks upon Democratic rule.
With Jefferson’s success in 1800 came, for the first time, the control of
the Republicans in both branches of Congress, and Jefferson thus had the
entire legislative power of the Government in thorough sympathy and
harmony with himself. He was bitterly opposed by the Federalists at every
step. They justly criticised his hostility to an American navy; they
complained vehemently of his removals from office in partisan interests,
and they specially assailed his ostentatious attempts to limit the authority
and powers of the General Government to give the supreme sovereignty of
the nation to the people.
The one act of his administration that was most violently assailed was his
purchase of Louisiana in 1803. It was proclaimed by the Federalists as the
most flagrant usurpation of authority, as an utter overthrow of the
Constitution, and as the beginning of the end of the Union. There is not an
argument made to-day against the acquisition of the Philippines and Puerto

Rico that is not the echo of the earnest arguments made by the Federalists
against the acquisition of Louisiana. The ablest of the Federalists
proclaimed in the Senate and House that the Union was practically
destroyed by the acquisition of a distant country, containing a people with
no sympathy with our interests or institutions; who were generally strangers
to our language and could never be educated to the proper standard of
American citizenship. But the country then, as now, believed in expansion,
and the acquisition of Louisiana stands out as one of the grandest
achievements of statesmanship exhibited by any administration, from
Washington to McKinley.
The contest between Jefferson and Burr for the Presidency, after one had
been distinctly supported as a candidate for President and the other as
distinctly as a candidate for Vice-President, taught the necessity of changing
the method of choosing a President in the Electoral College, but the
Federalists bitterly opposed the change, chiefly on the ground that it was
desired solely to gratify the personal ambition and interests of Jefferson.
The proposed amendment prevailed, however, and was ratified by thirteen
of the sixteen States in ample time for the contest of 1804. The dissenting
States in the ratification of the amendment were Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and Delaware. Under that amendment the electors voted for
President and Vice-President as they do to-day, and the candidate for Vice-
President must now have a majority of the electoral vote as well as the
candidate for President to be successful.
The Congressional caucus that made Presidents for many years became
an accepted institution in 1804, when the Republican or Jeffersonian
members of Congress were publicly invited to meet on the 25th of
February. They unanimously nominated Mr. Jefferson for re-election, and as
Burr was unthought of for Vice-President, they nominated George Clinton,
of New York, for that office. This was the first open political caucus or
convention to nominate national candidates. The caucuses of 1800 were
held in secret by both the Federalists and Republicans, and no record was
preserved of their actions. Those who called the caucus, appreciating the
prejudice that would likely be provoked by Congress attempting to dictate
the candidates for President and Vice-President, distinctly declared that the
caucus or conference was called solely as individuals, and not as official
representatives of the Senate and House. If the Federalists held a caucus in

1804, there is no record of it that I have been able to find, but they united on
Charles C. Pinckney, of South Carolina, for President, and Rufus King, of
New York, for Vice-President. Both of the parties gave the second place on
their respective tickets to New York, clearly indicating that they regarded
New York as one of the pivotal States of the conflict.
Ohio had been admitted into the Union in 1802, making 17 States to take
part in the election of 1804, and the new apportionment, shaped by the
census of 1800, enlarged the number of electoral votes. While the
Federalists had greatly diminished in popular strength by the loss of power
and the steadily gaining approval of Jefferson and his Republican policy,
they did not abate in any degree the intensity of their hostility to Jefferson,
and in a few States where contests were made, the campaigns were
conducted on the old defamatory lines which marked the two great battles
between Jefferson and Adams.
In most of the States there was practically no contest, but in
Massachusetts and Connecticut, where Federalism had always maintained
its supremacy, the Federalists fought with an earnestness and desperation
such as might have been expected in a hopeful struggle. The fiercest battle
was fought in Massachusetts, where for the first time the Republicans
defeated the Federalists in the largest vote ever cast in the State. Jefferson
electors received 29,310 votes to 25,777 for the Pinckney ticket, giving
Jefferson a majority of 3533. This was a terrible blow to Adams, and it was
aggravated by the fact that while Massachusetts faltered, Connecticut gave
her electoral vote to the Federal ticket. Delaware, with her three electoral
votes, was the only other State that maintained her devotion to the Federal
cause, and the electoral votes of those 2 States, with 2 added from the 11
votes of Maryland, summed up the entire vote of the Federal candidate for
President in the Electoral College, the vote being 162 for Jefferson to 14 for
Pinckney, and a like vote for Clinton and King for Vice-President. The
following table presents the official vote cast in the electoral colleges:

President. Vice-President.
STATES. Thomas Charles C. George Rufus
Jefferson. Pinckney. Clinton. King.

New
7 — 7 —
Hampshire
Vermont 6 — 6 —
Massachusetts 19 — 19 —
Rhode Island 4 — 4 —
Connecticut — 9 — 9
New York 19 — 19 —
New Jersey 8 — 8 —
Pennsylvania 20 — 20 —
Delaware — 3 — 3
Maryland 9 2 9 2
Virginia 24 — 24 —
North Carolina 14 — 14 —
South Carolina 10 — 10 —
Georgia 6 — 6 —
Kentucky 8 — 8 —
Tennessee 5 — 5 —
Ohio 3 — 3 —
Total 162 14 162 14

JAMES MADISON

THE MADISON-PINCKNEY-CLINTON CONTESTS
1808–12
The election of Jefferson ended the line of the succession to the Presidency from the Vice-
Presidency. Adams as Vice-President succeeded Washington as President, and Jefferson as Vice-
President succeeded Adams, but the Burr fiasco made it impossible for the succession to be
maintained, and for many years the line of succession to the Presidency was in the Premiers of the
administration. Indeed during the entire century from 1800 to 1900 but one Vice-President has been
elected to the Presidency. That single exception was Martin Van Buren, and he started under the
Jackson administration as Premier. Madison, who was Secretary of State under Jefferson,
succeeded Jefferson to the Presidency; Monroe, Secretary of State under Madison, succeeded
Madison as President; John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State under Monroe, succeeded Monroe as
President, and since that time Buchanan was the only Secretary of State who reached the
Presidency, although Webster, Cass and Blaine, who were Premiers under several administrations,
were defeated in Presidential contests.
Madison was generally regarded as the favorite of Jefferson for the succession, and Jefferson’s
power at that time was second only to the power of Washington in dictating who should succeed
him to the highest honor of the Republic. Irritating opposition to Madison came from his own State
of Virginia, where the friends of Monroe were quite aggressive. Two caucuses had been held in the
Virginia Legislature, one by the friends of Madison, and the other, much smaller in number, by the
friends of Monroe, and both were thus formally presented to the country to succeed Jefferson.
A caucus of the Republican members of both branches of Congress was called to meet on the
23d of January, 1808. It was known that the friends of Madison largely outnumbered the friends of
Monroe in Congress, and the active supporters of Monroe earnestly opposed a nomination by the
Congressional caucus. The caucus was held, however, and was attended by a majority of the
Senators and Representatives, and Madison was nominated on the 1st ballot, receiving 83 votes to
3 for Monroe and 3 for George Clinton. Monroe had a considerably larger strength in Congress, but
the result was predetermined, and a number of them did not participate. George Clinton was
nominated by substantially the same vote for Vice-President. The caucus system was under fire,
and the caucus, in justification of its own act, adopted a resolution declaring that in making the
nominations the members had “acted only in their individual characters as citizens,” and because it
was “the most practical mode of consulting and respecting the interests and wishes of all upon a
subject so truly interesting to the people of the United States.”
It was a considerable time before the friends of Monroe gave a cordial adhesion to the caucus
nominations, but Jefferson, who was friendly to both Madison and Monroe, interposed and
reconciled the friends of Monroe by the expectation that Monroe would succeed Madison; and as
there was practically no serious opposition to Madison presented by the Federalists, the campaign
drifted into the general acceptance of Madison’s election long before the election was held. The
Federalists did not hold any caucus or formally present candidates, but accepted Pinckney and
King, for whom they had voted in the last contest against Jefferson.
In the New England States vigorous contests were made by the Federalists to regain the
supremacy they had lost, and New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, which had voted
for Jefferson, were regained by the Federalists, but the struggle was not made with any hope of

defeating Madison for President. There had been no increase in the number of States nor in the vote
of the electoral colleges. Madison won an easy and decisive victory, receiving 122 electoral votes
to 47 for Pinckney and 6 for George Clinton, who was the regular nominee of the Republicans for
Vice-President, and who was elected to that office by 113 electoral votes to 47 for King and 15
scattering. New York was obviously disaffected, as while the Republican caucus had accorded to
Clinton of that State the second place on the ticket, and elected him Vice-President, the electoral
vote of New York was divided, Madison receiving 13 to 6 cast for Clinton, and in the same
electoral college Clinton received 13 votes for Vice-President to 3 for Madison and 3 for Monroe.
The votes of North Carolina and Maryland were also divided, but that was not unusual, as after
Washington retired the electoral votes of those States were divided, because their electors were
chosen by Congressional districts.
There is no intelligent record of the popular vote, and it would be needless to attempt to present
it, as outside of New England the States which were contested generally chose their electors by the
Legislature. The following is the vote in detail as cast in the Electoral College:

President. Vice-President.
STATES. James George C. C. George James John James Rufus
Madison, Clinton, Pinckney, Clinton, Madison, Langdon, Monroe, King,
Va. N. Y. S. C. N. Y. Va. N. H. Va. N. Y.
New
— — 7 — — — — 7
Hampshire
Vermont 6 — — — — 6 — —
Massachusetts — — 19 — — — — 19
Rhode Island — — 4 — — — — 4
Connecticut — — 9 — — — — 9
New York 13 6 — 13 3 — 3 —
New Jersey 8 — — 8 — — — —
Pennsylvania 20 — — 20 — — — —
Delaware — — 3 — — — — 3
Maryland 9 — 2 9 — — — 2
Virginia 24 — — 24 — — — —
North
11 — 3 11 — — — 3
Carolina
South
10 — — 10 — — — —
Carolina
Georgia 6 — — 6 — — — —
Kentucky[4] 7 — — 7 — — — —
Tennessee 5 — — 5 — — — —

Ohio 3 — — — — 3 — —
122 6 47 113 3 9 3 47

The battle for Madison’s second election in 1812 began in the early period of our second war
with Great Britain. Many complicated foreign questions excited earnest discussion and renewed the
partisan bitterness of the earlier national contests, while the struggle for the renewal of the charter
of the United States bank convulsed financial and business circles. The bill was lost by indefinite
postponement in the House in 1811 by a single vote, and soon thereafter a like bill was rejected in
the Senate by the casting vote of the Vice-President. Madison did not possess the breadth of
statesmanship so grandly exhibited by Jefferson, and he lacked in the positive qualities needed to
meet the grave issues which confronted him. He parried our foreign questions with almost endless
diplomatic correspondence, and in the conduct of the war he lacked in the settled purpose and
methods which are always necessary to sustain a government in such a crisis.
It was then that Clay came to the front as Commoner of the nation, and it was his able, eloquent,
and inspiring utterances and actions, aided by Senator Crawford, of Georgia, that saved the
administration when it was apparently threatened with defeat. Madison was unwilling to accept war
with England until it became clearly evident that he must declare war or give the Federalists a
restoration to power, and it was only after he had been very earnestly appealed to by the men upon
whom he had most to depend, that he sent a message to Congress pointing out the necessity of a
declaration of war, to which both branches in secret sessions gave their approval.
It was not until after Madison had decided upon an aggressive war policy with England that the
Congressional caucus was called to nominate Republican candidates for President and Vice-
President. The caucus met on the 12th of May apparently without objection, and Madison was
renominated by a unanimous vote, only one member present declining to vote. Clinton had died in
office, and a new nomination had to be made for Vice-President. John Langdon, of New
Hampshire, who was the first Senator to be President pro tem. of the body, was nominated for Vice-
President, receiving 64 votes to 16 for Elbridge Gerry and 2 scattering. Langdon declined the
nomination, and the second caucus was convened when Gerry was nominated by a vote of 74 to 3
scattering. While the proceedings of the caucus were apparently very harmonious, there was
significance in the fact that some 50 Republican Senators and Representatives did not attend, only
one being present from New York State.
The reason for the New York members declining to attend the caucus was soon developed by a
counter movement, made in New York, to bring out DeWitt Clinton, who was the leader of the
Republicans of that State, as the candidate in opposition to Madison. The Federalists had no part in
making him the competitor of Madison, but they were quite willing, in their utter helplessness, to
support any bolt against the omnipotence of the Republican caucus. Many of the Republicans
thought that the administration was not sufficiently aggressive in its opposition to England, and
many others opposed Madison and were ready to support Clinton or any other promising candidate
who was entirely opposed to the war. Had Clinton acted in harmony with the Republicans and
supported Madison, he would have been a very formidable competitor of Monroe for the
succession, but in allowing himself to be made a candidate of the opposition, he entirely lost his
position as a Republican leader.
Madison had been nominated by the Republican Congressional caucus on the 12th of May, and
on the 29th of May a caucus of the Republican members of the New York Legislature was held, at
which 91 of the 93 members were present, and they unanimously nominated Clinton as a candidate

for President, and the Federalists gradually dropped into his support. The Federalists took no
formal action for the selection of candidates until September, when a conference of the leaders of
that party was held in New York, with representatives from 11 States, and that conference
nominated Clinton for President with Jared Ingersoll for Vice-President.
The campaign logically drifted into a square issue between the war and the peace parties, and
even with all the factional hostility to Madison in the Republican ranks, such an issue could result
only in the success of the party that sustained the Government in its war with England. The
Federalists carried a solid New England vote for Clinton with the exception of Vermont, that broke
loose from her Federal moorings and cast her entire electoral vote for Madison. New York, with the
largest electoral vote of any State, was carried chiefly by Clinton’s personal popularity, and New
Jersey was lost to Madison in disregard of the popular vote of the State by a Federal Senate and
House that was successful against a Republican majority by reason of the peculiar shaping of the
legislative districts. The Legislature repealed the law for the choice of electors by a popular vote,
and elected Federal electors by the Legislature. Had the popular vote of New Jersey prevailed, the
vote between Madison and Clinton in the Electoral College would have been 136 for Madison to
81 for Clinton. The following is the vote as cast by the electoral colleges:

President. Vice-President.
STATES. James Madison, DeWitt Clinton, Elbridge Gerry, Jared Ingersoll,
Va. N. Y. Mass. Penn.
New
— 8 1 7
Hampshire
Vermont 8 — 8 —
Massachusetts — 22 2 20
Rhode Island — 4 — 4
Connecticut — 9 — 9
New York — 29 — 29
New Jersey — 8 — 8
Pennsylvania 25 — 25 —
Delaware — 4 — 4
Maryland 6 5 6 5
Virginia 25 — 25 —
North Carolina 15 — 15 —
South Carolina 11 — 11 —
Georgia 8 — 8 —
Kentucky 12 — 12 —
Tennessee 8 — 8 —
Louisiana 3 — 3 —

Ohio 7 — 7 —
Total 128 89 131 86

Louisiana was admitted into the Union on the 8th of April, 1812, and participated in the
Presidential election, making 18 States. It will be seen that there was but one State that cast a
divided electoral vote. Maryland continued to choose all but the electors at large by Congressional
districts, and gave 6 votes to Madison and 5 to Clinton. North Carolina changed her method of
electing by districts to the choice of electors by the Legislature, thus making her electoral vote
solid. Gerry, the candidate for Vice-President on the ticket with Madison, received 3 more votes in
the Electoral College than were given to Madison, one of which came from New Hampshire and
two from Massachusetts.

THE MONROE ELECTIONS

1816–20
The election of James Monroe to the Presidency in 1816 and his re-election in 1820 did
not rise to the dignity of political contests. The Federal party was practically overthrown
by the success of the war with England, and after the close of the war Federalism never
asserted itself as a political factor in national affairs. There were murmurings of
discontent in the Republican organization, but the Federalists were then in the unenviable
attitude of having sympathized with the enemy in a foreign war, and the prejudices of the
patriotic people of the country were intensified against the action of the Hartford
convention, for which the Federalists were held responsible.
Whether justly or unjustly, it was believed by the Republicans throughout the country
that the Hartford conventionists had given “blue-light” signals to the enemy’s ships, and
thereby hindered the escape of American vessels which were blockaded. The overthrow
of Federalism was so complete that the party never again formally presented candidates
for President and Vice-President, and the first Monroe election of 1816 would probably
have been as unanimous in the Electoral College as was his second election but for the
fact that the three Federal States which voted against Monroe did not hold popular
elections for President at all, but chose their electors by the Legislature. Massachusetts,
the home of Adams, that had always chosen Presidential electors by popular vote,
repealed the law in 1816, so that there was not a single elector chosen by the people
against Monroe.
While Monroe’s two elections and administrations are now pointed to as the “era of
good feeling,” that has never been repeated in this country. Monroe himself did not reach
the Presidency by the rosy path that would now be naturally accepted for him in his
journey to the highest civil trust of the nation. The usual Congressional caucus was called
on the 10th of March, 1816, asking the Republican Senators and Representatives to meet
on the 12th for the purpose of nominating candidates for President and Vice-President.
Only 58 of the 141 Republican members attended this meeting, and, instead of taking
action, a resolution was passed calling a general caucus for the 16th, and at that caucus
118 members appeared. There were strong and widespread prejudices against the
Congressional caucus system, and it was denounced by many prominent Republicans as
“King Caucus” that sought to control the people in the selection of the highest officers.

JAMES MONROE

Senator Crawford, of Georgia, who had been the leading Senator, as Clay was the
leading Representative, in the support of the war during the Madison administration, was
an aggressive candidate for President, and was more popular with the politicians generally
throughout the country than was Monroe. Great anxiety was felt about the probable action
of the caucus, as it was feared that Monroe might be overthrown, notwithstanding the fact
that he was favored by both Jefferson and Madison. When the caucus met with twenty-
three Republican absentees, the majority of whom absented themselves because they were
positively opposed to the caucus system, Mr. Clay offered a resolution declaring it
inexpedient to nominate candidates, but his proposition failed. He thus put himself on
record as early as 1816 against the caucus system, and he rejected and took the field
against it as a candidate in 1824.
The canvass between Monroe and Crawford was very animated, and Monroe
succeeded by only 11 majority, the vote being 65 for Monroe and 54 for Crawford.
Governor Daniel D. Tompkins, of New York, was nominated for Vice-President, receiving
20 votes more than were given to Monroe. The Crawford sentiment was strong in New
York and New Jersey, as well as in North Carolina, Kentucky, and his native State of
Georgia, and public meetings were held in different sections of the country after the
nominations had been made, denouncing the caucus system, at one of which Roger B.
Taney, who later became Chief Justice, was one of the aggressive opponents.
Had there been a formidable Federal party, it is doubtful whether Monroe’s election
might not have been seriously imperilled, but the war feeling was too fresh in the minds
of the people to tolerate anything that was in sympathy with that expiring political
organization. The Republicans who were opposed to Monroe had to choose between
falling in with the caucus nomination, and giving Monroe a unanimous support, or
making a square fight as a bolting Republican faction, without permitting the aid of the
Federalists. As that was impracticable, the Republican discontent gradually subsided and
the election of Monroe was conceded by all.
The Federalists made no nomination, but supported Rufus King, one of their old
national candidates, and scattered their few votes for Vice-President, no two of the three
States voting for the same candidate. Indiana had adopted a State Constitution in June, but
was not formally admitted to the Union until the 11th of December, after the Presidential
election had been held. The State, however, had voted for President, and elected three
Republican electors for Monroe, but an animated dispute arose in Congress about
counting the vote, because of the alleged ineligibility of Indiana to vote for President
when not formally admitted into the Union, even though the people had adopted a State
Constitution several months before the election. The two bodies separated, to enable the
House to decide the issue, but finally the question was postponed by a nearly unanimous
vote, and the Senate invited to return, when the vote was declared as follows:

President. Vice-President.
Robert
STATES. James Rufus Daniel D. John E. James John
G.
Monroe, King, Tompkins, Howard, Ross, Marshall,
Harper,
Va. N. Y. N. Y. Md. Penn. Va.
Md.
New
8 — 8 — — — —
Hampshire
Vermont 8 — 8 — — — —
Massachusetts — 22 — 22 — — —
Rhode Island 4 — 4 — — 4 —
Connecticut — 9 — — 5 — —
New York 29 — 29 — — — —
New Jersey 8 — 8 — — — —
Pennsylvania 25 — 25 — — — —
Delaware — 3 — — — — 3
Maryland 8 — 8 — — — —
Virginia 25 — 25 — — — —
North
15 — 15 — — — —
Carolina
South
11 — 11 — — — —
Carolina
Georgia 8 — 8 — — — —
Kentucky 12 — 12 — — — —
Tennessee 8 — 8 — — — —
Louisiana 3 — 3 — — — —
Ohio 8 — 8 — — — —
Indiana 3 — 3 — — — —
Total 183 34 183 22 5 4 3

Monroe’s re-election in 1820 presents the singular political spectacle of his success
without having been formally nominated by any party, and without a single electoral vote
being chosen against him. That had occurred in Washington’s two elections, but it was not
believed possible that, with the bitter partisan disputes which immediately followed

Washington’s retirement, any man could ever be chosen for the Presidency without more
or less of a contest. Monroe’s administration had no serious political or diplomatic
problem to confront it, and the country was rapidly recovering from the war and proud of
the achievements of the American army and navy in the second contest with the English.
Monroe was naturally cautious and conservative. There was nothing aggressive in the
policy of his administration, and really no occasion to invite aggression. The Federal
Party was practically extinct, and the Republicans were in thorough accord with the
Monroe administration. A feeble movement was made early in 1820 to supersede Monroe,
but it never attained importance, and even those who attempted it denied responsibility
for it. The usual Republican Congressional caucus was called, and very few members
took the trouble to attend it, as there was really nothing to do; and it was deemed better
for the party to accept Monroe and Tompkins for re-election than to have formal
nominations made by a very few representatives of the party. Monroe and Tompkins were
thus accepted without any formalities whatever as the Republican candidates for President
and Vice-President, and no opposing candidates were presented in any way whatever of
which I can find any record or tradition. Monroe thus ran in 1820, as Washington did at
both his elections, without opposition, and every electoral vote of the nation was chosen
for him.
Five new States had been admitted and participated in the election of 1820. Mississippi
came in December, 1817; Illinois in December, 1818; Alabama in December, 1819;
Maine in March, 1820, and Missouri had adopted a Constitution in July, 1820, and
although not formally admitted into the Union until August, 1821, the vote of that State
was counted, as was the vote of Indiana in 1816. The following is the official vote as
announced by Congress:

President. Vice-President.
John Robert
STATES. James Daniel D. Richard Richard Daniel
Quincy G.
Monroe, Tompkins, Stockton, Rush, Rodney,
Adams, Harper,
Va. N. Y. N. J. Penn. Del.
Mass. Md.
Maine 9 — 9 — — — —
New
7 1 7 — — 1 —
Hampshire
Vermont 8 — 8 — — — —
Massachusetts 15 — 7 8 — — —
Rhode Island 4 — 4 — — — —
Connecticut 9 — 9 — — — —
New York 29 — 29 — — — —

New Jersey 8 — 8 — — — —
Pennsylvania[5] 24 — 24 — — — —
Delaware 4 — — — — — 4
Maryland 11 — 10 — 1 — —
Virginia 25 — 25 — — — —
North Carolina 15 — 15 — — — —
South Carolina 11 — 11 — — — —
Georgia 8 — 8 — — — —
Alabama 3 — 3 — — — —
Mississippi[5] 2 — 2 — — — —
Louisiana 3 — 3 — — — —
Kentucky 12 — 12 — — — —
Tennessee[5] 7 — 7 — — — —
Ohio 8 — 8 — — — —
Indiana 3 — 3 — — — —
Illinois 3 — 3 — — — —
Missouri 3 — 3 — — — —
Total 231 1 218 8 1 1 4

It will be seen that a single electoral vote was cast against Monroe in the New
Hampshire Electoral College. The whole 8 electors were chosen as Monroe men, and
would have voted for him had it been necessary to elect him, but one of the New
Hampshire electors gave as his reason for voting for John Quincy Adams for President
and Richard Rush, of Pennsylvania, for Vice-President, that he was unwilling that any
other President than Washington should receive a unanimous electoral vote.
Monroe’s administrations were uneventful beyond the assertion of what has ever since
been known as the Monroe Doctrine, that was evolved by Monroe and John Quincy
Adams, his Secretary of State, and the first serious contest in Congress over the Slavery
issue, growing out of the admission of Missouri as a State. After the admission of
Louisiana as a State the remainder of the territory embracing the Louisiana purchase was
organized as the Territory of Missouri, and in 1818 the portion of the territory now
embraced in the State of Missouri applied for admission into the Union as a State. In 1819
the House passed a bill for the admission of Missouri, with a clause prohibiting slavery,
but it was not accepted by the Senate.

In 1820 the Senate sent a bill to the House for the admission of Maine, and authorizing
the organization of the State of Missouri. The House had already passed a bill for the
admission of Maine, but it refused to accept the Senate’s provision relating to Missouri.
There was very violent agitation on the Slavery question for some time, and many feared
that it would end in the disruption of the Union; but Clay became the pacificator, and
chiefly by his efforts what has ever since been known as the Missouri Compromise was
accepted, admitting Missouri as a slave State, but prohibiting slavery in all of the
Louisiana territory north of 36 degrees and 30 minutes north latitude. This compromise
did not fully satisfy either side, but it was accepted, and on the 10th of August, 1821,
President Monroe proclaimed the admission of Missouri into the Union.
Monroe had the most unruffled period of rule ever known in the history of the
Republic. Washington, with all his omnipotence, was fearfully beset by factional strife
and the wrangles of ambition on every side, and there was no period of his two
administrations in which he was not greatly fretted by the persistent and often desperate
disputes among those who should have been his friends; but Monroe had an entirely
peaceful reign, with the single exception of the slavery dispute over the Missouri
question, and at the close of his term he retired to his home in Virginia entirely exhausted
in fortune. For several years he acted as a Justice of the Peace, but his severely straitened
circumstances finally compelled him to make his home with his son-in-law in New York,
where he died in 1831, and, like Jefferson and Adams, on the 4th of July.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS

THE ADAMS-JACKSON-CRAWFORD-CLAY CONTEST
1824
With the re-election of Monroe in 1820, the Federal party had perished as a political factor; “King Caucus,” as
the Congressional caucus for nominating national candidates had been generally designated, had fulfilled its
mission, and none pretended that it could be revived to name the successor of Monroe. As Federalism was unfelt
and unfeared, and as the Congressional caucus had lost its prestige and power, the Presidential field of 1824
invited a free-for-all race, and the discussion of the succession began actively as early as 1822. It seems
unaccountable that the Republicans, after having had the benefit of the Congressional caucus to concentrate their
vote on national candidates, did not conceive the idea of a general conference of representative Republicans from
the different States to unite them on candidates for President and Vice-President, but no national convention was
ever held by any party until the anti-Masons inaugurated it in Philadelphia in 1830, two years before the
Presidential election of 1832.
As there was practically no Federal party, none but Republicans were discussed for the succession to Monroe. It
is a common but erroneous idea that John Quincy Adams was in harmony with the Federal sentiment of his State
and New England generally. After having filled a number of important offices, principally in diplomatic circles, he
was elected to the United States Senate as a Federalist by the Massachusetts Legislature in 1802, but he heartily
supported the administration of Jefferson, resulting in instructions passed by the Legislature demanding that he
should change his political policy. He refused to obey the Legislative instructions, but resigned his seat in the
Senate, and thenceforth he acted uniformly with the Republicans, and was Secretary of State during the eight
years of Monroe’s administration.
While very many candidates were discussed for the succession, when the time came for concentration only six
names remained, and three of those were members of the Monroe Cabinet. They were John Quincy Adams,
Secretary of State; John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War; William H. Crawford, Secretary of the Treasury; Henry
Clay, of Kentucky, who had been Speaker of the House; Ex-Governor De Witt Clinton, of New York, who was not
then in official position, and General Andrew Jackson, of Tennessee, who had been Senator, Representative, and
Supreme Judge. Mr. Clay was presented to the people as a candidate for President by the Kentucky Legislature as
early as the 18th of November, 1822, or two years before the election, and the Missouri Legislature also adopted a
resolution about the same time recommending Mr. Clay. During the year 1823 the Legislatures of Illinois, Ohio,
and Louisiana had also formally favored Clay.
General Jackson was first formally named for the Presidency by a mass-meeting in Blount County, Tenn., early
in 1823, and that was followed up by various mass-meetings and local conventions in different parts of the Union.
Mr. Adams, although not in sympathy with the Federalists, having earnestly supported the war with England
against the Federal sentiment of his State, was presented as a candidate by the Legislature of Massachusetts, and it
was seconded by most of the New England States during the early part of the year 1824.
Clinton was nominated by local mass-meetings in New York and Ohio. Calhoun was presented by the
Legislature of South Carolina, and Crawford by the Legislature of Virginia. It is worthy of note that while Adams
was the Premier of the administration, Crawford was obviously the favorite candidate of President Monroe, as the
Legislature of Virginia recommended Crawford, and Virginia voted for him at the election.
All of these candidates were opposed to the Congressional caucus excepting Crawford, who had been the
competitor of Monroe in the caucus in 1816. His friends made earnest effort to get the prestige of a caucus
nomination, and 6 Senators and 5 Representatives from different States called a caucus to meet on the 14th of
February, 1824, “to recommend candidates to the people of the United States for the office of President and Vice-
President.” That call was met by a card signed by 24 Republican Senators and members declaring that of the 261
Senators and Representatives there were 81 who were opposed to the caucus. The caucus was held, however, but
only 66 members appeared, a majority of whom were from 4 States, and 8 States were not represented at all. A
motion to adjourn to meet some weeks later was opposed by Mr. Van Buren and rejected. A ballot was then had
for President, when Crawford received 64, Adams 2, Jackson 1, and Macon 1. Albert Gallatin, of Pennsylvania,
was also nominated for Vice-President.

The caucus nomination was certainly a hindrance rather than a help to Crawford, as it concentrated his
opponents to a very large extent. The caucus system had become very odious, and with 5 of the 6 candidates
openly hostile to the caucus, it placed Crawford at a decided disadvantage. Gallatin, who was of foreign birth, was
bitterly assailed, and a month before the election he withdrew his name as a candidate, but no attempt was made
to give formal nomination to a successor for him on the ticket.
Strange as it may appear, Pennsylvania, the home of Gallatin, did not cordially respond to his nomination, and
there was a decided preference in that State in favor of Calhoun for Vice-President. Calhoun and Clinton, being
without any large measure of support, gradually dropped out of the Presidential contest, leaving Adams, Jackson,
Crawford, and Clay to make the scrub race. There were 24 States to participate in the election, and New York,
Vermont, Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana chose their electors by their Legislatures, while
Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Illinois, and Kentucky chose electors by districts, and in the other States
popular elections were held and electors chosen by general ticket.
An incident that occurred in the selection of electors by the Legislature of New York resulted in making Clay
the fourth candidate in the Electoral College instead of the third. There were 3 of the electors chosen by the
Legislature who were elected as Clay men by a combination between the Clay and Adams men, who in the
Electoral College divided their votes between Adams, Crawford, and Jackson, and had they voted for Clay, as it
was expected they would, Clay would have had 40 votes in the electoral colleges and Crawford only 38. As only
the three highest candidates in the Electoral College could be returned to the House from which a choice had to be
made, Crawford was thus returned instead of Clay, and if Clay had been returned, it is probable that Adams would
not have been chosen President. The New York Legislature had a protracted contest in choosing electors. The
combined strength of the candidates in the two Houses as shown by the 1st ballot was 60 for Crawford, 57 for
Adams, and 39 for Clay. Finally a combination was made between the friends of Adams and Clay, and divided
electors were chosen, by which Adams received 26 votes, Crawford 5, Clay 4, and Jackson 1. In Delaware the
electors were divided by a like dispute in the Legislature.
The contest was not one of great bitterness, and in some States there was practically no contest at all.
Massachusetts and Virginia, for instance, did not poll half their votes, as they were really not contested, one being
conceded to Adams and the other to Crawford. The following is the popular vote of the States except where the
electors were chosen by the Legislature, as nearly as it can be ascertained after the most exhaustive investigation
of the records:

STATES. Jackson. Adams. Crawford. Clay.
Maine[6] ——— 10,289 2,336 ———
New Hampshire 643 4,107 ——— ———
[7] ——— ——— ——— ———
Vermont
Massachusetts[6] ——— 30,687 6,616 ———
Rhode Island ——— 2,145 200 ———
Connecticut ——— 7,587 1,978 ———
[7] ——— ——— ——— ———
New York
New Jersey 10,985 9,110 1,196 ———
Pennsylvania 36,100 5,440 4,206 1,609
[7] ——— ——— ——— ———
Delaware
Maryland[6] 14,523 14,632 3,646 695
Virginia 2,861 3,189 8,489 416
North Carolina 20,415 ——— 15,621 ———
South Carolina[7] ——— ——— ——— ———

Georgia[7] ——— ——— ——— ———
Alabama 9,443 2,416 1,680 67
Mississippi 3,234 1,694 119 ———
Louisiana[7] ——— ——— ——— ———
Kentucky[6] 6,455 ——— ——— 17,321
Tennessee 20,197 216 312 ———
Missouri 987 311 ——— 1,401
Ohio 18,457 12,280 ——— 19,255
Indiana 7,343 3,095 ——— 5,315
[6] 1,901 1,542 219 1,047
Illinois
Totals 153,544 108,740 46,618 47,136

The popular vote as given in the foregoing table does not fully represent the relative strength of the opposition
candidates to Jackson. There were what were called “Opposition” tickets, “People’s” tickets, and “Convention”
tickets voted in different States. It will be seen that Jackson received no votes in New England excepting a few in
New Hampshire, and in most of those States electoral tickets were known as “Opposition” designed to
concentrate all the opposition to Adams, and in North Carolina the Jackson ticket was voted as the “People’s”
ticket, but no more intelligent and satisfactory presentation of the popular vote can be gathered from the records
than that presented.
The following is the vote of the Electoral College:

President. Vice-President.
M.
STATES. Andrew J. Q. W. H. H. John C. Nathan Nathaniel Andrew H.
Van
Jackson, Adams, Crawford, Clay, Calhoun, Sanford, Macon, Jackson, Clay,
Buren,
Tenn. Mass. Ga. Ky. S. C. N. Y. N. C. Tenn. Ky.
N. Y.
Maine — 9 — — 9 — — — — —
New
— 8 — — 7 — — 1 — —
Hampshire
Vermont — 7 — — 7 — — — — —
Massachusetts — 15 — — 15 — — — — —
Rhode Island — 4 — — 3 — — — — —
Connecticut — 8 — — — — — 8 — —
New York 1 26 5 4 29 7 — — — —
New Jersey 8 — — — 8 — — — — —
Pennsylvania 28 — — — 28 — — — — —
Delaware — 1 2 — 1 — — — — 2
Maryland 7 3 1 — 10 — — 1 — —
Virginia — — 24 — — — 24 — — —
North
15 — — — 15 — — — — —
Carolina

South
11 — — — 11 — — — — —
Carolina
Georgia — — 9 — — — — — 9 —
Alabama 5 — — — 5 — — — — —
Mississippi 3 — — — 3 — — — — —
Louisiana 3 2 — — 5 — — — — —
Kentucky — — — 14 7 7 — — — —
Tennessee 11 — — — 11 — — — — —
Missouri — — — 3 — — — 3 — —
Ohio — — — 16 — 16 — — — —
Indiana 5 — — — 5 — — — — —
Illinois 2 1 — — 3 — — — — —
Total 99 84 41 37 182 30 24 13 9 2

Jackson led the popular vote, as was generally expected, and next to him is Adams, with Clay third and
Crawford fourth. While all of the 4 candidates were regarded as Republicans as between Federalism and
Republicanism, the friends of Adams in a number of the States fought the battle under the title of National
Republicans, and the supporters of Jackson, who represented the more Democratic element of the opponents of
Federalism, entitled themselves in some States the Democratic Republicans. As was generally expected, there was
no choice for President, as no one of the 4 candidates had a majority of either the popular or electoral votes, but
Calhoun was elected Vice-President by a large majority, having received the support of the Adams men generally
in New England, and of the Jackson men in Pennsylvania, Maryland, North and South Carolina, and indeed in all
of the Southern States, excepting Georgia, Kentucky, and Missouri.
Thus for the second time in the history of the Republic the Presidential election was remanded to the House for
final decision, and the names of Jackson, Adams, and Crawford, the three highest in the Electoral College, were
returned to that body from which a choice had to be made by a majority of the States. Although Clay had received
less votes than Crawford, he was a very much more potent factor in deciding the contest between the three
candidates than Crawford could have been, and it soon became evident that the friends of Clay were in much
closer accord and sympathy with Adams than they were with the friends of either Crawford or Jackson. Clay
certainly had no love for Jackson, as Jackson was not accredited with any great qualities of statesmanship, and it
was the general apprehension that Clay would control the election in favor of Adams that made the friends of
Jackson publish the accusation of “bargain and sale” between Adams and Clay, by which Clay was to make
Adams President and receive the position of Premier under the administration. Although the Legislature of
Kentucky had requested the Congressmen from that State to vote for Jackson, there were well-known reasons,
both public and personal, why Clay could not favor Jackson, and on the first ballot in the House Adams received
the votes of 13 States, with 7 for Jackson and 4 for Crawford. The majority of the delegation of each State decided
how the vote should be cast, and the following table shows not only how the vote of each State was given, but the
divisions in the different delegations in deciding between the three candidates:

STATES. Adams. Jackson. Crawford. Vote for—
Maine 7 — — Adams.
New Hampshire 6 — — Adams.
Vermont 5 — — Adams.
Massachusetts 12 1 — Adams.
Rhode Island 2 — — Adams.

Connecticut 6 — — Adams.
New York 18 2 14 Adams.
New Jersey 1 5 — Jackson.
Pennsylvania 1 25 — Jackson.
Delaware — — 1 Crawford.
Maryland 5 3 1 Adams.
Virginia 1 1 19 Crawford.
North Carolina 1 2 10 Crawford.
South Carolina — 9 — Jackson.
Georgia — — 7 Crawford.
Alabama — 3 — Jackson.
Mississippi — 1 — Jackson.
Louisiana 2 1 — Adams.
Kentucky 8 4 — Adams.
Tennessee — 9 — Jackson.
Missouri 1 — — Adams.
Ohio 10 2 2 Adams.
Indiana — 3 — Jackson.
Illinois 1 — — Adams.
87 71 54

The administration of John Quincy Adams will be regarded by the careful and dispassionate student of
American history as the model government of the Republic. He was the most accomplished scholar who ever
filled the position, and surpassed all others in general and accurate intelligence. He was a tireless student until the
day of his death, and he had no taste and no fitness for political manipulation. He removed but two men from
office during his four years in the Presidency, and they were dismissed for very good cause, and in the discharge
of his official duties he looked solely to what he conceived to be the interests of the nation.
He made no efforts to popularize himself personally; was regarded as austere and unapproachable, but he was
always courteous, and the arts of the demagogue had no place in the Executive Mansion. He was the real author of
the Monroe Doctrine, and earnestly attempted to accomplish what Blaine struggled to accomplish three-quarters
of a century later—that is, the unity of the South American governments in sympathy with our Government. His
Cabinet was not in political harmony, but as he regarded politics as entirely outside of Cabinet duties, he never
took note of political disagreements. He aimed to win a re-election solely by deserving the considerate approval of
the American people. After his defeat he returned to his home in Massachusetts, but was soon elected to Congress,
where he continued until his death in 1848.
As an illustration of the careful methods of his life my own experience in obtaining his autograph serves a good
purpose. A few weeks before his death, when I was the editor of a village newspaper and ambitious to have the
autographs of the celebrated men of the country, I wrote him asking for an autograph letter. I received no reply,
and after his death was announced I assumed that the letter had gone into the waste basket; but three months after
his death I received a letter franked by Louise Catharine Adams (widows of Presidents were then accorded the
franking privilege), and the envelope contained only the autograph of John Quincy Adams, clipped from a public
document that he had franked. The pressure of duties had prevented him from answering my letter, but the fact
that it was answered by his wife so long after his death is evidence that many letters had accumulated, all of which
were answered by Mrs. Adams. He fitly died in the Capitol of the nation. He was stricken with paralysis during a

session of the House, and died on the following day, having written, as I believe, the most lustrous political record
of any of our statesmen, with the single exception of Abraham Lincoln.

ANDREW JACKSON

THE JACKSON-ADAMS-CLAY CONTESTS
1828–32
The election of Jackson to the Presidency in 1828 was not in any sense a revolution as to the general
policy of the Government, but it was a decided revolution in the political methods of our national
administrations. Madison, Monroe, and Adams were not confronted by the spoils system. They never
entertained the question of removing men from office to reward political friends or to punish political
enemies.
The civil service system of the Government under those administrations was an ideal system, but
the Jackson leaders openly inspired the followers of their favorite to earnest political action by the
declaration that “to the victors belong the spoils.” That slogan was first heard in the Jackson-Adams
campaign of 1828, and when Jackson succeeded, for the first time Washington was overrun with a
countless host of greedy spoilsmen, clamoring for the dismissal of every man who had not supported
Jackson.
Jackson himself was thoroughly committed to the policy of political proscription, and from that day
until the present time it has been generally accepted that a change of politics in the national
administrations means a general change of the now enormous army of Federal officers, excepting as it
is feebly restrained by all parties professing devotion to a civil service system with none honestly
maintaining it.
When it is remembered that Jackson was defeated by Adams in 1824, although having more popular
and electoral votes than Adams, it is not surprising that the friends of Jackson became intensely
embittered, and they opened the campaign of 1828 immediately after the inauguration of Adams in
1825. In the Southwest, where Jackson lived and had his chief strength outside of Pennsylvania, the
cockpit, the race-course and the gaming-table were favorite amusements, and the people were strongly
prejudiced against what they regarded as the aristocratic power that had been maintained by the
Virginia Presidents and continued by Adams. They had a candidate who enthused his followers to the
uttermost, and the quiet citizens of Washington, long used to the delectable and cultivated official
circles which had prevailed from Washington to the second Adams, were shocked at the mob of
Democratic place-hunters who crowded into the Capitol when Jackson became President, and had
access to the White House regardless of conventionality, where Jackson is reported to have smoked his
corn-cob pipe during his greeting of visitors. With Jackson came the spoils system that has done so
much to demoralize the politics of the Republic.
Jackson held a very strong position before the nation, not only because of his triumph over the
British at New Orleans, but because of the high civil positions which he had filled with reasonable
credit, but without displaying any high standard of statesmanship. He aided in framing the Tennessee
Constitution in 1796, and was elected as the first Representative in Congress by the people after the
admission of the State, then entitled to only one member.
He had been an ardent supporter of Jefferson in his first contest with the elder Adams, and in 1797
he was elected to the United States Senate, but he resigned a year later to become a Judge of the
Supreme Court of the State, where he served until 1804, and was again elected Senator in 1823. He
had filled all those important civil positions before he had attained any military distinction. He had
served in the last year of the war of the revolution as a boy, and the only thing notable that is preserved
of his military record of that day is the tradition that after he had been captured by the British he was
wounded by an English officer because he refused to clean the officer’s boots.

It is not likely that he ever would have been a prominent candidate for President but for the fact that
he defeated the English in the battle of New Orleans on the 8th of January, 1815. Had there been
steamships, cables, and telegraphs at that time Jackson could never have commanded the hero worship
that twice elected him President and made him practically political dictator.
The treaty of peace between England and the United States was signed at Ghent on December 24,
1814, but it required nearly a month for the Government to receive information that the treaty had
been signed and that the war was ended. On January 8, 1815, more than a fortnight after England and
the United States were actually at peace by their own treaty, the battle of New Orleans was fought
between Jackson and Packenham, and a victory achieved over the English that then electrified the
country as thoroughly as did Dewey’s victory at Manila. That victory, and that victory alone, made
Jackson President, and with his rugged and indomitable will, for nearly a generation he stamped his
impress upon the policy of the Government with greater emphasis than any other living man since
Washington.
The Presidential contest of 1828 formally began soon after the inauguration of Adams, when the
Legislature of Tennessee presented Jackson as a candidate, and the criticisms of the Adams
administration revived much of the political asperities and resentments of the violent discussions
between the old Federalist and Republican parties in the days of Jefferson and the elder Adams. One
of the reasons strongly urged against the re-election of Adams was that his administration had become
recklessly extravagant, as the expenditures of the Government under him had reached the enormous
sum of nearly $14,000,000 a year.
Adams was attacked also because of his liberal views on the questions of protection and public
improvements, although Jackson had sustained nearly or quite the same views by his votes in
Congress. Adams had no trained political leaders; his Cabinet was divided even on the question of
supporting himself, and the ideal statesmanship that Adams worshipped was not calculated to school
and equip great politicians. Chiefly through the efforts of Martin Van Buren the supporters of
Crawford were brought into the support of Jackson, a feat that was probably not difficult from the fact
that Clay, the Secretary of State under Adams, was not friendly with Crawford.
The Congressional caucus was not thought of, and Adams became a candidate to succeed himself
by resolutions of Legislatures and mass-meetings. Calhoun, who was the Vice-President under Adams,
was accepted by the friends of Jackson and received nearly as large an electoral vote as his chief. It
was a contest between the dignified statesmanship of that day and the Democratic element of the
country. Adams was accepted as the National Republican candidate and Jackson was supported under
the flags of Republican Democracy, and in some sections of Democracy alone. It was this contest and
the success of Jackson that crystallized the Republican party of Jefferson into the Democratic party
that then had the ablest political leaders of the nation.
The friends of Adams seem to have been confident of his re-election, and a majority of the States
chose their electors by popular vote. It was a battle between the Democratic hero of New Orleans, the
friend of the people, and the aristocratic power of the Republic. With Jackson’s great prestige and
Adams’s feebleness in resources to support himself in the great contest before the people, it is not
surprising that Jackson was elected by a very large popular and electoral majority. The following is the
popular vote where a direct vote was had in the several States between Jackson and Adams:

STATES. Jackson. Adams.
Maine[8] 13,927 20,733
New Hampshire 20,922 24,134

Vermont 8,350 25,363
Massachusetts 6,016 29,876
Rhode Island 821 2,754
Connecticut 4,448 13,838
[8] 140,763 135,413
New York
New Jersey 21,951 23,764
Pennsylvania 101,652 50,848
Delaware[9] ——— ———
Maryland[8] 24,565 25,527
Virginia 26,752 12,101
North Carolina 37,857 13,918
South Carolina[9] ——— ———
Georgia[9] 19,363 No opposition.
Alabama[9] 17,138 1,938
Mississippi[9] 6,772 1,581
Louisiana[9] 4,603 4,076
Kentucky[9] 39,397 31,460
Tennessee[8] 44,293 2,240
Missouri 8,272 3,400
Ohio 67,597 63,396
Indiana 22,257 17,052
Illinois 9,560 4,662
Totals 647,276 508,064

The majority for Jackson was so decisive both in popular and electoral votes that the verdict was
accepted by the country, and the vote was counted and declared by Congress without any incident
worthy of note. The following table presents the vote in detail for President and Vice-President in the
Electoral College:

President. Vice-President.
STATES. Andrew John Quincy John C. Richard William
Jackson, Tenn. Adams, Mass. Calhoun, S. C. Rush, Penn. Smith, S. C.
Maine 1 8 1 8 —
New
— 8 — 8 —
Hampshire

Vermont — 7 — 7 —
Massachusetts — 15 — 15 —
Rhode Island — 4 — 4 —
Connecticut — 8 — 8 —
New York 20 16 20 16 —
New Jersey — 8 — 8 —
Pennsylvania 28 — 28 — —
Delaware — 3 — 3 —
Maryland 5 6 5 6 —
Virginia 24 — 24 — —
North Carolina 15 — 15 — —
South Carolina 11 — 11 — —
Georgia 9 — 2 — 7
Alabama 5 — 5 — —
Mississippi 3 — 3 — —
Louisiana 5 — 5 — —
Kentucky 14 — 14 — —
Tennessee 11 — 11 — —
Ohio 16 — 16 — —
Indiana 5 — 5 — —
Illinois 3 — 3 — —
Missouri 3 — 3 — —
Totals 178 83 171 83 7

The campaign of 1832 resulting in the triumphant re-election of Jackson developed a more confused
condition of politics in the nation than had ever been presented. The Federal party was dead, and did
not even pretend to maintain its organization in any of the States. The Republican party was divided
between the National Republicans and the Democratic Republicans, who followed Jackson, and
finally adopted the flag of Democracy. Jackson’s first administration had been anything but a peaceful
one. An open quarrel had broken out between Jackson and Vice-President Calhoun, and Jackson was
not only a good hater, but a good fighter. He was largely influenced by Van Buren, who was his
Secretary of State, and who was one of the most sagacious political managers of his day. He aimed to
succeed Jackson as President by having the Jackson administration enlisted in his favor, and his first
step toward that end was to overthrow Calhoun, and Jackson emphasized his hostility to Calhoun by
dictating the nomination of Van Buren for Vice-President.
A considerable number of prominent old Republicans who had supported Jackson had become
alienated from him because of the intensely partisan qualities of his administration and because of his
aggressive interference in the Cabinet scandal resulting from Mrs. Eaton’s social ambition as the wife

of a Cabinet minister. Scandals were multiplied in Washington about the Jackson Kitchen Cabinet, of
which Amos Kendall was regarded as the chief, but with all the disturbance in the National Capitol,
the people of the country were sturdy in their devotion to Jackson, as was proved by his large majority,
both in popular and electoral votes, over Clay, who was confessedly the ablest leader of the
opposition.
This contest brings us to the introduction of the National Convention. The first political national
convention held in this country was called to meet in Philadelphia in September, 1830, by a number of
prominent anti-Masonic leaders. The anti-Mason party had sprung up suddenly and attained great
power in the North, as it was the only outlet for the old Federalists, most of whom were in sympathy
with the opposition of the new party to Masonic and all other secret societies.
The death of William Morgan, who, it was claimed, had been murdered by the Masons for revealing
the secrets of the order, was most dramatically presented in the political organs of the day, and the new
party speedily absorbed most of the opposition elements to the Democracy in the Northern States. The
anti-Masonic national convention that met in Philadelphia in 1830 was presided over by Francis
Granger, of New York, and was composed of 96 delegates, representing New York, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Maryland, and the Territory of
Michigan. This convention was held more than two years before the Presidential election, for which it
was expected to nominate candidates for President, but instead of making nominations, it adjourned to
meet in Baltimore in September, 1831, when it had 112 delegates, with Indiana and Ohio added to the
States presented. John C. Spencer was its president, and William Wirt, of Maryland, was nominated
for President, and Amos Ellmaker, of Pennsylvania, for Vice-President. Instead of passing a platform,
as is now common, the convention issued an elaborate address to the people of the Union.
This action of the anti-Masons was followed by the National Republicans, who met in national
convention at Baltimore, on December 12, 1831, with 17 States, represented by 157 delegates. Henry
Clay was nominated for President and John Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, for Vice-President. No
platform was adopted by this convention, but it followed the anti-Masons by issuing an address to the
people of the country in which it was stated that “the political history of the Union for the last three
years exhibits a series of measures plainly dictated in all their principal features by blind cupidity or
vindictive party spirit, marked throughout by a disregard of good policy, justice, and every high and
generous sentiment, and terminating in a dissolution of the Cabinet under circumstances more
discreditable than any of the kind to be met with in the annals of the civilized world.”
The Democrats followed the anti-Masons and National Republicans by calling a National
Democratic convention, to meet in Baltimore in May, 1832, to nominate a candidate for Vice-
President. Jackson was so universally accepted as the candidate of the Democrats for re-election that
the convention was not allowed to make a nomination for the first office, but a resolution was passed
declaring that the convention “cordially concurred in the repeated nominations that General Jackson
had received in various parts of the country for re-election as President.” The convention adopted the
two-thirds rule that has prevailed in every Democratic convention from that day until the present time,
requiring that “two-thirds of the whole number of the votes in the convention shall be necessary to
constitute a choice.”
Van Buren was nominated for Vice-President, receiving 208 votes to 26 for Richard M. Johnson and
49 for Philip P. Barbour. No platform of principles was adopted, nor was an address issued by the
convention to the people, but a resolution was passed declaring that “in place of a general address
from this body” the delegations should address their respective constituents on the political issues of
the day.
Never were two candidates presented for the first office of the nation who so widely differed in their
chief qualities. Jackson was a clear-headed man of rugged intellect, of inflexible purpose, a relentless

opponent and a devoted friend, while Clay was the most magnetic of all the popular leaders this
country has ever produced. No one before or since Clay’s time has approached him in that peculiar
quality but James G. Blaine. The hero-worship of Jackson was earnest and always aggressive when
summoned to battle, but Clay was beloved and idolized beyond that accorded to any leader of any
party in the history of the Republic. He was a most brilliant orator, imposing in presence and gifted in
every grace that attracted the multitude, and he was imperious as Cæsar in his leadership. His friends
battled for him with matchless enthusiasm, but Jackson was so strongly entrenched in the confidence
of the masses that he won an easy victory over the Sage of Ashland.
The contest was one of unusual violence and defamation, and it was doubtless aggravated by the
personal enmity that existed between Jackson and Clay. The veto of the bill rechartering the Bank of
the United States had greatly disturbed financial circles, and it was believed in the early part of the
struggle that the financial and business interests of the country would endanger Jackson’s success, but
the popular prejudice against banks in that day was so great that Jackson largely profited by the open
opposition of his former supporters who were interested in maintaining a national financial institution.
The anti-Masonic electoral ticket was adopted by the National Republicans in several of the States,
and it is specially shown in the popular vote of Vermont, where Clay appears to have carried the State,
and yet the electoral vote was given to William Wirt, the anti-Masonic candidate. Had it been possible
for the electoral vote of that State to elect Clay President, it would have been cast for him.
The number of electors had been enlarged by the new apportionment, and Delaware had provided
for the choice of electors by a popular vote, leaving South Carolina as the only State to appoint
electors by the Legislature. That State continued the system of the legislative choice of electors
without interruption until the civil war of 1861. Several of the States also abandoned the election of
delegates by the district system, Maryland alone adhering to it. In Alabama there was no electoral
ticket opposed to Jackson, and the popular vote is not attainable. Georgia was also without an anti-
Jackson electoral ticket, while Missouri, that was friendly to Clay in 1824, seems to have made no
battle for him against Jackson. The following is the popular vote, as nearly as it can be ascertained:

STATES. Jackson. Clay.
Maine 33,291 27,204
New Hampshire 25,486 19,010
Vermont 7,870 11,152
Massachusetts 14,545 33,003
Rhode Island 2,126 2,810
Connecticut 11,269 17,755
New York 168,497 154,896
New Jersey 23,856 23,393
Pennsylvania 90,983 56,716
Delaware 4,110 4,276
Maryland 19,156 19,160
Virginia 33,609 11,451
North Carolina 24,862 4,563

South Carolina ——— ———
Georgia 20,750 ———
Alabama ——— ———
Mississippi 5,919 ———
Louisiana 4,049 2,528
Kentucky 36,247 43,396
Tennessee 28,740 1,436
Missouri 5,192 ———
Ohio 81,246 76,539
Indiana 31,552 15,472
Illinois 14,147 5,429
Totals 687,502 530,189

There was some ragged voting for President and much more for Vice-President. Jackson received
219 votes in the Electoral College to 49 for Clay, 11 for Floyd, and 7 for Wirt, given by Vermont, and
which would have gone to Clay had they been needed. South Carolina, under the influence of
Calhoun, refused to vote for either Jackson or Van Buren, but cast the electoral vote for John Floyd, of
Virginia, for President, and for Henry Lee, of Massachusetts, for Vice-President. Van Buren was not
acceptable to all the friends of Jackson, as the Pennsylvania Democratic Convention positively
instructed the electors to vote for William Wilkins for Vice-President, which instructions were obeyed
in the Electoral College, and a convention of Jackson men had been held in June, in Charlottesville,
Va., and nominated P. P. Barbour, of that State, for the Vice-Presidency, with Jackson for President. A
like convention was held, composed of delegates from a number of counties in North Carolina, in
which Jackson and Barbour were nominated, but Barbour did not reach the dignity of support in the
Electoral College.
There were no disputes as to the return of the electoral colleges, and the vote was declared by
Congress as follows:

President. Vice-President.
Martin
STATES. Andrew Henry John William John William Henry Amos
Van
Jackson, Clay, Floyd, Wirt, Sergeant, Wilkins, Lee, Ellmaker,
Buren,
Tenn. Ky. Va. Md. Penn. Penn. Mass. Penn.
N. Y.
Maine 10 — — — 10 — — — —
New
7 — — — 7 — — — —
Hampshire
Vermont — — — 7 — — — — 7
Massachusetts — 14 — — — 14 — — —
Rhode Island — 4 — — — 4 — — —

Connecticut — 8 — — — 8 — — —
New York 42 — — — 42 — — — —
New Jersey 8 — — — 8 — — — —
Pennsylvania 30 — — — — — 30 — —
Delaware — 3 — — — 3 — — —
Maryland 3 5 — — 3 5 — — —
Virginia 23 — — — 23 — — — —
North
15 — — — 15 — — — —
Carolina
South
— — 11 — — — — 11 —
Carolina
Georgia 11 — — — 11 — — — —
Alabama 7 — — — 7 — — — —
Mississippi 4 — — — 4 — — — —
Louisiana 5 — — — 5 — — — —
Kentucky — 15 — — — 15 — — —
Tennessee 15 — — — 15 — — — —
Ohio 21 — — — 21 — — — —
Indiana 9 — — — 9 — — — —
Illinois 5 — — — 5 — — — —
Missouri 4 — — — 4 — — — —
Totals 219 49 11 7 189 49 30 11 7

Jackson’s second administration was even more tempestuous than the first. His nullification
proclamation that convulsed the country from centre to circumference, and the first “pocket veto” in
the history of the country by which he had killed the Land bill, were among the later acts of his first
administration, and entered very largely into the bitterness of political dispute that continued during
his second term. Both were denounced as violent usurpations, and it is doubtful whether any but
Andrew Jackson could have made the record he left on both of those vital issues.
He had vetoed the recharter of the United States Bank during his first term, and supplemented that
hostility to the institution early in his second term by the removal of the Government deposits from the
bank. His Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Duane, resolutely opposed the removal of the deposits, but
Jackson would not brook opposition, and in order to carry out his new financial policy, he accepted
Duane’s resignation and appointed Roger B. Taney, who was in accord with the President, and who
was finally rewarded by his promotion to the Chief Justiceship of the United States.
He had devoted followers in Congress; he was absolute master of Congressional action during his
second term, and he was heartily supported by the great mass of the people, a very large portion of
whom regarded him as the model patriot and the infallible political oracle of the nation. They loved

his courage and his pugnacity, and as he always was the winner, they had every inspiration to rejoice
over the triumphs of their devotedly worshipped leader.
Strange as it may seem, the first evidence of the weakness of Jackson’s popular strength was
exhibited in his own State of Tennessee, where Hugh L. White, a Senator from that State, was
nominated to succeed Jackson as President by the Tennessee Legislature. Jackson was much disturbed
by it. When the question was before the Legislatures of Alabama and Tennessee, copies of the
Washington Globe, the organ of the administration, containing severe assaults upon Senator White,
were franked to the members of those Legislatures by the President himself; but notwithstanding all
Jackson’s efforts to make Van Buren his successor, Tennessee voted for Judge White by 10,000
majority.
Upon his retirement from the Presidency in 1837, he imitated Washington by a farewell address to
the American people, that was received by a large majority as second in reverence only to the farewell
address of Washington. His health was feeble when his stormy eight years of Presidential rule were
ended, and after the inauguration of Van Buren he retired to “The Hermitage,” his home, near
Nashville, in Tennessee, where he died on the 8th of June, 1845.

MARTIN VAN BUREN

THE VAN BUREN-HARRISON CONTEST
1836
The national contest of 1836 that made Martin Van Buren President gave birth to a new political
organization known as the Whig party. The opposition to Jackson agreed only in opposing Jackson, but it
was not possible to unite on any national policy. The strongest organized element of the opposition was
the anti-Masonic party, that was very powerful in the North, but among the opponents of Jackson were
many who, like Mr. Clay, were Masons of high degree, and they could not act with a political party that
made anti-Masonry one of the cardinal principles of its faith.
The National Republican party practically perished with the defeat of Clay in 1832, and a very large
majority of its members were not in sympathy with the anti-Masons. These conditions led to the
organization of the Whig party in 1834, and it gradually absorbed all the old National Republicans,
Federalists, anti-Masons, and all the other varied forms of opposition to Jackson. Its name and its
declaration of principles were declared by a number of leading men in 1834, and it gradually developed in
strength until it was the leading factor in the support of Harrison in 1836, and won the election of
Harrison by an overwhelming majority of both the popular and electoral votes in 1840. The Whig party
maintained itself as one of the ablest political organizations the country has ever had, but it was much
more noted for its conservative restraints upon the Democrats than for the successful establishment of its
policy in the administration of the Government. It elected two Presidents, Harrison and Taylor, but neither
seriously impressed the policy of the Whig party upon the nation. It practically perished in 1852, when it
made its last great battle for General Scott for President, and carried but four States.
As the contest of 1836 was approached the various elements of opposition to Jackson felt confident
that they could poll a majority of the popular vote, but there was no possibility of their uniting upon any
one candidate without suffering great loss in their popular following. It was decided, therefore, that
instead of attempting to unite the opposition to Jackson on one candidate, they would support several
candidates who were particularly strong in their respective localities, with the hope that a majority of the
electors might thus be chosen who would unite in the election of the strongest of the opposition
candidates.
The Democrats were very much disturbed, as signs of disintegration were visible to all. Jackson was
the most potent of any of our retiring Presidents, with the exception of Washington, and he dictated Van
Buren for the succession. Without the omnipotent power of Jackson, Van Buren could not have been
nominated or elected. Jackson had the Democracy thoroughly organized, and he wielded all the official
power of his administration relentlessly to carry out his political aims. There was much hesitation about
the Democrats accepting a national convention, because of the opposition to Van Buren, but Jackson
personally importuned the leading Democrats to summon a convention at an early period, and a
convention was finally called, to be held in Baltimore on the 20th of May, 1835, nearly a year and a half
before the Presidential election.
It was not a representative convention, as although over six hundred delegates attended, a majority of
them were from Maryland alone, but each State was allowed to cast the vote corresponding with its
representation in Congress. Van Buren was nominated unanimously on the 1st ballot, and Richard M.
Johnson, of Kentucky, was made the candidate for Vice-President, receiving 178 votes, with 87 cast for
William C. Rives, of Virginia. The two-thirds rule was reaffirmed in the convention, and even after
Johnson had been nominated under the rule Virginia refused to approve the action of the convention
presenting him as the candidate for Vice-President. No platform was adopted and no address was issued
by the body to the people of the country.

The prominent candidates presented in opposition to Van Buren were General William H. Harrison and
Judge John McLean, of Ohio; Daniel Webster, of Massachusetts, and Judge Hugh L. White, of Tennessee.
Willie P. Mangum, who received the electoral vote of South Carolina chosen by the Legislature, was not a
candidate before the people, and it is remarkable that South Carolina, at war with Jackson on the right of
nullification, cast her electoral vote for Mangum, who was one of the leaders of the Whig party and
afterward distinguished as a Whig United States Senator.
No attempt was made to bring these opposing opposition elements together. Harrison was first
nominated at Harrisburg, Penn., by two State conventions, both meeting ostensibly as anti-Masons, the
one being Democratic and the other inclining to the new Whig organization, and he was also presented by
Legislatures and mass-meetings in other States. Webster was nominated by the Whig Legislature of
Massachusetts, and Judge White was nominated by the Legislatures of Tennessee and Alabama, and by
mass-meetings in different sections of the South. He was then a United States Senator from Tennessee,
but at war with Jackson, and he was confessedly the strongest opponent of Jackson in the entire South.
The fact that he could command a nomination from the Democratic Legislature of Tennessee while
Jackson was President is the best evidence of his exceptional popularity with the people, and it was
proved also by him carrying the electoral vote of the State over Van Buren by a decided majority. Judge
McLean gradually dropped out of the fight, as he was from Harrison’s State, and Harrison soon
developed as much the strongest candidate of the entire opposition competitors.
The contest was one of intense bitterness. There were no conflicting opposition tickets run against Van
Buren. In States where White was strongest the opposition united on White electoral tickets, where
Harrison was strongest they united on Harrison electoral tickets, and where Webster was strongest they
united on Webster electoral tickets. The campaign was thus shrewdly managed by the opposition, and it
gave some promise of success, as if a majority of the electoral votes had been chosen against Van Buren,
they would doubtless have been united upon one candidate before the time for meeting of the electoral
colleges. In Clay’s State the battle was made for Harrison with him in the forefront of the fight, and
Harrison carried the State by a safe majority.
The defamation of the contest of 1836 was equal to any of the malignant contests of the early days of
the Republic. Van Buren, Harrison, White, and Webster were most vindictively assailed, and their public
and private lives criticised far beyond the lines of decent disputation. Van Buren was proclaimed the mere
puppet of Jackson; Harrison was denounced as a failure in field and forum, where he had been General,
Governor, and Senator; Webster was defamed as an old blue-light Federalist, and White was assailed in
the South as an ingrate who had sacrificed his self-respect to ambition.
There were twenty-six States to participate in the election of 1836. Arkansas had come into the Union
on the 15th of June, and Michigan, where electors were chosen before the admission of the State, was
formally admitted into the Union on the 26th of January, 1837, before the electoral count took place in
Congress, and the precedent in the Missouri case in 1821 settled the right of Michigan to participate in the
election. In all of the States, with the single exception of South Carolina, the electors were chosen by
popular vote and by general ticket. The following was the popular vote as returned for the several
candidates, taking the vote of the opposition electors chosen as an indication of the choice of their
respective States:

STATES. Van Buren. Harrison. White. Webster.
Maine 22,990 15,239 ——— ———
New Hampshire 18,722 6,228 ——— ———
Vermont 14,039 20,996 ——— ———
Massachusetts 34,474 ——— ——— 42,247

Rhode Island 2,964 2,710 ——— ———
Connecticut 19,291 18,749 ——— ———
New York 166,815 138,543 ——— ———
New Jersey 25,592 26,137 ——— ———
Pennsylvania 91,475 87,111 ——— ———
Delaware 4,153 4,733 ——— ———
Maryland 22,168 25,852 ——— ———
Virginia 30,261 ——— 23,468 ———
North Carolina 26,910 ——— 23,626 ———
South Carolina[10] ——— ——— ——— ———
Georgia 22,104 ——— 24,876 ———
Alabama 20,506 ——— 15,612 ———
Mississippi 9,979 ——— 9,688 ———
Louisiana 3,653 ——— 3,383 ———
Arkansas 2,400 ——— 1,238 ———
Kentucky 33,025 36,687 ——— ———
Tennessee 26,129 ——— 36,168 ———
Missouri 10,995 ——— 7,337 ———
Ohio 96,948 105,404 ——— ———
Indiana 32,478 41,281 ——— ———
Illinois 17,275 14,292 ——— ———
Michigan 7,332 4,045 ——— ———
Totals 762,678 548,007 145,396 42,247

As Van Buren was successful, not only by a small popular majority, but by a clear majority of the
electoral vote, no effort was necessary to unite the opposition electoral colleges, and they divided their
votes between Harrison, White, and Webster, according to the preferences of the respective States.
Virginia refused to give her electoral vote to Johnson for Vice-President, and that left him without an
election, as he had not a majority of the whole Electoral College. He was, however, promptly elected by
the Senate, receiving 33 votes to 16 for Francis Granger. He was the only Vice-President in the history of
the Republic who was not elected by the Electoral College. When Adams, Jackson, Crawford, and Clay
ran in 1824, and there was no choice for President in the Electoral College, John C. Calhoun received a
decided majority in the college and was elected without an appeal to the Senate. The following is the vote
as cast for President and Vice-President in the electoral colleges:

STATES. President. Vice-President.

Martin William Hugh Richard
Daniel Willie P. Francis John William
Van H. L. M.
Webster, Mangum, Granger, Tyler, Smith,
Buren, Harrison, White, Johnson,
Mass. N. C. N. Y. Va. Ala.
N. Y. O. Tenn. Ky.
Maine 10 — — — — 10 — — —
New
7 — — — — 7 — — —
Hampshire
Vermont — 7 — — — — 7 — —
Massachusetts — — — 14 — — 14 — —
Rhode Island 4 — — — — 4 — — —
Connecticut 8 — — — — 8 — — —
New York 42 — — — — 42 — — —
New Jersey — 8 — — — — 8 — —
Pennsylvania 30 — — — — 30 — — —
Delaware — 3 — — — — 3 — —
Maryland — 10 — — — — — 10 —
Virginia 23 — — — — — — — 23
North
15 — — — — 15 — — —
Carolina
South
— — — — 11 — — 11 —
Carolina
Georgia — — 11 — — — — 11 —
Alabama 7 — — — — 7 — — —
Mississippi 4 — — — — 4 — — —
Louisiana 5 — — — — 5 — — —
Arkansas 3 — — — — 3 — — —
Kentucky — 15 — — — — 15 — —
Tennessee — — 15 — — — — 15 —
Missouri 4 — — — — 4 — — —
Ohio — 21 — — — — 21 — —
Indiana — 9 — — — — 9 — —
Illinois 5 — — — — 5 — — —
Michigan 3 — — — — 3 — — —
Totals 170 73 26 14 11 147 77 47 23

WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON

THE HARRISON-VAN BUREN CONTEST
1840
Memorable as was the campaign of 1840 that called General Harrison to
the Presidency by a popular whirlwind, the thoughtful student of American
politics will regard that campaign as even more memorable because it gave
birth to a party, of the humblest pretensions at the start as a political power,
that twenty years later saw its principles triumph in the election of Lincoln,
and the mastery of the party that has controlled the policy of the
Government for forty years. The Abolition party, that was the corner-stone
upon which the modern Republican party is reared, was organized in
December, 1839, at Warsaw, Genesee County, N. Y., when, at a mass
convention, with but few States represented, it nominated James G. Birney,
of New York, for President, and Francis G. Lemoyne, of Pennsylvania, for
Vice-President.
This party had but one vital principle that made up its political faith, and
that was the abolition of slavery. It was looked upon as a movement of a
few political cranks, and was not regarded as a possible factor in that or any
future political contest. It cast a few votes in 1840, but in 1844 it diverted
enough votes from Henry Clay in New York State to defeat him for the
Presidency. Its total vote in 1840 aggregated only 7069, one-third of which
was cast in New York and one-fourth in Massachusetts; but it was the party
of destiny, and its origin can be studied with profit. Its few supporters of
that day who braved the prejudices of all parties were actuated by a sincere
conviction, and that conviction was made more and more acceptable from
year to year as the aggressions of slavery multiplied, until it finally died a
colossal suicide.
The divided opposition elements which had polled within 30,000 of the
vote received by Van Buren in 1836 were coerced by supreme necessities to
united action for the campaign of 1840. But three candidates were
prominently discussed. They were General William H. Harrison of Ohio,
Henry Clay of Kentucky, and Winfield Scott of Virginia. Clay was much the
ablest of them, and had the most enthusiastic and earnest friends, but the old

anti-Masonic element crucified Clay in the Whig convention of 1839, just
as Seward was crucified in the convention of 1860 by the American
sentiment that was an indispensable factor to enable the Republicans to win.
Clay was a Royal Arch Mason, and he would doubtless have lost largely in
the rank and file of the anti-Masons, who had been educated in the fiercest
strife of political contests to believe that Masonry was incompatible with
patriotism.
Harrison had been Governor of the Indiana Territory, Senator in Congress
and a successful general, having won a decisive victory over the English
and the Indians at Tippecanoe. Scott was green with the laurels of
Chippewa and Lundy’s Lane, and was regarded as the first soldier of the
Republic. One thing strongly in Harrison’s favor was the fact that in the
free-for-all race of 1836 he had largely outstripped his anti-Jackson
associate candidates for President.
The Whig National Convention was called to meet at Harrisburg on the
4th of December, 1839, just one year before the Presidential election, and
no national convention in the history of our politics ever moved with such
extreme caution. It was three days after the convention was organized
before a ballot was reached for President, the whole time having been
occupied in formal conferences of committees appointed by each delegation
to confer in the frankest way as to the best ticket to unite the incongruous
opposition elements. Clay had made exhaustive effort to unite the
opposition, even if necessary to sacrifice himself. On repeated occasions he
publicly declared that his name should not be entertained if it was in any
degree an obstacle to success, and in a Buffalo address delivered some time
before the convention met, he said: “If my name creates any obstacle to
union and harmony, away with it, and concentrate upon some individual
more acceptable to all branches of the office.”
A Union Pennsylvania convention had been held in Harrisburg in
September, embracing representatives of the old National Republicans, anti-
Masons, and Whigs. It was largely planned and carried out by Thaddeus
Stevens, whose violent anti-Masonic convictions made him the opponent of
Clay, and that convention, while highly complimenting Clay, declared that
General Harrison was the most available of all the candidates named for
President. Governor Barbour, of Virginia, presided over the national
convention, and instead of proceeding to ballot for candidates, the

convention, after careful consideration, decided that the delegations from
the different States should confer with each other, through sub-committees,
and if possible reach a conclusion as to the best nomination and report to
the convention.
While there is no official record of the action of these committees, it is
known that at the start more favored Clay than any of the two other
candidates, as one of the known facts relating to their action gave Clay 103
votes to 94 for Harrison and 57 for Scott. This vote is based on the
assumption that the entire delegation of each State would vote in harmony
with its committee, as the resolution under which the committees were
appointed provided that “each State represented shall vote its full electoral
vote by such delegation in the committee.” After three days of conference,
the joint committees reported to the convention that they had decided in
favor of Harrison by a vote of 148 to 90 for Clay and 16 for Scott.
On the following day the convention accepted the report of the
committees by adopting a resolution declaring General Harrison the
candidate of the convention, and it was unanimously approved amidst great
enthusiasm. The friends of Clay gave very prompt and cordial support to
the action of the convention, and the friends of Harrison proved their
appreciation of the magnanimity of Clay’s friends by unanimously
nominating John Tyler, of Virginia, for Vice-President, who was the leader
of the Clay forces in the convention. No platform or expression of
principles was given in any manner. Indeed, none of the political questions
of the day diverted the convention at any time from the supreme purpose of
uniting the opposition to Van Buren on a single ticket.
It was the vote of Virginia that finally decided the question of making
Harrison the candidate of the convention. The three prominent candidates
were all sons of Virginia, and had Clay been available he would doubtless
have been preferred. A very earnest effort was made to force the nomination
of General Scott when Clay was conceded to be unavailable, and the
Virginia delegates long hesitated in making a choice between Harrison and
Scott. Both were of Old Dominion birth, and the pride of the Mother of
Presidents would have been gratified with the nomination of either.
It was at this stage of the contest that Thaddeus Stevens, who was the
leading delegate from Pennsylvania, controlled the Virginia delegation by a

scheme that was more effective than creditable. Scott, who was quite too
fond of writing letters, had written a letter to Francis Granger, of New York,
in which he evidently sought to conciliate the antislavery sentiment of that
State. It was a private letter, but Granger exhibited it to Stevens and
permitted Stevens to use it in his own way. As the headquarters of the
Virginia delegation were the centre of attraction, they were always crowded,
and Stevens called there along with many others. Before leaving he dropped
the Scott letter on the floor, and it was soon discovered and its contents
made known to the Virginians. That letter decided the Virginians to support
Harrison and to reject Scott. Either could have been elected if nominated, as
the Van Buren defeat of 1840 was one of the most sweeping political
hurricanes in the history of the country.
My authority for this is Mr. Stevens himself. He disliked Scott on general
principles through his great aversion to all men whose vanity was
conspicuous, but he had a much stronger reason for nominating Harrison in
his possession of an autograph letter from General Harrison, assuring
Stevens that if he, Harrison, was elected President, Stevens would be a
member of his Cabinet. After the election Stevens said nothing and made no
movement to make himself prominent as a candidate for the Cabinet, as he
felt entirely secure, while Josiah Randall, father of the late Samuel J.
Randall, and then a prominent Whig, and Charles B. Penrose, grandfather
of the present United States Senator Penrose, entered the field aggressively
as candidates for a Cabinet portfolio. When the Cabinet was announced,
Stevens was dumbfounded to find his name omitted. He never forgave
Webster, who was made the head of the Cabinet, for the failure, and he
believed until the day of his death that Webster had prevented his
appointment.
There was much dissatisfaction with the Van Buren administration. The
severe business and industrial depression which came upon the country
about the middle of Van Buren’s term was very disastrous, and the financial
troubles were largely charged to the arbitrary financial system introduced
by Jackson and maintained by Van Buren. Labor was largely unemployed
and business was paralyzed. So grave were the financial disturbances that
several of the States were swept from their honest moorings by the cheap
money craze, and irresponsible banks were created almost without limit or
restraint, all of which brought speedy and fearful disaster to the people.

A large portion of the Democratic party had not at any time heartily
favored Van Buren, and only their devotion to Jackson made them accept
Van Buren as their candidate. The Democratic leaders of a number of the
States openly declared that they would not participate in the national
convention. A convention was finally called, and met in Baltimore on the
5th of May, 1840, with Connecticut, Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina,
and Illinois not represented, while some of the other States had but one or
two delegates. Governor William Carroll, of Tennessee, presided over the
convention, and Van Buren was renominated by the adoption of a resolution
declaring that as he was the unanimous choice of the party and the
convention, “he should be presented as the Democratic candidate for the
office of President.” Another resolution, offered at the same time and by the
same man, Mr. Clay, of Alabama, was as follows: “That the convention
deem it expedient at the present time not to choose between the individuals
in nomination, but to leave the decision to their Republican Democratic
fellow-citizens in the several States, trusting that before the election shall
take place their opinions shall become so concentrated as to secure the
choice of a Vice-President by the electoral colleges.”
There was positive opposition to the election of Vice-President Johnson
in 1836, as was shown by his failure to command a majority of the electoral
votes, while Van Buren was elected President, and that opposition seems to
have increased rather than diminished. There was much discussion in the
convention after it had unanimously adopted the first resolution declaring
Van Buren the candidate for President as to what action the convention
should take on the Vice-Presidency, and finally the resolution before quoted
was unanimously adopted, leaving the party without a formally nominated
candidate for the second place on the ticket.
This convention for the first time presented a national party platform as
follows:
1. Resolved, That the Federal Government is one of limited powers
derived solely from the Constitution, and the grants of power shown therein
ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the
Government, and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful
constitutional powers.

2. Resolved, That the Constitution does not confer upon the General
Government the power to commence and carry on a general system of
internal improvement.
3. Resolved, That the Constitution does not confer authority upon the
Federal Government, directly or indirectly, to assume the debts of the
several States, contracted for local internal improvements, or other State
purposes; nor would such assumption be just or expedient.
4. Resolved, That justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government
to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or to cherish the
interest of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common
country; that every citizen and every section of the country has a right to
demand and insist upon an equality of rights and privileges, and to complete
an ample protection of person and property from domestic violence or
foreign aggression.
5. Resolved, That it is the duty of every branch of the Government to
enforce and practise the most rigid economy in conducting our public
affairs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to
defray the necessary expenses of the Government.
6. Resolved, That Congress has no power to charter a United States Bank;
that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best
interests of the country, dangerous to our Republican institutions and the
liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country
within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and
the will of the people.
7. Resolved, That Congress has no power, under the Constitution, to
interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and
that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to
their own affairs not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the
Abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions
of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead
to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts
have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and
endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be
countenanced by any friend to our political institutions.

8. Resolved, That the separation of the moneys of the Government from
banking institutions is indispensable for the safety of the funds of the
Government and the rights of the people.
9. Resolved, That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the
Declaration of Independence, and sanctioned in the Constitution, which
makes ours the land of liberty and the asylum of the oppressed of every
nation, have ever been cardinal principles in the Democratic faith; and
every attempt to abridge the present privilege of becoming citizens and the
owners of soil among us ought to be resisted with the same spirit which
swept the Alien and Sedition laws from our statute book.

JOHN TYLER

The campaign of 1840 was the most unique of our political history. The
Democrats, in attempting to belittle General Harrison, declared that he lived

in a “log cabin” and drank hard cider. Instead of resenting these
expressions, intended to prejudice the public against the Whig candidate,
the Whigs at once took up the log cabin as one of the great illustrative
features of the contest, and when the battle reached its zenith, and the
people gathered by thousands at the mass-meetings, the log cabin was
always in the procession as the symbol of the simplicity of the party
candidate for President. It was a campaign of speeches and songs, and it
developed a new class of campaign orators, of which the then celebrated
and long after well-known Buckeye Blacksmith was a type.
It was the first national campaign in which the masses of the people took
intense interest, and alike in the cities of the East, the prairies of the West,
and the savannas of the South the people were singing and shouting for
“Tippecanoe and Tyler, too.” The Whig campaign culminated in a tempest
against the Democrats, and resulted in the overwhelming defeat of Van
Buren, and General Harrison certainly contributed largely to the result by
taking the stump in Ohio in September and October, to vindicate himself
against the accusations made that he was a mere puppet in the hands of
political leaders and unable to speak for himself. The following was the
popular vote for Harrison and Van Buren:

STATES. Harrison. Van Buren. Birney.
Maine 46,612 46,201 194
New Hampshire 26,163 32,761 126
Vermont 32,440 18,018 319
Massachusetts 72,874 51,944 1,621
Rhode Island 5,278 3,301 42
Connecticut 31,601 25,296 174
New York 225,817 212,527 2,808
New Jersey 33,351 31,034 69
Pennsylvania 144,021 143,672 343
Delaware 5,967 4,874 ——

Maryland 33,528 28,752 ——
Virginia 42,501 43,893 ——
North Carolina 46,376 33,782 ——
South Carolina[11] —— —— ——
Georgia 40,261 31,921 ——
Alabama 28,471 33,991 ——
Mississippi 19,518 16,995 ——
Louisiana 11,296 7,616 ——
Kentucky 58,489 32,616 ——
Tennessee 60,391 48,289 ——
Missouri 22,972 29,760 ——
Arkansas 5,160 6,766 ——
Ohio 148,157 124,782 903
Indiana 65,302 51,604 ——
Illinois 45,537 47,476 149
Michigan 22,933 21,131 321
Totals 1,275,016 1,129,102 7,069

There was nothing to quibble about in declaring the count in Congress, as
Harrison had nearly three-fourths of the electoral vote, with a very large
popular majority. While the Democrats had not nominated any candidate for
Vice-President, and as a division of the vote would be of little consequence,
the Democratic electors generally voted for Vice-President Johnson for re-
election. Virginia, that cast a solid vote against him four years before, gave
him 22 of the 23 votes, and South Carolina, while voting for Van Buren,
gave its 11 votes to L. W. Tazewell, of Virginia, for Vice-President, leaving
Johnson with only 48 of the 294 electoral votes.
The following is the vote as cast in the electoral colleges:

President. Vice-President.
Martin James
STATES. W. H. John R. M. L. W.
Van K.
Harrison, Tyler, Johnson, Tazewell,
Buren, Polk,
Ohio. Va. Ky. Va.
N. Y. Tenn.
Maine 10 — 10 — — —
New
— 7 — 7 — —
Hampshire
Vermont 7 — 7 — — —
Massachusetts 14 — 14 — — —
Rhode Island 4 — 4 — — —
Connecticut 8 — 8 — — —
New York 42 — 42 — — —
New Jersey 8 — 8 — — —
Pennsylvania 30 — 30 — — —
Delaware 3 — 3 — — —
Maryland 10 — 10 — — —
Virginia — 23 — 22 — 1
North
15 — 15 — — —
Carolina
South
— 11 — — 11 —
Carolina
Georgia 11 — 11 — — —
Alabama — 7 — 7 — —
Mississippi 4 — 4 — — —
Louisiana 5 — 5 — — —
Kentucky 15 — 15 — — —

Tennessee 15 — 15 — — —
Missouri — 4 — 4 — —
Arkansas — 3 — 3 — —
Ohio 21 — 21 — — —
Indiana 9 — 9 — — —
Illinois — 5 — 5 — —
Michigan 3 — 3 — — —
Totals 234 60 234 48 11 1

Harrison was in feeble health when he was called from the clerkship of
the Cincinnati courts, that he had held for many years, to the highest civil
trust of the world, and the intense pressure upon him after his election so
impaired his vitality that he died a little more than a month after his
inauguration. Harrison’s death was the first break in the Presidency since
the organization of the Government. John Tyler was Vice-President, and
was living quietly on his farm on the Virginia Peninsula. He could not be
reached by railways, and telegraphs were unknown. He had no knowledge
that he had become President through the death of Harrison until late the
next day, when Webster and another member of the Cabinet finally found
their way to his home, partly by water and partly overland, and formally
announced to him the death of the President and the new duties which
devolved upon him. He hastened to Washington to find a very grave dispute
among the leading statesmen of both parties as to whether he became
President or simply Acting President. It was important to determine whether
he was President with the full title. The question was brought up in
Congress, and in the midst of a discussion on the subject a message was
received from the Executive Mansion signed “John Tyler, President.” The
dispute was at once ended, and the question settled for all time.

JAMES K. POLK

THE POLK-CLAY CONTEST
1844
President Tyler wrecked the Whig party and defeated Henry Clay for
President in 1844. The Whigs had carried a majority in both Senate and
House in the Harrison sweep of 1840, and they confidently expected that
the Whig policy of a national bank to take the place of the bungling Sub-
Treasury, of aid to public improvements, and of a protective tariff to
stimulate our industries, would inaugurate a Whig political system that
could be permanently maintained by the American people. President
Harrison died only a little more than a month after he had been inaugurated.
He was the oldest President at the time of his inauguration that the country
has had, either before or since, and he was physically unequal to the severe
exactions put upon him by the clamor for political positions. Civil service
reform had then no part in the politics of the country, and as Jackson and
Van Buren had been vindictively proscriptive in Federal appointments, it
was logically expected that there would be a general removal of the Van
Buren favorites. Harrison exhausted his vitality by trying to meet his friends
and confer with them about political appointments, in addition to the
important questions of State which demanded his attention, and he literally
wore himself out and died from exhaustion.
John Tyler, who had been one of the most ardent of the Clay Whigs, was
confidently expected to maintain the policy of Harrison. The public
measures advocated by Clay were well understood by all, and it was
reasonable to assume that Tyler, who had been long one of his most earnest
supporters, was in entire accord with his chief. A special session of
Congress was summoned to meet on the 31st of May, 1841, and the Whigs
expected to carry all their political theories into practical effect by national
statutes at an early day. To the surprise of some of the leaders, President
Tyler exhibited some measure of unsoundness on the question of the United
States Bank, but after repeated conferences with him they believed that they
could frame a bill that would entirely meet his views and command his
approval. The bill was passed by a decided majority in both branches, and

the Whigs were dumbfounded by a prompt veto from the President. Other
conferences followed, and a new bill was framed, to which the President
assented, and although it was passed without amendment, another veto
followed. The first veto of the Bank bill brought out very angry criticisms
from a number of the Whig leaders, and one of the most earnest and
aggressive of Tyler’s critics was John Minor Botts, then a Whig
Congressman from Virginia, and one of the most brilliant and erratic of the
Whig leaders of his day. It was believed that the irritation of the President,
caused by the criticisms of leading Whigs, finally decided the President to
veto the second Bank bill.
Thus the Whigs were defeated in one of the cardinal measures of their
faith. The Whig Senators and Representatives met in caucus and published
an address to the country, in which it was declared that “those who brought
the President into power can no longer in any manner or degree be justly
held responsible or blamed for the administration of the Executive branch
of the Government.” Thus the Whig power was broken and demoralized at
the very threshold of its existence, and the chasm between the Whig Senate
and House, on the one side, and the President, on the other, steadily
widened and deepened until it was admittedly impassable.
President Tyler’s political antecedents offer some excuse for his failure to
approve the national bank. He opposed Jackson, as did many other able
men in the South, because Jackson had violated the strict construction
policy of Southern leaders, especially in his aggressive warfare against
nullification, and one trained in the school of strict construction of the
supreme law could readily find excuse for withholding his approval from
the United States Bank. The same principle applied to internal
improvements by the Government, and could have been applied to forbid a
protective tariff. The only fruit the Whigs gathered from their great triumph
of 1840 was the protective tariff of 1842, that became so popular, especially
in the North, that many Democrats who supported Polk in 1844 declared
that they favored the tariff of 1842, and that it could not be disturbed if Polk
were elected. In Pennsylvania it was common to see in Democratic
processions banners bearing the inscription of “Polk-Dallas-Shunk and the
Tariff of 1842,” and a letter received by Judge Kane, of Philadelphia, from
Mr. Polk during the campaign was interpreted, and plausibly interpreted, as
meaning an approval of the then existing tariff. The Whigs, defeated in all

their other important measures, were sadly crippled in the campaign for the
succession, and even the tariff of 1842 was repealed for a moderate free-
trade tariff in 1846.
President Tyler had provoked the earnest and generally vindictive
hostility of the Whigs without having made friends with the Democrats.
They loved and cheered his apostasy, but gave no love or individual support
to the apostate. He confidently expected that they would make him the
Democratic candidate for President in 1844, and that delusion was
cherished by him until the Democratic National Convention met in
Baltimore to nominate national candidates. It was attended by a very large
number of office-holders and other friends of Tyler. Finding that they could
not command any support for their favorite in the convention, they
improvised a national convention of their own on the same day that the
Democratic convention met, and unanimously nominated Tyler for
President without naming any candidate for Vice-President. The movement
had no vitality, as there was no response from either the press or the public,
and on the 20th of August Tyler wrote an elaborate and reproachful letter,
withdrawing his name from the list of Presidential candidates.
When his term ended he lived in retirement on his Virginia farm,
unknown and unfelt as a political factor. He was among the almost
forgotten men of the past when, half a generation later, he appeared in
Washington as a member of the Peace Convention that was called in 1861
to devise some measures to prevent a civil war, that he did not live to see
fulfil its bloody mission.
When Van Buren was defeated for re-election to the Presidency in 1840,
his friends imitated the Jackson tactics of 1825 by at once renominating him
by mass-meetings and through Democratic newspapers as the Democratic
candidate for President in 1844, and a decided majority of the delegates to
the national convention were either instructed for Van Buren or elected as
his friends. Calhoun was favored by the Democrats of South Carolina and
Georgia, and ex-Vice-President Johnson was an energetic candidate for the
nomination, with General Cass, of Michigan, as the man who was looked to
as most likely to concentrate the opposition to Van Buren. Van Buren was in
the attitude before the Democratic National Convention of 1844 that
Seward was before the Chicago Republican Convention of 1860. A decided
majority of the delegates desired his nomination, but many of them believed

that Clay would defeat him, and they were quite willing to reaffirm the two-
thirds rule, even against the earnest protest of Van Buren’s most faithful
leaders, because it was well known that he never could attain the two-thirds
vote of the convention.
Van Buren was regarded as a most accomplished and rather an
unscrupulous politician. He was certainly a brilliant political leader, a very
sagacious counsellor, and believed in shaping the policy of the party chiefly
or wholly with the view of success; but a short time before the meeting of
the national convention he made one of the boldest political deliverances of
his life against the annexation of Texas, and he did it with the knowledge
that the Democrats of the South were practically united in the support of
annexation, with a very large proportion of the Northern Democrats in
harmony with it. In the month of May letters were given to the public from
both Van Buren and Clay, opposing the annexation of Texas at that time as
inexpedient, because it would mean war with Mexico, unless annexed with
the consent of that nation. Clay’s letter did not strengthen him in the South,
but certainly strengthened him in the North, and should have prevented the
Abolition vote in New York from sacrificing Clay and electing an ardent
supporter of the annexation of Texas with its slave Constitution, and under a
treaty that permitted its subdivision into four new States, each of which
would increase the slave power in the Senate.
Van Buren’s letter was made public just about one month before the
meeting of the Democratic National Convention, and it was severely
criticised by Southern newspapers and Democratic leaders generally, and
with great severity by those who desired his defeat. The Richmond
Enquirer, then one of the ablest and most influential of the Democratic
organs of the country, edited by Mr. Ritchie, demanded that the instructions
which had been given to the Virginia delegates to support Van Buren should
be rescinded. In some instances delegates did disobey Van Buren
instructions and others resigned rather than support him.
The convention met in Baltimore on the 27th of May, South Carolina
being the only State not represented. The first important movement made in
the body after its organization was the readoption of the two-thirds rule,
which all understood meant the defeat of Van Buren, notwithstanding that a
majority of the delegates would vote for him. The sincere and earnest
friends of Van Buren battled earnestly against the adoption of the rule, but it

finally prevailed by a vote of 148 to 118, and a large majority of the votes in
favor of the rule were cast by Southern delegates. It was claimed by his
friends, and I doubt not with reason, that had the delegates in the
convention voted as they had been instructed to vote, Van Buren would
have received within a very few votes of the necessary two-thirds to make a
nomination on the 1st ballot.
The convention was anything but harmonious, and stormy debates were
common from the beginning to the end of the proceedings of the
convention. Finally the convention reached the ballot for President, and Van
Buren received on the 1st ballot 146 votes to 120 for all others, giving him
a clear majority of 26 of the whole convention, but under the two-thirds rule
it required 178 to nominate him. The following table shows the nine ballots
in detail, the last resulting in the nomination of James K. Polk, of
Tennessee:

1st. 2d. 3d. 4th. 5th. 6th. 7th. 8th. 9th.
M. Van Buren, N. Y. 146 127 121 111 103 101 99 104 2
L. Cass, Mich. 83 94 92 105 107 116 123 114 29
R. M. Johnson, Ky. 24 33 38 32 29 23 21 — —
J. Buchanan, Pa. 4 9 11 17 26 25 22 2 —
L. Woodbury, N. H. 2 1 2 — — — — — —
Com. Stewart, Pa. 1 1 — — — — — — —
J. C. Calhoun, S. C. 6 1 2 — — — — 2 —
J. K. Polk, Tenn. — — — — — — — 44 233

Mr. Polk was the first “dark-horse” candidate ever nominated by any
hopeful party for the Presidency. He had not been discussed as a candidate
for President, but had been pressed by some of his political friends as a
candidate for the Vice-Presidency. He had been long in Congress, was
distinguished for his ability and impartiality as Speaker of the House, and
had been elected Governor of his State in 1841, but had been defeated in the

contest for re-election in 1843, only one year before his nomination for
President. Although his nomination for President seemed to be a
spontaneous movement of the convention to rescue the party from its bitter
factional feuds and the wrangling ambitions of its leaders, there is little
doubt that the slavery managers of the South would be satisfied with none
other than a positive Texas annexationist, and secretly but systematically
prepared a number of the delegates to accept Polk as a compromise when
the convention should come to a deadlock on the other candidates. Polk was
heralded as the special friend and protégé of Jackson, who was yet living,
and those who paved the way for his nomination had very plausible
arguments to offer, especially to Southern men, with whom the slavery
issue had become vital. However the nomination of Polk may have been
organized, it had all the appearance of a spontaneous stampede in the
convention. He had only 44 votes on the 8th ballot, the first in which his
name appears. While the 9th ballot was in progress the delegates began to
change their votes to Polk, and the result was that before its close the
chairmen of delegations were jostling each other to get their votes recorded
early for the successful candidate. The Morse experimental telegraph line
had just been completed between Washington and Baltimore, and the
Democratic leaders at Washington were advised by telegraph of Polk’s
nomination, to which a congratulatory response was promptly given.
Although the Van Buren men had finally voted for Polk, preferring him
to any of the candidates who had aggressively opposed the success of Van
Buren, they were profoundly grieved at Van Buren’s defeat. They believed
that slavery had crucified Van Buren, and it was their purpose, during the
flush of their anger, to allow Polk to suffer a humiliating disaster. The
friends of Polk well understood the deep disaffection that would confront
them among the friends of Van Buren, and they adopted the very shrewd
policy of taking Van Buren’s ablest lieutenant as the candidate for Vice-
President. Silas Wright, of New York, Van Buren’s own State, was then one
of the ablest of the Democratic Senators of that day, and a most zealous
supporter of Van Buren. He was nominated for Vice-President by practically
a unanimous vote, only eight of the Georgia delegates preferring Levi
Woodbury, of New Hampshire. Mr. Wright, being in the Senate at
Washington, was at once informed by telegraph of his nomination, but
smarting under what he believed to be the betrayal of Van Buren, he
promptly sent a curt and peremptory declination back on the wire. Had

there been no electric telegraph, Mr. Wright would have accepted the
nomination for Vice-President and been elected to that position, but the
success of Morse’s great invention, that had been completed between
Washington and Baltimore only a few days before the convention met,
changed his political destiny.
After mature reflection the friends of Van Buren were brought to terms
by the Democratic leaders in the interest of Polk, and they decided to give a
cordial support to the national ticket, but New York was regarded as certain
to vote against Polk unless some extraordinary measures were adopted to
save it. It was finally decided that only by nominating Senator Wright for
Governor could the vote of the State be assured to Polk, and the man who
had declined the Vice-Presidency that was within his reach, because he
expected and really desired the ticket to be defeated, was compelled to
resign his seat in the Senate to accept the Democratic nomination for
Governor of New York. He was admittedly the strongest man in the party,
and it was that nomination that saved the Democrats of New York from
demoralization and made Mr. Polk President.
Two years later Wright suffered a humiliating defeat in a contest for re-
election, and thus ended a political career that should have been rounded
out in the second office of the Government. Jackson was made President
because there were no steamers, cables, or telegraphs to advise him on the
8th of January, 1815, when he fought and won the battle of New Orleans,
that peace had been declared between the two nations a fortnight before,
and Silas Wright lost the Vice-Presidency and ended his political career in
disaster because the telegraph had just been invented and put into operation
between Washington and Baltimore.
The convention then proceeded to a second nomination for Vice-
President, with the following result:

1st Ballot. 2d Ballot.
John Fairfield, Maine 107 30
Levi Woodbury, New Hampshire 44 6
Lewis Cass, Michigan 39 —

R. M. Johnson, Kentucky 26 —
Com. Stewart, Pennsylvania 23 —
Geo. M. Dallas, Pennsylvania 13 220
Wm. L. Marcy, New York 5 —

The nomination of Dallas was made unanimous.
In constructing the Democratic platform for 1844 the Democrats threw
out a political drag-net. The first Democratic national platform that had
been adopted by the convention of 1840 was embodied in its entirety in the
platform of this convention, and the following new resolutions added:
Resolved, That the American Democracy place their trust, not in
factitious symbols, not in displays and appeals insulting to the judgment
and subversive of the intellect of the people, but in a clear reliance upon the
intelligence, patriotism, and the discriminating justice of the American
people.
Resolved, That we regard this as a distinctive feature of our political
creed, which we are proud to maintain before the world, as the great moral
element in a form of government springing from and upheld by the popular
will; and we contrast it with the creed and practice of Federalism, under
whatever name or form, which seeks to palsy the will of the constituent, and
which conceives no imposture too monstrous for the popular credulity.
Resolved, Therefore, that, entertaining these views, the Democratic party
of this Union, through the delegates assembled in general convention of the
States, coming together in a spirit of concord, of devotion to the doctrines
and faith of a free representative Government, and appealing to their
fellow-citizens for the rectitude of their intentions, renew and reassert
before the American people the declaration of principles avowed by them
on a former occasion, when, in general convention, they presented their
candidates for the popular suffrage.
Resolved, That the proceeds of the public lands ought to be sacredly
applied to the national objects specified in the Constitution; and that we are
opposed to the laws lately adopted, and to any law, for the distribution of

such proceeds among the States, as alike inexpedient in policy and
repugnant to the Constitution.
Resolved, That we are decidedly opposed to taking from the President the
qualified veto power by which he is enabled, under restrictions and
responsibilities amply sufficient to guard the public interest, to suspend the
passage of a bill, whose merits cannot secure the approval of two-thirds of
the Senate and House of Representatives, until the judgment of the people
can be obtained thereon, and which has thrice saved the American people
from the corrupt and tyrannical domination of the Bank of the United
States.
Resolved, That our title to the whole of the territory of Oregon is clear
and unquestionable; that no portion of the same ought to be ceded to
England or any other power; and that the reoccupation of Oregon and the
reannexation of Texas at the earliest practical period are great American
measures which this convention recommends to the cordial support of the
Democracy of the Union.
Resolved, That this convention hold in the highest estimation and regard
their illustrious fellow-citizen, Martin Van Buren of New York; that we
cherish the most grateful and abiding sense of the ability, integrity, and
firmness with which he discharged the duties of the high office of President
of the United States, and especially of the inflexible fidelity with which he
maintained the true doctrines of the Constitution and the measures of the
Democratic party during his trying and nobly arduous administration; that
in the memorable struggle of 1840 he fell a martyr to the great principles of
which he was the worthy representative, and we revere him as such; and
that we hereby tender to him, in honorable retirement, the assurance of the
deeply seated confidence, affection, and respect of the American
Democracy.
The Whigs had nominated their national ticket in advance of the
Democrats, the convention having been held at Baltimore on the 1st of
May, with every State fully represented. It was a national assembly of
unusual ability, and was most heartily and enthusiastically united in the
support of Clay for the Presidency. It did not require the formality of a
ballot to present him as the Whig candidate, and his nomination was made

by acclamation. It required three ballots to nominate a candidate for Vice-
President, as follows:

First. Second. Third.
T. Frelinghuysen, N. J. 101 118 155
John Davis, Mass. 83 74 79
Millard Fillmore, N. Y. 53 51 40
John Sergeant, Penn. 38 32 —
Total 275 275 274

The platform adopted by the Whigs was brief but expressive. The Whig
faith was tersely given in a single resolution. The other resolutions were
simply eloquent tributes to Clay and Frelinghuysen, and the convention
adjourned, making the welkin ring with cheers for “Harry Clay of the West”
and for the “Mill Boy of the Slashes,” and absolutely confident of the
triumphant election of their great leader to the highest honors of the
Republic. The first Whig national platform was as follows:
Resolved, That, in presenting to the country the names of Henry Clay for
President and of Theodore Frelinghuysen for Vice-President of the United
States, this convention is actuated by the conviction that all the great
principles of the Whig party—principles inseparable from the public honor
and prosperity—will be maintained and advanced by these candidates.
Resolved, That these principles may be summed as comprising: a well-
regulated currency; a tariff for revenue to defray the necessary expenses of
the Government, and discriminating with special reference to the protection
of the domestic labor of the country; the distribution of the proceeds from
the sales of the public lands; a single term for the presidency; a reform of
executive usurpations; and generally such an administration of the affairs of
the country as shall impart to every branch of the public service the greatest
practical efficiency, controlled by a well-regulated and wise economy.

Resolved, That the name of Henry Clay needs no eulogy. The history of
the country since his first appearance in public life is his history. Its
brightest pages of prosperity and success are identified with the principles
which he has upheld, as its darkest and more disastrous pages are with
every material departure in our public policy from those principles.
Resolved, That in Theodore Frelinghuysen we present a man pledged
alike by his Revolutionary ancestry and his own public course to every
measure calculated to sustain the honor and interest of the country.
Inheriting the principles as well as the name of a father who, with
Washington, on the fields of Trenton and of Monmouth, perilled life in the
contest for liberty, and afterward, as a Senator of the United States, acted
with Washington in establishing and perpetuating that liberty, Theodore
Frelinghuysen, by his course as Attorney-General of the State of New
Jersey for twelve years, and subsequently as a Senator of the United States
for several years, was always strenuous on the side of law, order, and the
Constitution, while, as a private man, his head, his hand, and his heart have
been given without stint to the cause of morals, education, philanthropy,
and religion.
The third national convention that presented candidates for the campaign
of 1844 was that of the Abolitionists. They had grown since 1840, when
they first nominated Mr. Birney as their candidate, and their platform,
elaborate as it is, is well worthy of careful study. It met at Buffalo, in
August, 1843, and nominated James G. Birney, of New York, for President,
and Thomas Morris, of Ohio, for Vice-President, and it increased its vote up
to 62,300, all of which were cast in the Northern States, including 15,812
for Birney in New York. As nearly all of them were of Whig antecedents,
they would have preferred Clay to Polk if they had not presented a ticket of
their own to divert their votes, and it was their support of Birney that gave
Polk the majority over Clay in the Empire State, whose electoral vote
decided the contest. The following is the full text of the first platform
presented by an Abolition national convention:
Resolved, That human brotherhood is a cardinal principle of true
democracy, as well as of pure Christianity, which spurns all inconsistent
limitations; and neither the political party which repudiates it nor the
political system which is not based upon it can be truly democratic or
permanent.

Resolved, That the Liberty party, placing itself upon this broad principle,
will demand the absolute and unqualified divorce of the General
Government from slavery, and also the restoration of equality of rights
among men, in every State where the party exists or may exist.
Resolved, That the Liberty party has not been organized for any
temporary purpose by interested politicians, but has arisen from among the
people in consequence of a conviction, hourly gaining ground, that no other
party in the country represents the true principles of American liberty or the
true spirit of the Constitution of the United States.
Resolved, That the Liberty party has not been organized merely for the
overthrow of slavery. Its first decided effort must indeed be directed against
slaveholding as the grossest and most revolting manifestation of despotism,
but it will also carry out the principle of equal rights into all its practical
consequences and applications, and support every just measure conducive
to individual and social freedom.
Resolved, That the Liberty party is not a sectional party, but a national
party; was not originated in a desire to accomplish a single object, but in a
comprehensive regard to the great interests of the whole country; is not a
new party nor a third party, but is the party of 1776, reviving the principles
of that memorable era, and striving to carry them into practical application.
Resolved, That it was understood in the times of the Declaration and the
Constitution that the existence of slavery in some of the States was in
derogation of the principles of American liberty, and a deep stain upon the
character of the country and the implied faith of the States; and the nation
was pledged that slavery should never be extended beyond its then existing
limits, but should be gradually, and yet at no distant day, wholly abolished
by State authority.
Resolved, That the faith of the States and the nation thus pledged was
most nobly redeemed by the voluntary abolition of slavery in several of the
States, and by the adoption of the ordinance of 1787 for the government of
the territory northwest of the river Ohio, then the only territory in the
United States, and consequently the only territory subject in this respect to
the control of Congress, by which ordinance slavery was forever excluded
from the vast regions which now compose the States of Ohio, Indiana,

Illinois, Michigan, and the Territory of Wisconsin, and an incapacity to bear
up any other than free men was impressed on the soil itself.
Resolved, That the faith of the States and nation thus pledged has been
shamefully violated by the omission on the part of many of the States to
take any measures whatever for the abolition of slavery within their
respective limits; by the continuance of slavery in the District of Columbia
and in the Territories of Louisiana and Florida; by the legislation of
Congress; by the protection afforded by national legislation and negotiation
to slaveholding in American vessels, on the high seas, employed in the
coastwise slave traffic; and by the extension of slavery far beyond its
original limits, by acts of Congress admitting new Slave States into the
Union.
Resolved, That the fundamental truth of the Declaration of Independence,
that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, was made the
fundamental law of our National Government by that amendment of the
Constitution which declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty,
or property without due process of law.
Resolved, That we recognize as sound the doctrine maintained by
slaveholding jurists, that slavery is against natural rights and strictly local,
and that its existence and continuance rest on no other support than State
legislation, and not on any authority of Congress.
Resolved, That the General Government has, under the Constitution, no
power to establish or continue slavery anywhere, and therefore that all
treaties and acts of Congress establishing, continuing, or favoring slavery in
the District of Columbia, in the Territory of Florida, or on the high seas, are
unconstitutional, and all attempts to hold men as property within the limits
of exclusive national jurisdiction ought to be prohibited by law.
Resolved, That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States,
which confer extraordinary political powers on the owners of slaves, and
thereby constituting the two hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders in the
Slave States a privileged aristocracy, and the provision for the reclamation
of fugitive slaves from service, are anti-republican in their character,
dangerous to the liberties of the people, and ought to be abrogated.

Resolved, That the practical operation of the second of these provisions is
seen in the enactment of the Act of Congress respecting persons escaping
from their masters, which act, if the construction given to it by the Supreme
Court of the United States in the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania be correct,
nullifies the habeas corpus acts of all the States, takes away the whole legal
security of personal freedom, and ought therefore to be immediately
repealed.
Resolved, That the peculiar patronage and support hitherto extended to
slavery and slaveholding by the General Government ought to be
immediately withdrawn, and the example and influence of national
authority ought to be arrayed on the side of liberty and free labor.
Resolved, That the practice of the General Government, which prevails in
the Slave States, of employing slaves upon the public works, instead of free
laborers, and paying aristocratic masters, with a view to secure or reward
political services, is utterly indefensible and ought to be abandoned.
Resolved, That the freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of
petition and the right of trial by jury, are sacred and inviolable; and that all
rules, regulations, and laws in derogation of either are oppressive,
unconstitutional, and not to be endured by free people.
Resolved, That we regard voting, in an eminent degree, as a moral and
religious duty, which, when exercised, should be by voting for those who
will do all in their power for immediate emancipation.
Resolved, That this convention recommend to the friends of liberty in all
those Free States where any inequality of rights and privileges exists on
account of color, to employ their utmost energies to remove all such
remnants and effects of the slave system.
Whereas, The Constitution of these United States is a series of
agreements, covenants, or contracts between the people of the United
States, each with all and all with each; and
Whereas, It is a principle of universal morality, that the moral laws of the
Creator are paramount to all human laws; or, in the language of an Apostle,
that “we ought to obey God rather than men;” and
Whereas, The principle of common law, that any contract, covenant, or
agreement to do an act derogatory to natural rights is vitiated and annulled

by its inherent immorality, has been recognized by one of the Justices of the
Supreme Court of the United States, who in a recent case expressly holds
that any “contract that rests upon such a basis is void;” and
Whereas, The third clause of the second section of the fourth article of
the Constitution of the United States, when construed as providing for the
surrender of a fugitive slave, does “rest upon such a basis,” in that it is a
contract to rob a man of a natural right, namely, his natural right to his own
liberty, and is, therefore, absolutely void; therefore,
Resolved, That we hereby give it to be distinctly understood by this
nation and the world, that, as Abolitionists, considering that the strength of
our cause lies in its righteousness, and our hope for it in our conformity to
the laws of God and our respect for the rights of man, we owe it to the
Sovereign Ruler of the universe, as a proof of our allegiance to Him, in all
our civil relations and offices, whether as private citizens or as public
functionaries sworn to support the Constitution of the United States, to
regard and to treat the third clause of the fourth article of that instrument,
whenever applied to the case of a fugitive slave, as utterly null and void,
and consequently as forming no part of the Constitution of the United
States, whenever we are called upon or sworn to support it.
Resolved, That the power given to Congress by the Constitution, to
provide for calling out the militia to suppress insurrection, does not make it
the duty of the Government to maintain slavery by military force, much less
does it make it the duty of the citizens to form a part of such military force.
When freemen unsheath the sword, it should be to strike for liberty, not for
despotism.
Resolved, That to preserve the peace of the citizens and secure the
blessings of freedom, the Legislature of each of the Free States ought to
keep in force suitable statutes rendering it penal for any of its inhabitants to
transport, or aid in transporting from such State, any person sought to be
thus transported merely because subject to the slave laws of any other State;
this remnant of independence being accorded to the Free States by the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prigg v. The State of
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Clay enjoyed a much larger measure of personal popularity than any
other man in the nation, and he was universally accepted as the most gifted

political orator of his day. He was to the Whigs of that time what Blaine
was to the Republicans during his several unsuccessful battles for the
Presidency. It is a notable fact in political history that no pre-eminent
political orator ever succeeded in reaching the Presidency. Garfield was the
nearest approach to it, but he was a contemporary of Blaine, and Blaine far
outstripped him either on the hustings or in parliamentary debate. Clay had
entered both the House and Senate when little more than eligible by age,
and he was admittedly the most accomplished presiding officer the House
ever had. He was the Commoner of the war of 1812, and rendered most
conspicuous service to his country. His speeches in the House did more than
the persuasion of any other dozen men to force the young Republic into a
second contest with England on the right of search on the high seas. He was
always strong in argument, was often impassioned and superbly eloquent,
and in every great emergency of the country during the first half of the
present century he was the pacificator. President Madison was most
reluctant to declare war against England, and he yielded to it only when it
became a supreme necessity to obey the general demand of the country for
an appeal to arms.
When Clay was nominated for President in 1844, it was generally
believed that he would have an easy victory over Van Buren, and when
Polk, of Tennessee, was made the compromise candidate against him, the
Whigs at first believed that the nomination of a comparatively obscure man
against the great chieftain of the Whigs would give them a walk-over. The
campaign had made little progress, however, until the Whigs discovered
that the Democrats were going to be thoroughly united on Polk, and that he
was probably the strongest candidate who could have been nominated
against Clay. His chief strength was in his negative qualities. He had not
been involved in any of the conflicts of ambition among the Democratic
leaders. He was regarded as the favorite of Jackson, and while his
nomination had been made without any previous discussion or suggestion
of his claims to the Presidency, he had filled high State and national
positions with credit, and he could not be accused of incompetency. I doubt
indeed whether any other Democrat could have been nominated by the
Democratic convention to make a successful battle against Clay.
The Whigs entered the contest defiant in confidence and enthusiastic to a
degree that had never before been exhibited in the support of any candidate.

The devotion of the Whigs to Clay was little less than idolatry, and strong
men shed scalding tears over his defeat. He was largely handicapped in his
battle by the complications put upon the Whig party by President Tyler. The
Cabinet was wholly Democratic and bitterly against Clay. Under the
demoralization caused by Tyler’s betrayal of the party the Whigs had lost
the House in 1842, but they retained their mastery in the Senate, and a new
peril to Clay was soon developed in the growth of the Abolition sentiment
of Western New York. Neither Clay nor Polk made campaign speeches, and
both maintained themselves with scrupulous dignity throughout the long
and exceptionally desperate contest.
Pennsylvania was then, as in 1860, the pivotal State of the struggle, and
the death of the Democratic candidate for Governor during the midsummer
deprived the Whigs of a source of strength that most likely would have
given them the State in October. The Democrats had a violent factional
dispute in choosing a candidate for Governor. Mr. Muhlenberg, who had
been a bolting candidate against Governor Wolfe in 1835, thereby electing
Ritner, the anti-Masonic candidate, was finally nominated for Governor
over Francis R. Shunk, the candidate of the opposing faction. Muhlenberg
was weakened by his aggressive factional record, and the Democrats were
hardly hopeful of his election, but he died just when the struggle was at its
zenith, and Shunk was then unanimously and cordially accepted as the
Democratic leader.
The Whigs had nominated General Markle, of Westmoreland, who was
unquestionably the strongest man they could have presented. The
Presidential battle was practically fought in that contest for Governor, and
when Shunk was elected by 4397 majority, there were few who cherished
much hope of Clay’s election. Pennsylvania lost in October could not be
regained in November, but the Whigs did not in any measure relax their
efforts, and Polk carried the State over Clay by 6332.
When Pennsylvania faltered the greatly impaired hopes of the Whigs
centred in New York, as it was believed that New York might decide the
contest in favor of Clay, even with Pennsylvania certain to vote against him.
The nomination of Silas Wright for Governor had thoroughly united the Van
Buren followers in support of Polk, and while Clay stood against the
annexation of Texas and the extension of the slave power, the antislavery
sentiment of New York was greatly strengthened by the fact that both Clay

and Polk were Southerners and slaveholders. Birney, the Abolition
candidate, received 15,812 votes, while Polk’s majority in the State was
5106. Mr. Greeley, who was one of the leaders in the antislavery movement,
and much more practical than the organized Abolitionists, bitterly
denounced that party for defeating Clay. In his Whig Almanac for 1845 he
had an elaborate review of the contest, in which he said:
“The year 1844 just ended has witnessed one of the most extraordinary
political contests that has ever occurred. So nice and equal a balance of
parties; so universal and intense an interest; so desperate and protracted a
struggle, are entirely without parallel.... James K. Polk owes his election to
the Birney or Liberty party. Had there been no such party drawing its votes
nine-tenths from the Whig ranks, Mr. Clay would have received at least the
votes of New York and Michigan, in addition to those actually cast for him,
giving him 146 electoral votes to Polk’s 129. To Birney & Co., therefore, is
the country indebted for the election of Polk and the annexation and anti-
tariff ascendency in the Federal Government.”
The number of States voting was 26, the same as in 1840. The new
Congressional apportionment had reduced the Representatives from 242 to
223, making the total number of electors 275. The following table exhibits
the popular and electoral vote:

Popular Vote. Electors.
STATES. James K. Henry James G.
Polk. Clay.
Polk. Clay. Birney.
Maine 45,719 34,378 4,836 9 —
New Hampshire 27,160 17,866 4,161 6 —
Vermont 18,041 26,770 3,954 — 6
Massachusetts 52,846 67,418 10,860 — 12
Rhode Island 4,867 7,322 107 — 4
Connecticut 29,841 32,832 1,943 — 6
New York 237,588 232,482 15,812 36 —

New Jersey 37,495 38,318 131 — 7
Pennsylvania 167,535 161,203 3,138 26 —
Delaware 5,996 6,278 —— — 3
Maryland 32,676 35,984 —— — 8
Virginia 49,570 43,677 —— 17 —
North Carolina 39,287 43,232 —— — 11
South
—— —— —— 9 —
Carolina[12]
Georgia 44,177 42,100 —— 10 —
Alabama 37,740 26,084 —— 9 —
Mississippi 25,126 19,206 —— 6 —
Louisiana 13,782 13,083 —— 6 —
Kentucky 51,988 61,255 —— — 12
Tennessee 59,917 60,030 —— — 13
Missouri 41,369 31,251 —— 7 —
Arkansas 9,546 5,504 —— 3 —
Ohio 149,117 155,057 8,050 — 23
Michigan 27,759 24,337 3,632 5 —
Indiana 70,181 67,867 2,106 12 —
Illinois 57,920 45,528 3,570 9 —
Totals 1,337,243 1,299,062 62,300 170 105

The Whigs, in keen despair over the defeat of their ablest and most
beloved champion, charged fraud as the controlling factor in giving the
Democrats their victory, but the battle had been fought and lost, and there
was nothing left for them but submission. The electoral count was

uneventful, and Polk and Dallas were formally declared elected President
and Vice-President without objection.
The most desperate contests outside of New York and Pennsylvania were
made in Tennessee and Delaware. Tennessee was the home of Polk, and the
“Old Hero of New Orleans” threw himself into the contest for Polk with
tireless energy. He inspired his veteran followers not only because he
wanted Polk elected, but because he much more wanted Clay defeated. Clay
had defeated him for President in the House in 1825, and Jackson never
forgot a friend and rarely forgave an enemy. It was many days after the
election before the vote of Tennessee could be ascertained, and it was
claimed by both parties until the official vote was declared. It was finally
announced that Clay had carried the State by 113, and the success of Clay
in that State was the only silver lining the Whigs had to the dark cloud of
their defeat.
Another memorable battle, though not in any sense an important contest
as affecting the result, was fought in Delaware. The States did not then vote
for President on the same day as now. All of them voted for Presidential
electors in the month of November, although at that time nearly all the
States elected their State officers and Congressmen earlier in the year.
Delaware, with only 3 electoral votes, held both her State and her
Presidential elections on the second Tuesday of November, and when her
election day came around it was known to all that Clay was absolutely
defeated for President.
New York and Pennsylvania had voted for Polk a week before, and on the
second Tuesday of November only Massachusetts and Delaware were left
among the States that had not yet chosen electors. Massachusetts was Whig
and hardly contested, but Delaware made a most heroic battle for Clay, even
when it was known that a victory in the little Diamond State could not aid
the election of their favorite. The Democrats, inspired by their positively
assured success in the national contest, exhausted their resources and efforts
to win, but in the largest vote ever cast in the State, Clay won by 287
majority, receiving a larger vote than was cast for the Whig candidates for
Governor or for Congress, both of whom were successful, the first by 45
majority and the last by 173.

The Kentucky electors met at their Capitol on the day appointed for the
electoral colleges to cast their votes for President, and in sorrowing
devotion to their chief cast the vote of the State for Clay for President. After
their official duties had been performed a committee was appointed to
prepare an address to be delivered to Mr. Clay at Ashland. All the members
of the college, with many other citizens, accompanied the committee, and
Clay met them at his hospitable door to hear the address delivered by Mr.
Underwood, the chairman. Clay’s reply was one of the most beautiful of his
very many exquisite illustrations of oratory. He said he would not “affect
indifference to the personal concern which I had in the political contest just
terminated, but unless I am greatly self-deceived, the principal attraction to
me of the office of President of the United States arose out of the cherished
hope that I might be an humble instrument, in the hands of Providence, to
accomplish public good,” and in conclusion he said: “I heartily thank you,
sir, for your friendly wishes for my happiness in the retirement which
henceforth best becomes me.” Thus closed the memorable Polk-Clay
contest of 1844.

THE TAYLOR-CASS-VAN BUREN CONTEST

1848
President Polk was not blessed with a tranquil administration. The
annexation of Texas had been approved by Tyler several days before Polk
was inaugurated as President, and that at once made strained relations
between this country and Mexico. It was an open secret then, and is now a
part of the undisputed history of the country, that the election of Polk and
the annexation of Texas were regarded by the friends of slavery extension
as most important achievements, and that period dated the aggressive action
of the South, first to extend and next to nationalize slavery. The annexation
of Texas brought in a Slave State and two United States Senators, with the
treaty right to add eight new Senators by the subdivision of the State.
This met Calhoun’s complaint that the South could not maintain its
equilibrium in the Senate because of the growing West. The purposes of the
Southern extensionists, however, went far beyond the annexation of Texas.
They meant to have part of Mexico, peaceably if possible, by war if
necessary; and the war was deliberately planned and precipitated upon
Mexico by the action of the administration. The territory between the
Nueces and the Rio Grande rivers was claimed by both Texas and Mexico,
but Mexico had exercised uniform jurisdiction. Texas had never served a
writ or collected a dollar of revenue on the Rio Grande, and the United
States army of occupation, commanded by General Taylor, had not gone
south of the Nueces. There was much violent discussion in Mexico over the
annexation of Texas, whose independence Mexico disputed, and threats of
war were freely made.
The President, without the authority or knowledge of Congress, ordered
General Taylor to march to the Rio Grande and maintain it as the southern
line of Texas. This precipitated the battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la
Palma, in which Taylor defeated the Mexicans. The Democratic Congress
then prefaced a bill providing for the national defence by declaring that “we
are at war by the act of Mexico.” The purpose of the Mexican war was very

freely and severely criticised by a large portion of the people and by many
of the ablest men of the nation. The Whigs in Congress were willing to vote
for all needed appropriations for the support of the army, but a few
members of the House, with the late John Strohm, of Pennsylvania, as the
leader, after unsuccessfully struggling to strike out the declaration that “we
were at war by the act of Mexico,” refused to vote for the army
appropriation; and Corwin, of Ohio, made the ablest speech that ever was
delivered in the Senate, with the single exception of Webster’s reply to
Hayne, against the Mexican war and against appropriating money for its
prosecution.

ZACHARY TAYLOR

The certainty that the administration would acquire a large portion of
Mexican territory for the purpose of creating new Slave States gave dignity
and importance to the slavery agitation that it never before attained, and in
the fall elections of 1846 the Whigs carried the popular branch of Congress
by a decided majority. The repeal of the protective tariff of 1842 and the

substitution of the revenue tariff of 1846 contributed considerably to the
Democratic disaster, and the war was finally prosecuted by the
administration with an adverse House, although willing to furnish all
appropriations necessary to support the armies in the field.
After Taylor’s early victories over the Mexicans he invaded Mexican
territory and captured Monterey, and these victories made his name a
household word throughout the country. Instead of permitting Taylor to
proceed with the war that he had so successfully conducted up to that time,
the administration decided to practically retire him. General Scott was
called to plan an independent campaign from Vera Cruz to the capital of
Mexico. It was openly charged that the administration feared the popularity
of “Old Zach,” as Taylor was generally called by the people, and that it had
little fear of Scott as a Presidential candidate. Scott planned his campaign;
was furnished with an independent army, and when he arrived at Vera Cruz
he stripped General Taylor of nearly all his regulars, leaving him an army of
but little over 4000, most of them volunteers. Santa Anna, whose return to
Mexico had been sanctioned by our Government, made himself Military
Dictator. He gathered an army of 22,000 of the best Mexican troops and
made a rapid movement to strike and crush General Taylor at Buena Vista.
The history of that battle is well known. Taylor not only defeated but routed
the Mexicans, and thereby made himself the next President of the United
States.
General Scott made a most brilliant campaign, fighting repeated battles,
and finally captured the City of Mexico, when the administration involved
him in bitter controversy, as was easily done with General Scott, and had
him tried by a court of his inferiors in the Capitol of the enemy he had
conquered. Brilliant as was his military campaign he returned home with
little if any increased prestige, and every schoolboy in the land was
huzzaing for “Old Zach,” or for “Old Rough and Ready.”
There seems to be poetic justice in the marvellous historical fact that with
the large amount of territory conquered from Mexico, and the additional
territory afterward purchased by the Gadsden treaty, the South did not gain
a single Slave State, and it quickened the issue of slavery that greatly
hastened its destruction just when it hoped to attain omnipotence.

It was uncertain after the war of Mexico was inaugurated and the
certainty of the acquisition of Mexican territory accepted just when and in
what shape the issue of the extension of slavery would be presented. To the
surprise of the friends of the administration it came much sooner and in
much graver form than they had anticipated. On the 8th of August, 1846,
President Polk sent a message to Congress asking for an appropriation to be
placed at the President’s disposal to enable him to negotiate an
advantageous treaty of peace with the Mexican Government, and a bill was
promptly presented to the House appropriating $32,000,000 for immediate
use in negotiations with Mexico. There were a number of able and earnest
antislavery Democrats in the House, and among them David Wilmot, of
Pennsylvania. When the bill, making the large appropriation to obtain peace
with Mexico, that obviously meant the acquisition of Southern territory,
was presented to the House, repeated conferences were had between the
antislavery Democratic leaders, and what has since been known as the
“Wilmot Proviso” was originally drawn by Judge Brinkerhoff, then a
Democratic Congressman from Ohio, and finally revised and agreed upon,
to be offered as an amendment to the Mexican Appropriation bill.
The Speaker was adverse to the antislavery Democrats, and it was
uncertain whether any of them could obtain the floor to offer the
amendment. The result was that a copy of the proviso was furnished to
some half a dozen, with the understanding that each should take advantage
of any opportunity to obtain the floor during the consideration of the bill
and offer the amendment. The opportunity happened to come to Mr.
Wilmot, and he offered the following amendment, that is the original of
what is now known as the “Wilmot Proviso.”
“Provided, That as an express and fundamental condition to the
acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United
States, by virtue of any treaty that may be negotiated between them, and to
the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery
nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory except
for crime whereof the party shall be first duly convicted.”
This proviso came like a bombshell into the ranks of the
administrationists, and they were unable to defeat it. It was carried in
Committee of the Whole by a vote of 83 to 64, with only 3 Democrats from
the Free States opposing it. When the measure was reported to the House,

Mr. Tibbatts, of Kentucky, moved that it do lie on the table, and the motion
was defeated by 93 to 79. The bill was engrossed for third reading by 85 to
80, and passed finally without further division, with a motion to reconsider
laid on the table by vote of 83 to 73. Thus what is now known as the
Wilmot Proviso was embodied by the House in the Appropriation bill for
negotiating peace with Mexico.
The Wilmot Proviso raised the slavery issue in the most direct form, and
it played an important part in the Presidential contest of 1848. It was simply
a repetition of the clause prohibiting slavery that was put in the ordinance of
1787 by Thomas Jefferson, when the Northwestern Territory was ceded by
Virginia to the United States. It was a very embarrassing issue to many
Northern Democrats, and to a few Southern Whigs who inclined to prevent
slavery extension. General Cass, who was made the candidate for President
in 1848, originally declared himself in favor of the Wilmot Proviso, but he
learned a year later that no man could maintain his fellowship with the
Democratic party under the Polk administration and support the prohibition
of slavery in the Territories.
When the discussion of candidates for the Presidential contest of 1848
became active, General Cass was addressed on the subject of slavery by A.
O. P. Nicholson, of Nashville, Tenn., in which he inquired of Cass whether
he was in favor of the acquisition of Mexican territory, and what his views
were as to the Wilmot Proviso. General Cass answered, December 24, 1847,
in which he declared himself in favor of the acquisition of Mexican territory
and against the Wilmot Proviso, on which point he said: “I am strongly
impressed with the opinion that a great change has been going on in the
public mind upon this subject, in my own as well as others, and that doubts
are resolving themselves into convictions that the principle it involves
should be kept out of the national Legislature and left to the people of the
Confederacy in their respective local governments.” But for this declaration
Cass would not have been the Democratic candidate for President in 1848,
and that declaration also opened the door for the Van Buren bolt that
defeated Cass in the great ambition of his life.
In addition to the serious political complications which confronted the
Polk administration and threatened the defeat of the Democratic party at its
close, the Oregon dispute with England, that had been made one of the chief
features of the Polk campaign of 1844, was sensibly adjusted by Secretary

of State Buchanan, but in utter disregard of the Democratic declarations and
ostentatious professions of the campaign. In that contest the Democrats
from every stump declared that the boundary line between Oregon and
England must be “54° 40´, or fight”; but when the issue became a question
of statesmanship and diplomacy, a treaty was made fixing 49° as the
boundary, and thus confessing that the claim of the Democrats in the
campaign was made either in ignorance or insincerity.
Another of the troubles that confronted the Democracy was the intense
factional dispute in New York between what were known as the Hunkers
and the Barnburners. The Hunkers were so called in derision by their
enemies as men who always hunkered after office, and the Barnburners
were so called by their opponents because it was charged that to correct
evils in the party, they were ready to follow the foolish farmer who burnt
his barn to rid it of rats.
Silas Wright, who had lost the Vice-Presidency in 1844 by his devotion
to Van Buren, and was finally compelled to run for Governor to save the
State, suffered a severe defeat in 1846 when a candidate for re-election.
That defeat was charged by Van Buren and his friends to the perfidy of the
Hunkers. So intense was the bitterness between these factions that they
could not agree on delegations to the national convention, and two opposing
delegations were chosen, the Barnburners being antislavery Democrats and
the Hunkers the regular or pro-slavery Democrats. The national convention
met at Baltimore on the 22d of May, 1848, with every State represented,
and New York with a double delegation. Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia,
was made President, and the two-thirds rule was adopted by a vote of 175 to
78. For two days the convention wrangled over the disputing delegations
from New York, and after protracted and angry debate a motion was finally
passed by 126 to 124 admitting both delegations, each to cast half the vote
of the State.
While this was a comparative victory for the Barnburners, they withdrew
from the convention, and the Hunker delegation refused to participate in the
proceedings. The prominent candidates before the convention for President
were Cass and Buchanan, with Cass immensely in the lead and reasonably
certain to be nominated before the convention met. He had a large plurality
on the 1st ballot, but did not reach the requisite two-thirds vote until the 4th,
as is shown by the following table, giving the ballots in detail:

First. Second. Third. Fourth.
Necessary to a choice 168 168 169 169
Lewis Cass, Mich. 125 133 156 179
James Buchanan, Penn. 55 54 40 33
Levi Woodbury, N. H. 53 56 53 38
George M. Dallas, Penn. 3 3 — —
W. J. Worth, Tenn. 6 6 5 1
John C. Calhoun, S. C. 9 — — —
W. O. Butler, Ky. — — — 3

The convention adjourned after the nomination of Cass to meet in
evening session to select a candidate for Vice-President, and without any
preliminaries the ballot was had as follows:

Wm. O. Butler, Ky. 114
J. A. Quitman, Miss. 74
John Y. Mason, Va. 24
Wm. R. King, Ala. 29
Jas. J. McKay, N. C. 13
Jefferson Davis, Miss. 1

A 2d ballot was had and ended in the unanimous nomination of Butler.
The platform of the party was not reported until the fifth and final day of
the convention, and it was altogether the most elaborate declaration of
principles ever made by a political party in national convention.
Immediately after the first resolution as we give it followed the full text of
the Democratic platforms adopted in 1840 and 1844, and to the fifth

resolution of the platform of 1844 the following sentence was added: “And
for the gradual but certain extinction of the debt created by the prosecution
of a just and necessary war after peaceful relations shall have been
restored.” The Democratic platform of 1848, therefore, included the
platforms of 1840 and 1844, with the following new declarations of faith:
Resolved, That the American Democracy place their trust in the
intelligence, the patriotism, and the discriminating justice, of the American
people.
Resolved, That the war with Mexico, provoked on her part by years of
insult and injury, was commenced by her army crossing the Rio Grande,
attacking the American troops, and invading our sister State of Texas; and
that, upon all the principles of patriotism and the laws of nations, it is a just
and necessary war upon our part, in which every American citizen should
have shown himself on the side of his country, and neither morally nor
physically, by word or deed, have given aid and comfort to the enemy.
Resolved, That we should be rejoiced at the assurance of a peace with
Mexico, founded on the just principles of indemnity for the past and
security for the future; but that, while the ratification of the liberal treaty
offered to Mexico remains in doubt, it is the duty of the country to sustain
the administration in every measure necessary to provide for the vigorous
prosecution of the war, should that treaty be rejected.
Resolved, That the officers and soldiers who have carried the arms of
their country into Mexico have crowned it with imperishable glory. Their
unconquerable courage, their daring enterprise, their unfaltering
perseverance and fortitude when assailed on all sides by innumerable foes
—and that more formidable enemy, the diseases of the climate—exalt their
devoted patriotism into the highest heroism, and give them a right to the
profound gratitude of their country and the admiration of the world.
Resolved, That the Democratic National Convention of thirty States,
composing the American Republic, tender their fraternal congratulations to
the National Convention of the Republic of France, now assembled as the
free suffrage representatives of the sovereignty of thirty-five millions of
republicans, to establish governments on those eternal principles of equal
rights, for which their Lafayette and our Washington fought side by side in
the struggle for our national independence; and we would especially convey

to them and to the whole people of France our earnest wishes for the
consolidation of their liberties, through the wisdom that shall guide their
counsels, on the basis of a democratic constitution, not derived from the
grants or concessions of kings or dynasties, but originating from the only
true source of political power recognized in the States of this Union: the
inherent and inalienable rights of the people, in their sovereign capacity, to
make and to amend their forms of government in such a manner as the
welfare of the community may require.
Resolved, That with the recent development of this grand political truth—
of the sovereignty of the people and their capacity and power for self-
government, which is prostrating thrones and erecting republics on the ruins
of despotism in the Old World—we feel that a high and sacred duty is
devolved, with increased responsibility, upon the Democratic party of this
country, as the party of the people, to sustain and advance among us
constitutional liberty, equality, and fraternity, by continuing to resist all
monopolies and exclusive legislation for the benefit of the few at the
expense of the many; and by a vigilant and constant adherence to those
principles and compromises of the Constitution, which are broad enough
and strong enough to embrace and uphold the Union as it was, the Union as
it is, and the Union as it shall be, in the full expansion of the energies and
capacity of this great and progressive people.
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded, through the
American Minister at Paris, to the National Convention of the Republic of
France.
Resolved, That the fruits of the great political triumph of 1844, which
elected James K. Polk and George M. Dallas President and Vice-President
of the United States, have fulfilled the hopes of the Democracy of the
Union in defeating the declared purposes of their opponents to create a
national bank; in preventing the corrupt and unconstitutional distribution of
the land proceeds, from the common treasury of the Union, for local
purposes; in protecting the currency and labor of the country from ruinous
fluctuations, and guarding the money of the people for the use of the
people; by the establishment of the constitutional treasury; in the noble
impulse given to the cause of free trade, by the repeal of the tariff of 1842,
and the creation of the more equal, honest, and productive tariff of 1846;
and that, in our opinion, it would be a fatal error to weaken the hands of a

political organization by which these great reforms have been achieved, and
risk them in the hands of their known adversaries, with whatever delusive
appeals they may solicit our surrender of that vigilance which is the only
safeguard of liberty.
Resolved, That the confidence of the Democracy of the Union in the
principles, capacity, firmness, and integrity of James K. Polk, manifested by
his nomination and election in 1844, has been signally justified by the
strictness of his adherence to sound Democratic doctrines, by the purity of
purpose, the energy and ability which have characterized his administration
in all our affairs at home and abroad; that we tender to him our cordial
congratulations upon the brilliant success which has hitherto crowned his
patriotic efforts, and assure him in advance that, at the expiration of his
Presidential term, he will carry with him to his retirement the esteem,
respect, and admiration of a grateful country.
Resolved, That this convention hereby present to the people of the United
States Lewis Cass, of Michigan, as the candidate of the Democratic party
for the office of President, and William O. Butler, of Kentucky, as the
candidate of the Democratic party for Vice-President of the United States.
After the platform had been reported, Mr. Yancey, of Alabama, offered an
additional resolution providing, “That the doctrine of non-interference with
the rights of property of any portion of the people of this Confederacy, be it
in the States or Territories thereof, by any other than the parties interested in
them, is the true Republican doctrine recognized by this body,” but it was
rejected by a vote of 216 to 36. Yancey’s resolution stated just what the
convention believed, but what it did not dare express.
Notwithstanding the serious complications which confronted the
Democrats at the opening of the campaign of 1848, they started out with
every prospect of electing their national ticket. Cass was accepted as the
ablest of the Democratic leaders of that day, and his nomination seemed to
inspire the Democrats to earnest effort for his election. There was then no
apprehension of the Van Buren bolt that grew to such immense proportions
before the campaign closed, and made the defeat of Cass inevitable.
The Whigs were in an unfortunate position to go before the country. They
had opposed the Mexican war vehemently, had protested against the
acquisition of Mexican territory, and were certain to be divided on sectional

lines arising from the additional Territories and future States our expansion
was sure to give us. They were in the same position in which they found
themselves in 1839, when they had to unite discordant elements of
opposition to Van Buren to win the victory. The idolatry for Clay was yet
cherished in all its intensity, and although enfeebled by age, he yielded to
the earnest importunities of his friends, and announced himself as candidate
for the nomination, though all intelligent and dispassionate Whig leaders
knew that he was not available.
General Scott had been clouded by serious differences with the
administration, in which his volubility had served his enemies a good
purpose, and Webster never had a large popular following as a Presidential
candidate. It was the first national convention that I ever witnessed, being
then a boy editor in the interior and not old enough to vote for the men I
supported. It was held in Chinese Hall, in Philadelphia, where the
Continental Hotel now stands, and was dominated by the wonderfully able
political leaders and statesmen which the South produced in ante-bellum
days. They knew that they could not meet the slavery issue in the new
Territories, and they presented General Taylor to the convention, and,
without a pledge from Taylor himself, they formally pledged themselves to
the convention that if not nominated he would not be the candidate of any
other party, and would support the ticket.
The Whig National Convention convened at Philadelphia on the 7th of
June, with a full representation from every State excepting Texas. Ex-
Governor John M. Morehead, of North Carolina, presided. The conferences
of the Whig leaders were anything but harmonious, and there were
indications at times of an open and very serious rupture. Clay’s friends
knew that it was the last battle that ever could be made for him. Their
idolatry for Clay made them earnest, enthusiastic, even desperate, although
most of them could not but foresee that his nomination was impossible, and
that his election, if nominated, would be quite improbable.
The friends of Clay and Scott did not take kindly to General Taylor. He
had been nominated some time before by a Native American National
Convention that then represented but an inconsiderable following
principally in the Eastern cities, and he had never distinctly declared his
devotion to the Whig policy. Congressman L. D. Campbell, of Ohio, offered
a resolution just before the balloting began, declaring that the convention

should not entertain the candidacy of any man for President or Vice-
President “who had not given assurances that he would abide by the action
of the convention; that he would accept the nomination and that he would
consider himself the candidate of the Whig party.” An angry debate was
avoided by the President ruling the resolution out of order. Mr. Campbell
appealed, but the appeal was lost. Mr. Fuller, of New York, then offered a
resolution declaring that no man should be nominated for President unless
“he stands pledged to support in good faith the nominees and to be the
exponent of Whig principles.” This was also ruled out of order, and an
appeal was tabled.
Even after Taylor had been nominated, Mr. Allen, of Massachusetts, who
afterward bolted the party and supported Van Buren as a Free Soiler, offered
a resolution declaring that the Whig party would abide by the nomination of
Taylor on condition that he would accept the nomination as the candidate of
the Whig party, and adhere to its great fundamental principles of no
extension of slavery territory, no acquisition of foreign territory by
conquest, protection to American industry, and opposition to Executive
usurpation.” That was ruled out of order, as were several other resolutions
aiming at some expression on the question of slavery.
The Southern Whig leaders saw that the only possible way to save the
Whigs in the South was to nominate a Southern man; General Taylor was
the only Southern man whom they believed could command favor in the
North, and they wanted no expression from the convention on any of the
delicate and perilous issues which confronted them. A number of leading
Southern delegates, headed by Balie Peyton, of Tennessee, gave their
formal pledge to the convention that General Taylor would accept the
nomination and would abide by the decision of the party, and that he could
safely be trusted as an exponent of the Whig policy. The convention had
three ballots before a choice was reached for President, as follows:

First. Second. Third. Fourth.
Zachary Taylor, La. 111 118 133 171
Henry Clay, Ky. 97 86 74 32

Winfield Scott, N. J. 43 49 54 63
Daniel Webster, Mass. 22 22 17 14
John McLean, Ohio. 2 — — —
John M. Clayton, Del. 4 4 1 —

The nomination of Taylor was not made unanimous, as a number of the
New England delegates and some from Ohio had decided not to support
him under any circumstances, and they were later welcomed into the Free
Soil Democracy that nominated Van Buren on the distinct antislavery
extension platform. Among the most disgruntled of those who attended the
convention was Horace Greeley. I met him then for the first time, and saw
as much of him as I could, as he was my ideal fellow-editor. As soon as
Taylor was nominated he started for New York, and I met him just as he
was departing. He was evidently in great haste to make the Camden &
Amboy train, and he was hurrying down Chestnut Street. His low-crowned,
broad-brimmed, fuzzy fur hat set at an angle of 45 degrees on the back of
his head, his profusion of shirt collar protected from wandering over his
shoulders by an immense black silk handkerchief he used as a necktie, with
the awkward knot serenely resting under his left ear, and his immense
baggy black swallowtail coat, and the literal carpetbag he held by one
handle, while the other lay down on the side of the bag, did not contribute
much toward his genteel appearance. It was evident that he was mad clear
through. In answer to my question as to how he liked the nomination of
Taylor, he curtly answered, “Can’t say that I admire it,” and shuffled along
toward the ferry, but the Tribune of the next morning had a terrific leader
against Taylor, the title of which was “The Philadelphia Slaughterhouse,”
and Greeley long hesitated about coming into the support of Taylor. He
could not follow Van Buren, in whom he had no faith and against whom he
had made his first great battle as an editor in 1840. Finally, seeing that the
choice was between Cass and Taylor, Greeley decided to support the Whig
candidate, and the Whigs of New York showed their appreciation of his
action by nominating him to fill an unexpired term in Congress, to which he
was elected by a large majority.

The contest for Vice-President had been very animated, and for some
time before the meeting of the convention it seemed probable that Abbott
Lawrence, a New England millionaire, might win it. He made the first
attempt that had been ventured to gain a national nomination by the money-
in-politics system, but after Taylor had been nominated for President his
friends naturally looked to some representative supporter of Clay to be
placed second on the ticket, and Fillmore led Lawrence on the 1st ballot and
was nominated on the 2d. The ballots were as follows:

1st Ballot. 2d Ballot.
Millard Fillmore 115 173
Abbott Lawrence 109 83
Scattering 50 4

George Evans, of Maine, and T. M. T. McKennen, Andrew Stewart, and
John Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, all received a few votes. The nomination of
Fillmore was made unanimous by the delegates who remained in the
convention. The convention adopted no platform.
After the nomination of General Taylor for President an interesting, and
what would now be regarded as a most ludicrous, incident occurred relating
to the letter written by Governor Morehead, President of the Convention, to
General Taylor advising him of his nomination for the Presidency. At that
time the prepayment of postage was not compulsory, and unpaid letters
were charged from five to ten times the present rate of letter postage.
President Morehead promptly mailed a letter to General Taylor at Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, notifying him of his nomination, but several weeks
elapsed without any response. The telegraph was then in its infancy, and
unthought of as an agent except in the most urgent emergency, and
Governor Morehead finally sent a trusted friend to visit General Taylor and
inquire why his letter of acceptance had not been given. Every political
crank, as well as many others in the country, had been writing letters to
General Taylor on the subject of the Presidency, very few of whom prepaid
their letter postage. Old “Rough and Ready” became vexed beyond

endurance at the tax imposed upon him, and he gave peremptory orders to
the postmaster to send to the dead-letter office all letters addressed to him
which were unpaid. Governor Morehead, assuming that a letter advising a
man of his nomination for the Presidency, that carried with it a reasonably
certain election, was a matter of quite as much interest to Taylor as to
himself, had not prepaid the postage on his letter, and it had gone to the
dead-letter office in accordance with Taylor’s general orders. When the
mistake was discovered, the error was corrected by the sending of a second
letter—postage prepaid—to General Taylor, to which he promptly
responded, and the explanation given that the original letter had miscarried
in the mails.

MILLARD FILLMORE

One of the interesting episodes of the convention was the arrival in
Philadelphia, while the Whig convention was in session, of General Cass
and his suite of Democratic leaders of national fame. Cass was on his way
home from Washington, and the short time that he remained here he
liberally divided public attention with the Whigs. An immense crowd
welcomed Cass at the Jones Hotel, on Chestnut, above Sixth, and I there for
the first time saw and heard General Cass, Senator Houston, Senator Allen,
Senator Benton, and Representative Stevenson, all of whom spoke from the
balcony of the hotel, and were cheered to the echo. I recall Houston as one
of the handsomest men I have ever seen, with perfect physique, of heroic
form, and a superbly chiselled face, portraying all the strength of the best
type of the Roman. Cass was heavy and ponderous, but an able and
attractive speaker, and I remember Benton well because his speech made
him remembered as a colossal, perpendicular I. Allen was then notable as
the “fog-horn,” and he could be heard a square beyond any of the others. A
facetious delegate in the Whig convention, with admirable mock gravity,
suggested that as the Democratic funeral train was in this city taking Cass’s
body home by the lakes, the convention should adjourn.
As might have been expected, and as was greatly feared by both the
leading parties, the slavery issue was at once made the vital one of the
contest. The Democrats hoped that as the contest warmed up the Van Buren
followers would acquiesce as they did in 1844, but what at first seemed to
be a cloud on the Democratic horizon no bigger than a man’s hand soon
after developed into a promised tempest. The Barnburners, who had
withdrawn from the Democratic National Convention, called a State
convention, to meet at Utica, N. Y., on the 22d of June, and invited
delegates from other States for conference. Massachusetts, Connecticut,
Ohio, and Wisconsin were represented, and after devoting two days to the
discussion of the best policy to adopt, Van Buren was formally nominated
for President, and Henry Dodge, of Wisconsin, for Vice-President, who
declined, and supported Cass. Van Buren’s formal acceptance of the
nomination followed soon thereafter, and it was the first definite notice to
the regular Democrats that the Free-Soil Democracy was going to be
earnestly arrayed against Democratic success.

Although Van Buren had accepted the first nomination, it was deemed
wise as the campaign progressed to have a much more representative
national body to make him the candidate, and a largely attended mass
convention met at Buffalo on the 9th of August, over which Charles Francis
Adams, of Massachusetts, presided, and which had representatives from
seventeen States. On the formal ballot for President, Van Buren had 159
votes to 129 for John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, who had already been
nominated by the Abolitionists, and Charles Francis Adams was nominated
by acclamation for Vice-President. After this convention had made its
nominations and declared its platform, Mr. Hale, the Abolition candidate,
retired from the contest, and he and his followers gave a cordial support to
Van Buren. The following was the Van Buren platform as declared by the
Buffalo convention:
Whereas, We have assembled in convention, as a union of freemen, for
the sake of freedom, forgetting all past political differences, in common
resolve to maintain the rights of free labor against the aggressions of the
slave power, and to secure free soil for a free people; and
Whereas, The political conventions recently assembled at Baltimore and
Philadelphia, the one stifling the voice of a great constituency, entitled to be
heard in its deliberations, and the other abandoning its distinctive principles
for mere availability, have dissolved the national party organizations
heretofore existing by nominating for the chief magistracy of the United
States, under the slaveholding dictation, candidates, neither of whom can be
supported by the opponents of slavery extension without a sacrifice of
consistency, duty, and self-respect; and
Whereas, These nominations so made furnish the occasion and
demonstrate the necessity of the union of the people under the banner of
free democracy, in a solemn and formal declaration of their independence of
the slave power, and of their fixed determination to rescue the Federal
Government from its control:
Resolved, Therefore, that we, the people here assembled, remembering
the example of our fathers in the days of the first Declaration of
Independence, putting our trust in God for the triumph of our cause, and
invoking His guidance in our endeavors to advance it, do now plant

ourselves upon the national platform of freedom, in opposition to the
sectional platform of slavery.
Resolved, That slavery in the several States of this Union which
recognize its existence depends upon State laws alone, which cannot be
repealed or modified by the Federal Government, and for which laws that
Government is not responsible. We therefore propose no interference by
Congress with slavery within the limits of any State.
Resolved, That the proviso of Jefferson, to prohibit the existence of
slavery after 1800 in all the Territories of the United States, southern and
northern; the votes of six States and sixteen delegates, in the Congress of
1784 for the proviso, to three States and seven delegates against it; the
actual exclusion of slavery from the Northwestern Territory by the
ordinance of 1787, unanimously adopted by the States in Congress; and the
entire history of that period—clearly show that it was the settled policy of
the nation not to extend, nationalize, or encourage, but to limit, localize, and
discourage slavery; and to this policy, which should never have been
departed from, the Government ought to return.
Resolved, That our fathers ordained the Constitution of the United States
in order, among other great national objects, to establish justice, promote
the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty; but expressly denied
to the Federal Government, which they created, all constitutional power to
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due legal process.
Resolved, That, in the judgment of this convention, Congress has no more
power to make a slave than to make a king; no more power to institute or
establish slavery than to institute or establish a monarchy. No such power
can be found among those specifically conferred by the Constitution, or
derived by any just implication from them.
Resolved, That it is the duty of the Federal Government to relieve itself
from all responsibility for the existence or continuance of slavery wherever
the Government possesses constitutional authority to legislate on that
subject, and is thus responsible for its existence.
Resolved, That the true and, in the judgment of this convention, the only
safe means of preventing the extension of slavery into territory now free is
to prohibit its existence in all such territory by an act of Congress.

Resolved, That we accept the issue which the slave power has forced
upon us; and to their demand for more Slave States and more slave territory,
our calm but final answer is, no more Slave States and no more slave
territory. Let the soil of our extensive domains be ever kept free for the
hardy pioneers of our own land, and the oppressed and banished of other
lands, seeking homes of comfort and fields of enterprise in the New World.
Resolved, That the bill lately reported by the committee of eight in the
Senate of the United States was no compromise, but an absolute surrender
of the rights of the non-slaveholders of all the States; and while we rejoice
to know that a measure which, while opening the door for the introduction
of slavery into territories now free, would also have opened the door to
litigation and strife among the future inhabitants thereof, to the ruin of their
peace and prosperity, was defeated in the House of Representatives, its
passage, in hot haste, by a majority embracing several Senators who voted
in open violation of the known will of their constituents, should warn the
people to see to it that their representatives be not suffered to betray them.
There must be no more compromises with slavery; if made, they must be
repealed.
Resolved, That we demand freedom and established institutions for our
brethren in Oregon, now exposed to hardships, peril, and massacre by the
reckless hostility of the slave power to the establishment of free government
for free territory, and not only for them, but for our new brethren in New
Mexico and California.
And whereas, It is due not only to this occasion, but to the whole people
of the United States, that we should declare ourselves on certain other
questions of national policy; therefore,
Resolved, That we demand cheap postage for the people; a retrenchment
of the expenses and patronage of the Federal Government; the abolition of
all unnecessary offices and salaries; and the election by the people of all
civil officers in the service of the Government, so far as the same may be
practicable.
Resolved, That river and harbor improvements, whenever demanded by
the safety and convenience of commerce with foreign nations, or among the
several States, are objects of national concern; and that it is the duty of
Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to provide therefor.

Resolved, That the free grant to actual settlers, in consideration of the
expenses they incur in making settlements in the wilderness, which are
usually fully equal to their actual cost, and of the public benefits resulting
therefrom, of reasonable portions of the public lands, under suitable
limitations, is a wise and just measure of public policy which will promote,
in various ways, the interests of all the States of this Union; and we
therefore recommend it to the favorable consideration of the American
people.
Resolved, That the obligations of honor and patriotism require the earliest
practicable payment of the national debt; and we are, therefore, in favor of
such a tariff of duties as will raise revenue adequate to defray the necessary
expenses of the Federal Government, and to pay annual instalments of our
debt, and the interest thereon.
Resolved, That we inscribe on our banner, “Free Soil, Free Speech, Free
Labor and Free Men,” and under it will fight on, and fight ever, until a
triumphant victory shall reward our exertions.
The Presidential contest of 1848 for the first time presented the Native
American party in the field with national candidates. It had its origin chiefly
from the Philadelphia riots of 1844, resulting from a bitter feud between the
Catholics and Protestants in the uptown river districts of Philadelphia. The
organization of the Native American party immediately followed in
Philadelphia, with opposition to Catholics and foreigners as its faith, and for
nearly a decade it held the balance of power between the Whigs and
Democrats in that city, and several times elected members of Congress. A
like party was organized in New York, and attained some local success in
that city. The national convention of the Native Americans was held in
Philadelphia in September, 1847, and while it did not make a formal
nomination, it recommended General Taylor for President and chose Henry
A. S. Dearborn, of Massachusetts, for Vice-President. The party was
unknown and unfelt in the contest, although it aided somewhat in giving the
electoral vote of Pennsylvania to Taylor.
In November, 1847, the Liberty party, that had twice nominated and ran
Birney as its candidate for President, met at New York and nominated John
P. Hale, of New Hampshire, for President, and Leicester King, of Ohio, for
Vice-President. When the Free-Soil Democracy developed huge proportions

and nominated Van Buren, the old Abolition party was entirely absorbed in
the Free-Soil organization. The Liberty League, made up of a small number
of the more radical Abolitionists, held a meeting at Rochester on the 2d of
June, 1848, and nominated Gerrit Smith, of New York, for President, and
Rev. Charles E. Foote, of Michigan, for Vice-President; and what was
called the Industrial Congress, made up of a handful of labor agitators, met
at Philadelphia on the 13th of June, 1848, and nominated Gerrit Smith for
President and William S. Waitt, of Illinois, for Vice-President. Neither the
Hale Abolition party, the Liberty League Abolition party, nor the Industrial
Congress party presented any electoral tickets of which I have been able to
find any record. The canvass was a very earnest one, and the Whigs steadily
grew in confidence as it progressed, while the Democrats were threatened
on every side with disaster.
Pennsylvania broke from her Democratic moorings at the October
election, when William F. Johnson, Whig, was elected Governor by 305
majority, and generally the preliminary elections were favorable to the
Whigs. There were then thirty States, as Florida had come in March 3,
1845; Texas, December 29, 1845; Iowa, December 28, 1846, and
Wisconsin, May 29, 1848, and the Presidential electors were then for the
first time all chosen on the same day, with the single exception of
Massachusetts. Van Buren did not carry a State, but he gave Taylor an easy
triumph by the large Democratic defection he caused in the pivotal States.
The following table exhibits the popular and electoral votes as declared by
Congress:

Popular Vote. Electors.
STATES. Zachary Lewis Cass, Martin Van
Taylor. Cass.
Taylor, La. Mich. Buren, N. Y.
Maine 35,125 39,880 12,096 — 9
New
14,781 27,763 7,560 — 6
Hampshire
Vermont 23,122 10,948 13,837 6 —
Massachusetts 61,070 35,281 38,058 12 —

Rhode Island 6,779 3,646 730 4 —
Connecticut 30,314 27,046 5,005 6 —
New York 218,603 114,318 120,510 36 —
New Jersey 40,015 36,901 829 7 —
Pennsylvania 185,513 171,176 11,263 26 —
Delaware 6,421 5,898 80 3 —
Maryland 37,702 34,528 125 8 —
Virginia 45,124 46,586 9 — 17
North Carolina 43,550 34,869 ——— 11 —
South
——— ——— ——— — 9
Carolina[13]
Georgia 47,544 44,802 ——— 10 —
Alabama 30,482 31,363 ——— — 9
Florida 3,116 1,847 ——— 3 —
Mississippi 25,922 26,537 ——— — 6
Louisiana 18,217 15,370 ——— 6 —
Texas 4,509 10,668 ——— — 4
Arkansas 7,588 9,300 ——— — 3
Missouri 32,671 40,077 ——— — 7
Tennessee 64,705 58,419 ——— 13 —
Kentucky 67,141 49,720 ——— 12 —
Ohio 138,360 154,775 35,354 — 23
Michigan 23,940 30,687 10,389 — 5
Indiana 69,907 74,745 8,100 — 12
Illinois 53,047 56,300 15,774 — 9
Wisconsin 13,747 15,001 10,418 — 4

Iowa 11,084 12,093 1,126 — 4
Totals 1,360,099 1,220,544 291,263 163 127

All parties made earnest efforts to control the popular branch of
Congress, and national interest naturally centred in the Wilmot district of
Pennsylvania, as he was the author of the Wilmot Proviso, that was the
fountain of the slavery dispute. He had been twice elected to Congress in
what was then a strong Democratic district, composed of Bradford,
Susquehanna, and Tioga, but which have been among the strongest
Republican counties in the State since the organization of that party. The
district had given over 2000 majority for Polk against Clay, and although
Wilmot was the only member of Congress from Pennsylvania who voted
for the tariff of 1846, he was re-elected in the fall of that year by a decided
majority.
When Van Buren was nominated, Wilmot openly declared himself as a
Free-Soil Democrat, but he received the regular Democratic nomination for
Congress in his district. The Cass pro-slavery Democrats bolted and
nominated Jonah Brewster as a Simon-pure Democrat, and the Whigs
nominated Henry W. Tracy, confidently expecting to elect him. Wilmot was
triumphantly elected, receiving 8597 votes to 4795 for Tracy, Whig, and
922 for Brewster, Cass Democrat. He also nearly evenly divided the
Democratic vote of Bradford and Tioga between Cass and Van Buren,
giving Taylor a large plurality over Cass in the district.
While the Wilmot Free-Soil Democrats bolted on the Democratic
national ticket, they generally supported Morris Longstreth, the Democratic
candidate for Governor, who was defeated by Johnson in October by 305
majority. The re-election of Wilmot in one of the strong Democratic
districts of Pennsylvania greatly strengthened the antislavery cause
throughout the country. He and his followers fell back into the regular
Democratic line in 1852 in support of Pierce, and they finally severed their
relations with the Democratic party in 1854, provoked by the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise, and in 1856 they carried the Northern counties of
the State by large majorities for Fremont.

Cass carried every State west of the Pennsylvania line, including Ohio,
where the antislavery sentiment of the Western Reserve was unwilling to
accept a large slaveholder as a candidate for President. Corwin, the most
brilliant and impressive of the stump-speakers of that day, made desperate
efforts to save the State, but Van Buren received over 35,000 votes, and
Cass won the electors by a plurality of over 16,000. I once heard Corwin in
his inimitable way tell the story of that campaign. The people of Ohio in
that day were taught their politics by mass-meetings, and any one of the
audience was entirely at liberty to interrogate the speaker. Corwin, in his
plausible and fascinating way, was trying to explain how the antislavery
cause would be best served by electing a slaveholder President, when a tall,
lank countryman, sitting on the fence, put a very pointed question to him,
that he felt unable to answer. He tried to meet it in a humorous way, but
only aroused his interrogator to make a more pointed inquiry of him, that
Corwin could not answer. He was one of the few orators who could
convulse an audience with his superb humor, and his facial expression was
at times even more mirth provoking than his language. The question
involved the negro issue, and Corwin had an unusually swarthy
complexion, and he unhorsed his inquirer by saying to his audience with an
expression that powerfully accentuated his remark: “I submit, fellow-
citizens, whether it is proper to put such a question to a man of my
complexion,” and the dispute ended in boisterous laughter and cheers for
Corwin. The Whigs won easy victories in all the debatable States of the
South; and General Taylor came to the Presidency knowing less about how
his election had been accomplished than any man who had ever been called
to the Chief Magistracy of the Republic. Thus was Martin Van Buren
avenged for the Southern betrayal of 1844.

FRANKLIN PIERCE

THE PIERCE-SCOTT CONTEST
1852
While the Whigs were apprehensive as to General Taylor’s fidelity to an aggressive Whig policy both
before and after his election, when he came to the selection of his Cabinet he quieted all doubts by
appointing a positive Whig Cabinet, with John M. Clayton, one of the ablest of the Whig leaders of that day
and an eminently practical politician, to the Premiership. Taylor had little fitness for responsible civil duties,
and charged his Cabinet, that was made up of eminently able men, with the administration of their different
departments. The slavery question was uppermost in the politics of the day, and the Taylor Cabinet finally
decided upon a policy to solve the delicate problem by admitting none of the newly acquired Mexican
possessions as Territories, but leaving the question of slavery to be determined by themselves when they
came to admission as States.
This policy was antagonized by the ultra antislavery people, who wanted the distinct prohibition of slavery
in Territorial organizations, and also by the extreme slavery Whigs, who desired them admitted as Territories
without any expression on slavery, believing that slaves could be taken into any Territory south of the
Missouri Compromise line unless prohibited by the organic law. Clay had returned to the Senate, and being
neither more nor less than human, he had little inclination to harmonize with an accidental Whig President
who filled the position to which Clay felt he was justly entitled. As opposed to the policy of the President,
Clay came in as pacificator and proposed what then became known, and what have since been known as the
Compromise Measures of 1850. It is doubtful whether either the administration or the Clay Compromise
policy could have been successful had the President lived. Certainly the Compromise bill would have failed,
but it is uncertain whether the administration could have wielded sufficient power to carry its policy through
Congress. Its policy was a negative one, postponing the slave issue in the new acquisitions until the people
could act in their sovereign capacity in the creation of States.
President Taylor died July 9, 1850, and Millard Fillmore became President by virtue of his office as Vice-
President. Taylor’s death changed the political purposes of the administration in the earnest struggle then in
Congress to meet the question of slavery in the newly acquired territory. Fillmore, like nearly all Vice-
Presidents, was not in harmony with the President, and when he became President himself he reversed the
policy of the administration.
It was on this issue that Webster wrecked himself. He was in the confidence of the Taylor administration,
and was chosen to be the champion of its policy for meeting the slavery issue in the Territories. He
personally conferred with the Cabinet forty-eight hours before he delivered his memorable seventh-of-March
speech, in which he cast his lot with Clay and the pro-slavery wing of the party, and neither the President nor
any Cabinet officer had any notice of his purpose to change until they were astounded by hearing the views
he expressed in his speech. William M. Meredith, of Philadelphia, was then Secretary of the Treasury, and he
was so much offended by what he regarded as Webster’s perfidy that he never spoke to him thereafter.
Fillmore was the second Vice-President who had succeeded to the Presidency by the death of the
President, and, like Tyler, he reversed the policy of the party, and estranged the Whigs of the North very
generally from him. After he became President the Compromise Measures were revived, and Clay made the
last great battle of his life as pacificator. With the power of the administration added, the Clay Compromise
Measures passed both branches of Congress, and were promptly approved by the President. They declared,
first, against the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia; second, in favor of the admission of
California as a Free State; third, in favor of a severely stringent Fugitive Slave law; fourth, for the payment
to Texas of $10,000,000 for yielding her claims to New Mexico, and fifth, in favor of the admission of Utah
and New Mexico as Territories without restrictions as to slavery.
The passage of the Compromise Measures practically united the Democratic party, as the friends of
slavery extension had won a substantial triumph, and the Democrats of the North were generally in harmony

with that policy, but it greatly weakened the Whigs in the North without strengthening them in the South, and
Fillmore, and Webster, then Secretary of State, became rival candidates for the Whig nomination, while the
anti-Compromise or antislavery element of the Whigs united on General Scott.
When the Democratic National Convention met at Baltimore, June 1, 1852, the leaders were entirely
confident of electing their candidates. John W. Davis, of Indiana, was made President, and the two-thirds rule
reaffirmed. The sessions of the convention were protracted, lasting six days, but there was little angry dispute
as to either candidates or measures. There were 49 ballots for President, Cass and Buchanan being the
leading competitors at the start. The Virginia delegation, that was always potential in Democratic
conventions, had become weary of the hopeless contest between the candidates, and on the 35th ballot cast a
solid vote for Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, whose name had not up to that time been before the
convention. The friends of Cass made an earnest rally, but were unable to concentrate sufficient strength to
approach the two-thirds vote, and Marcy finally loomed up as the leading competitor of Pierce. The
following table gives the detail vote on each ballot:

BALLOTS. Cass. Buchanan. Douglas. Marcy. Butler. Houston. Dodge. Lane. Dickinson. Pierce.
1 116 93 20 27 2 8 3 13 1 —
2 118 95 23 27 1 6 3 13 1 —
3 119 94 21 26 1 7 3 13 1 —
4 115 89 31 25 1 7 3 13 1 —
5 114 88 34 26 1 8 3 13 1 —
6 114 88 34 26 1 8 3 13 1 —
7 113 88 34 26 1 9 3 13 1 —
8 113 88 34 26 1 9 3 13 1 —
9 112 87 39 27 1 8 — 13 1 —
10 111 86 40 27 1 8 — 14 1 —
11 101 87 50 27 1 8 — 13 1 —
12 98 88 51 27 1 9 — 13 1 —
13 98 88 51 26 1 10 — 13 1 —
14 99 87 51 26 1 10 — 13 1 —
15 99 87 51 26 1 10 — 13 1 —
16 99 87 51 26 1 10 — 13 1 —
17 99 87 50 26 1 11 — 13 1 —
18 96 85 56 25 1 11 — 13 1 —
19 89 85 63 26 1 10 — 13 1 —
20 81 92 64 26 1 10 — 13 1 —
21 60 102 64 26 13 9 — 13 1 —
22 53 104 77 26 15 9 — 13 1 —
23 37 103 78 26 19 11 — 13 1 —
24 33 103 80 26 23 9 — 13 1 —
25 34 101 81 26 24 9 — 13 1 —

26 33 101 80 26 24 10 — 13 1 —
27 32 98 85 26 24 9 — 13 1 —
28 28 96 88 26 25 11 — 13 1 —
29 27 93 91 26 25 12 — 13 1 —
30 33 91 92 26 20 12 — 13 1 —
31 64 79 92 26 16 10 — — 1 —
32 98 74 80 26 1 8 — — 1 —
33 123 72 60 25 2 6 — — 1 —
34 130 49 53 23 1 5 — — 16 —
35 131 39 52 44 1 5 — — 1 15
36 122 28 43 58 1 5 — — 1 30
37 120 28 37 70 1 5 — — 1 29
38 107 28 33 84 1 5 — — 1 29
39 106 28 33 85 1 5 — — 1 29
40 106 27 33 85 1 5 — — 1 29
41 107 27 33 85 1 5 — — 1 29
42 101 27 33 91 1 5 — — 1 29
43 101 27 33 91 1 5 — — 1 29
44 101 27 33 91 1 5 — — 1 29
45 96 27 32 97 1 5 — — 1 29
46 78 28 32 97 1 5 — — 1 44
47 75 28 33 95 1 5 — — 1 49
48 73 28 33 90 1 6 — — 1 55
49 2 — 2 — 2 — — — — 282

Two ballots were had for Vice-President, the first resulting as follows:

Wm. R. King, Ala. 126
Gideon J. Pillow, Tenn. 25
D. R. Atchison, Mo. 25
T. J. Rusk, Texas 12
Jefferson Davis, Miss. 2
Wm. O. Butler, Ky. 27
Robert Strange, N. C. 23
S. U. Downs, La. 30
J. B. Weller, Cal. 28
Howell Cobb, Ga. 2

The 2d ballot ended with the unanimous nomination of Mr. King.
The party platform was precisely that of 1848, all embodied in full text, with two new resolutions added
on the subject of slavery and additional resolutions relating to other national issues. The Democratic platform
of 1852, therefore, embraced all the previous Democratic platforms with the following added:
Resolved, That the foregoing proposition covers, and is intended to embrace, the whole subject of slavery
agitated in Congress; and therefore the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform,
will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the “Compromise” Measures settled by
the last Congress—the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor included; which act, being designed
to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot with fidelity thereto be repealed, nor so changed
as to destroy or impair its efficiency.
Resolved, That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing in Congress, or out of it, the
agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.
Then follow the resolutions in former platforms respecting the distribution of the proceeds of land sales,
that respecting the veto power, and these additions:
Resolved, That the Democratic party will faithfully abide by and uphold the principles laid down in the
Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1792 and 1798, and in the report of Mr. Madison to the Virginia
Legislature in 1799; that it adopts those principles as constituting one of the main foundations of its political
creed, and is resolved to carry them out in their obvious meaning and import.
Resolved, That the war with Mexico, upon all the principles of patriotism and the law of nations, was a
just and necessary war on our part in which no American citizen should have shown himself opposed to his
country, and neither morally nor physically, by word or deed, given aid and comfort to the enemy.
Resolved, That we rejoice at the restoration of friendly relations with our sister republic of Mexico, and
earnestly desire for her all the blessings and prosperity which we enjoy under republican institutions, and we
congratulate the American people on the results of that war, which have so manifestly justified the policy and
conduct of the Democratic party, and insured to the United States indemnity for the past and security for the
future.
Resolved, That, in view of the condition of popular institutions in the Old World, a high and sacred duty is
devolved, with increased responsibility, upon the Democracy of this country, as the party of the people, to
uphold and maintain the rights of every State, and thereby the union of States, and to sustain and advance
among them constitutional liberty, by continuing to resist all monopolies and exclusive legislation for the
benefit of the few at the expense of the many, and by a vigilant and constant adherence to those principles
and compromises of the Constitution which are broad enough and strong enough to embrace and uphold the
Union as it is, and the Union as it should be, in the full expansion of the energies and capacity of this great
and progressive people.
The nomination of Pierce was received very generally by the Democrats with great enthusiasm. The spirit
of young Democracy had grown up in the party and become very formidable. The Democratic Review, the
monthly organ of Democracy, had been reorganized with an able and most aggressive staff devoted to the
overthrow of “old fogyism” in the party, and when Pierce was nominated the boys who do the shouting were
almost wholly in sympathy with the young Democracy, and the old-timers had to fall in the rear of the
procession. With the Democratic party united on candidates who were free from factional complication, and
with the Compromise Measures, on which they could unite both the North and South, they started in the
contest with every advantage and maintained it until election day, when the Whig party suffered its Waterloo.
The Whig convention met in Baltimore on the 16th of June with every State represented, and John G.
Chapman, of Maryland, was made the presiding officer. The Southern delegates fortified themselves before
the meeting of the convention by a caucus declaration of the party platform, and it was an open secret that if
the convention accepted the platform, enough Southern men would support Scott to give him the nomination.
They knew that Fillmore could not be elected, and that Webster was even weaker than Fillmore, and they
were willing to accept Scott, who was the candidate of the antislavery element of the party, if the
Compromise Measures were squarely affirmed by the party convention, while Scott was willing to accept the

nomination with any platform the convention might formulate. Fillmore had carried the Compromise
Measures and forced the Whigs to accept them in the party platform, but the insincerity of that expression
was manifested by the refusal to nominate Fillmore, and by the nomination of Scott, who represented the
anti-Compromise Whigs of the country. There were 53 ballots for President, but during the long struggle
there was little exhibition of ill-temper. Scott started with 131 to 133 for Fillmore and 29 for Webster, and
ended with 159 for Scott to 112 for Fillmore and 21 for Webster. The following table presents the ballots in
detail:

BALLOTS. Scott. Fillmore. Webster.
1 131 133 29
2 133 131 29
3 133 131 29
4 134 130 29
5 130 133 30
6 133 131 29
7 131 133 28
8 133 131 28
9 133 133 29
10 135 130 29
11 134 131 28
12 134 130 28
13 134 130 28
14 133 130 29
15 133 130 29
16 135 129 28
17 132 131 29
18 132 131 28
19 132 131 29
20 132 131 29
21 133 131 28
22 132 130 30
23 132 130 30
24 133 129 30
25 133 128 31
26 134 128 30
27 134 128 30
28 134 128 30
29 134 128 30
30 134 128 29

31 134 128 30
32 134 128 30
33 134 128 29
34 134 126 28
35 134 128 28
36 136 127 28
37 133 128 28
38 136 127 29
39 134 128 30
40 132 129 32
41 132 129 32
42 134 128 30
43 134 128 30
44 133 129 30
45 133 127 32
46 134 127 31
47 135 129 29
48 137 124 30
49 139 122 30
50 142 122 28
51 142 120 29
52 146 119 27
53 159 112 21
Necessary to choose, 147

The nomination of Scott was made unanimous, and William A. Graham, of North Carolina, who was
Secretary of the Navy under the Fillmore administration, was given a unanimous nomination for Vice-
President on the 2d ballot. The following platform was adopted without opposition, excepting as to the
eighth and last, affirming the new and stringent Fugitive Slave law. After an earnest debate it was adopted by
a vote of 212 to 70. Many of the friends of General Scott voted for that resolution from considerations of
expediency. General Scott in his letter of acceptance broadly affirmed the platform in its entirety.
The Whigs of the United States, in convention assembled, adhering to the great conservative principles by
which they are controlled and governed, and now, as ever, relying upon the intelligence of the American
people, with an abiding confidence in their capacity for self-government, and their devotion to the
Constitution and the Union, do proclaim the following as the political sentiments and determination for the
establishment and maintenance of which their national organization as a party was effected:
First. The Government of the United States is of a limited character, and it is confined to the exercise of
powers expressly granted by the Constitution, and such as may be necessary and proper for carrying the
granted powers into full execution, and that powers not granted or necessarily implied are reserved to the
States respectively and to the people.

Second. The State governments should be held secure to their reserved rights, and the General
Government sustained on its constitutional powers, and that the Union should be revered and watched over
as the palladium of our liberties.
Third. That while struggling freedom everywhere enlists the warmest sympathy of the Whig party, we still
adhere to the doctrines of the Father of his Country, as announced in his Farewell Address, of keeping
ourselves free from all entangling alliances with foreign countries, and of never quitting our own to stand
upon foreign ground; that our mission as a republic is not to propagate our opinions, or impose on other
countries our forms of government by artifice or force; but to teach by example, and show by our success,
moderation and justice, the blessings of self-government and the advantage of free institutions.
Fourth. That, as the people make and control the Government, they should obey its Constitution, laws, and
treaties, as they would retain their self-respect and the respect which they claim and will enforce from
foreign powers.
Fifth. That the Government should be conducted on principles of the strictest economy; and revenue
sufficient for the expenses thereof, in time of peace, ought to be mainly derived from a duty on imports, and
not from direct taxes; and in laying such duties sound policy requires a just discrimination, and protection
from fraud by specific duties, when practicable, whereby suitable encouragement may be afforded to
American industry, equally to all classes and to all portions of the country.
Sixth. The Constitution vests in Congress the power to open and repair harbors, and remove obstructions
from navigable rivers, whenever such improvements are necessary for the common defence and for the
protection and facility of commerce with foreign nations or among the States—said improvements being in
every instance national and general in their character.
Seventh. The Federal and State governments are parts of one system, alike necessary for the common
prosperity, peace and security, and ought to be regarded alike with a cordial, habitual, and immovable
attachment. Respect for the authority of each, and acquiescence in the just constitutional measures of each,
are duties required by the plainest considerations of national, State and individual welfare.
Eighth. That the series of acts of the Thirty-second Congress, the act known as the Fugitive Slave law
included, are received and acquiesced in by the Whig party of the United States as a settlement in principle
and substance of the dangerous and exciting questions which they embrace; and, so far as they are
concerned, we will maintain them, and insist upon their strict enforcement, until time and experience shall
demonstrate the necessity of further legislation to guard against the evasion of the laws on the one hand and
the abuse of their powers on the other, not impairing their present efficiency; and we deprecate all further
agitation of the question thus settled, as dangerous to our peace, and will discountenance all efforts to
continue or renew such agitation, whenever, wherever, or however the attempt may be made; and we will
maintain this system as essential to the nationality of the Whig party and the integrity of the Union.
The Compromise Measures were pressed upon the country as a finality, and the Democrats, with all of the
Southern Whigs and many Northern Whigs, accepted them as such. Had the Pierce administration permitted
the slave issue to rest on the Compromise Measures, it is probable that the birth of the Republican party
would have been long postponed, but the repeal of the Missouri Compromise gave fresh vitality to the
slavery dispute and quickened the antislavery sentiment of the country to the aggressive battle that
culminated in the election of Lincoln in 1860.
The Free-Soil Democrats called a national convention to meet at Pittsburg on the 11th of August, over
which Henry Wilson, of Massachusetts, presided. John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, was nominated for
President, and George W. Julian, of Indiana, for Vice-President without the formality of a ballot. The
following platform was adopted:
Having assembled in national convention as the Democracy of the United States; united by a common
resolve to maintain right against wrong and freedom against slavery; confiding in the intelligence, patriotism,
and discriminating justice of the American people; putting our trust in God for the triumph of our cause, and
invoking His guidance in our endeavors to advance it—we now submit to the candid judgment of all men the
following declaration of principles and measures:

1. That governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed are instituted among men
to secure to all those unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with which they are
endowed by their Creator, and of which none can be deprived by valid legislation, except for crime.
2. That the true mission of American Democracy is to maintain the liberties of the people, the sovereignty
of the States, and the perpetuity of the Union, by the impartial application to public affairs, without sectional
discriminations, of the fundamental principles of human rights, strict justice, and an economical
administration.
3. That the Federal Government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the Constitution, and the
grants of power therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the Government,
and it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.
4. That the Constitution of the United States, ordained to form a more perfect Union, to establish justice,
and secure the blessings of liberty, expressly denies to the General Government all power to deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and, therefore, the Government, having no
more power to make a slave than to make a king, and no more power to establish slavery than to establish a
monarchy, should at once proceed to relieve itself from all responsibility for the existence of slavery
wherever it possesses constitutional power to legislate for its extinction.
5. That, to the persevering and importunate demand of the slave power for more Slave States, new Slave
Territories, and the nationalization of slavery, our distinct and final answer is: No more Slave States, no
Slave Territory, no nationalized slavery, and no national legislation for the extradition of slaves.
6. That slavery is a sin against God and a crime against man, which no human enactment or usage can
make right; and that Christianity, humanity, and patriotism alike demand its abolition.
7. That the Fugitive Slave act of 1850 is repugnant to the Constitution, to the principles of the common
law, to the spirit of Christianity, and to the sentiments of the civilized world. We therefore deny its binding
force upon the American people, and demand its immediate and total repeal.
8. That the doctrine that any human law is a finality, and not subject to modification or repeal, is not in
accordance with the creed of the founders of our Government, and is dangerous to the liberties of the people.
9. That the acts of Congress known as the “Compromise” Measures of 1850—by making the admission of
a sovereign State contingent upon the adoption of other measures demanded by the special interest of
slavery; by their omission to guarantee freedom in the Free Territories; by their attempt to impose
unconstitutional limitations on the power of Congress and the people to admit new States; by their provisions
for the assumption of five millions of the State debt of Texas, and for the payment of five millions more and
the cession of a large territory to the same State under menace, as an inducement to the relinquishment of a
groundless claim; and by their invasion of the sovereignty of the States and the liberties of the people,
through the enactment of an unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional Fugitive Slave law—are proved to be
inconsistent with all the principles and maxims of Democracy, and wholly inadequate to the settlement of the
questions of which they are claimed to be an adjustment.
10. That no permanent settlement of the slavery question can be looked for except in the practical
recognition of the truth that slavery is sectional and freedom national; by the total separation of the General
Government from slavery, and the exercise of its legitimate and constitutional influence on the side of
freedom; and by leaving to the States the whole subject of slavery and the extradition of fugitives from
service.
11. That all men have a natural right to a portion of the soil; and that, as the use of the soil is indispensable
to life, the right of all men to the soil is as sacred as their right to life itself.
12. That the public lands of the United States belong to the people, and should not be sold to individuals
nor granted to corporations, but should be held as a sacred trust for the benefit of the people, and should be
granted in limited quantities, free of cost, to landless settlers.
13. That a due regard for the Federal Constitution and a sound administrative policy demands that the
funds of the General Government be kept separate from banking institutions; that inland and ocean postage

should be reduced to the lowest possible point; that no more revenue should be raised than is required to
defray the strictly necessary expenses of the public service, and to pay off the public debt; and that the power
and patronage of the Government should be diminished, by the abolition of all unnecessary offices, salaries,
and privileges, and by the election, by the people, of all civil officers in the service of the United States, so
far as may be consistent with the prompt and efficient transaction of the public business.
14. That river and harbor improvements, when necessary to the safety and convenience of commerce with
foreign nations or among the several States, are objects of national concern; and it is the duty of Congress, in
the exercise of its constitutional powers, to provide for the same.
15. That emigrants and exiles from the Old World should find a cordial welcome to homes of comfort and
fields of enterprise in the New; and every attempt to abridge their privilege of becoming citizens and owners
of soil among us ought to be resisted with inflexible determination.
16. That every nation has a clear right to alter or change its own government, and to administer its own
concerns, in such a manner as may best secure the rights and promote the happiness of the people; and
foreign interference with that right is a dangerous violation of the laws of nations, against which all
independent governments should protest, and endeavor by all proper means to prevent; and especially is it
the duty of the American Government, representing the chief republic of the world, to protest against, and by
all proper means to prevent, the intervention of kings and emperors against nations seeking to establish for
themselves republican or constitutional governments.
17. That the independence of Hayti ought to be recognized by our Government, and our commercial
relations with it placed on a footing of the most favored nation.
18. That as, by the Constitution, the “citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several States,” the practice of imprisoning colored seamen of other States,
while the vessels to which they belong lie in port, and refusing the exercise of the right to bring such cases
before the Supreme Court of the United States, to test the legality of such proceedings, is a flagrant violation
of the Constitution, and an invasion of the rights of the citizens of other States, utterly inconsistent with the
professions made by the slaveholders, that they wish the provisions of the Constitution faithfully observed by
every State in the Union.
19. That we recommend the introduction into all treaties hereafter to be negotiated between the United
States and foreign nations, of some provision for the amicable settlement of difficulties by a resort to
decisive arbitration.
20. That the Free Democratic party is not organized to aid either the Whig or the Democratic wing of the
great slave-compromise party of the nation, but to defeat them both; and that, repudiating and renouncing
both as hopelessly corrupt and utterly unworthy of confidence, the purpose of the Free Democracy is to take
possession of the Federal Government, and administer it for the better protection of the rights and interests of
the whole people.
21. That we inscribe on our banner, “Free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men!” and under it will
fight on and fight ever until a triumphant victory shall reward our exertions.
22. That upon this platform the convention presents to the American people as a candidate for the office of
President of the United States, John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, and as a candidate for the office of Vice-
President of the United States, George W. Julian, of Indiana, and earnestly commends them to the support of
all free men and all parties.
The contest of 1852 was a hopeless one for the Whigs from the start. General Scott had great faith in his
own election, but he stood almost entirely alone in that confidence. After the disastrous October elections he
took the stump against the advice of his more discreet friends, and delivered a number of campaign speeches,
which are now remembered chiefly because of his flattery to the foreign vote, complimenting the “rich Irish
brogue” and “the sweet German accent” of many of his supporters. The result was that Pierce, a man who
had never been discussed for the Presidency, but had been brought out as the “dark horse” at the national
convention, carried every State in the Union but four—Massachusetts and Vermont, in the North, and
Kentucky and Tennessee, in the South. The following is the popular and electoral vote:

Popular Vote. Electors.
STATES.
Franklin Pierce, N. H. Winfield Scott, N. Y. John P. Hale, N. H. Pierce. Scott.
Maine 41,609 32,543 8,030 8 —
New Hampshire 29,997 16,147 6,695 5 —
Vermont 13,044 22,173 8,621 — 5
Massachusetts 44,569 52,683 28,023 — 13
Rhode Island 8,735 7,626 644 4 —
Connecticut 33,249 30,357 3,160 6 —
New York 262,083 234,882 25,329 35 —
New Jersey 44,305 38,556 350 7 —
Pennsylvania 198,568 179,174 8,525 27 —
Delaware 6,318 6,293 62 3 —
Maryland 40,020 35,066 54 8 —
Virginia 73,858 58,572 —— 15 —
North Carolina 39,744 39,058 —— 10 —
South Carolina[14] —— —— —— 8 —
Georgia 34,705 16,660 —— 10 —
Alabama 26,881 15,038 —— 9 —
Florida 4,318 2,875 —— 3 —
Mississippi 26,876 17,548 —— 7 —
Louisiana 18,647 17,255 —— 6 —
Texas 13,552 4,995 —— 4 —
Arkansas 12,179 7,404 —— 4 —
Missouri 38,353 29,984 —— 9 —
Tennessee 57,018 58,898 —— — 12
Kentucky 53,806 57,068 —— — 12
Ohio 169,220 152,526 31,682 23 —
Michigan 41,842 33,859 7,237 6 —
Indiana 95,340 80,901 6,929 13 —
Illinois 80,597 64,934 9,966 11 —
Wisconsin 33,658 22,240 8,814 5 —
Iowa 17,763 15,856 1,604 4 —
California 40,626 35,407 100 4 —
Totals 1,601,274 1,386,580 155,825 254 42

President Pierce could have had a tranquil administration and generally maintained sectional peace if he
had not wantonly reopened the slavery issue by assenting to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and

making it a Democratic measure. Kansas and Nebraska, which were north of the Missouri line, whose
territory had been solemnly dedicated to freedom by the Missouri Compromise of 1820, that admitted
Missouri as a Slave State, were coveted by the slavery extensionists, and they decided not only against the
solemnly plighted faith of the nation, but, in disregard of climatic objections, to force slavery in both of those
Territories and make them Slave States. The slavery propagandists had failed to gather any substantial fruits
for slavery from our Mexican acquisitions, and in the desperation of the suicide they resolved to force
slavery into Kansas and Nebraska by a system of violence that was generally described at that time as
“border ruffianism,” and that made the name of John Brown immortal.
The repeal of the Missouri Compromise was the beginning of the end of slavery. It was noticed that there
could be no peace with Northern industry and progress advancing rapidly and hastening the formation of
new States, while the South was standing still. A number of new and very able men had been called into the
political arena by the slavery agitation. Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, and Charles Sumner, of Massachusetts,
were both elected to the Senate by a solid Democratic vote, united with the Free Soilers of their respective
Legislatures. Henry Wilson, the “Natick Cobbler,” had become more potent in Massachusetts than was
Webster at the time of his death; and the antislavery sentiment was visibly and speedily growing toward
immense proportions.
The Whig party made its final battle in 1852, although it was nominally in the field in 1856, and a new
party was created out of the odds and ends of the old Native American party. Opposition to Catholics had
been intensified by Pierce appointing Judge Campbell, of Philadelphia, Postmaster-General. He was a very
able and faithful Cabinet officer, and there was no pretence that his religious views in any way influenced his
official appointments, but it revived the embers of Native Americanism, and the great mass of the Whigs,
who knew that the Whig party had practically perished, and the antislavery Democrats were without political
vocations. They were like the Federalists who first found refuge in anti-Masonry, and with anti-Masonry
afterward found refuge in the Whig party. The result was the very rapid spread of the new American, or what
was commonly called the Know-Nothing party, with secret lodges and its members all sworn not to divulge
the movements of the organization and to vote for its nominated candidates. It exhibited wonderful strength
in many localities early in 1854, and it was not uncommon in local elections, when the vote was counted, to
find that all the officers elected were unknown to the public as candidates. Its first important triumph was in
the municipal election of Philadelphia in May, 1854, when Judge Conrad, candidate of the Whigs and secret
candidate of the Know-Nothings, was elected Mayor by an overwhelming majority.
The Democrats lost a large number of their ablest men on the slavery issue, provoked to defection by the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and it was evident that the party would be divided in the next national
campaign; but the various elements of opposition were even more incongruous and had little prospect of
anything approaching the unity necessary to succeed. Pierce, like Fillmore, Polk, and Tyler, was a candidate
for re-election, but failed disastrously in his own convention after wielding the power of his position to the
uttermost, and his administration ended with the country rent by sectional feuds and gravely threatened with
fraternal war.

THE BUCHANAN-FREMONT-FILLMORE
CONTEST

1856
The Presidential battle of 1856, that gave Pennsylvania her only President in James
Buchanan, is memorable chiefly because it dated the birth of the Republican party as
a national organization, that was destined to conduct the greatest civil war of modern
history, to abolish slavery, maintain its power uninterruptedly for a quarter of a
century, and to write the most lustrous chapters in the annals of the Republic.
The Democrats were greatly demoralized by the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise, and they suffered the aggressive defection of a number of Democratic
leaders with large popular following, but the various shades of opposition to the
Democracy were even more hopelessly divided. The Democrats had the advantage of
being able to command a solid vote from the South on a square slavery issue, and
they reasonably hoped that they could hold enough States in the North to give them
success. Buchanan had been abroad as Minister during the troublesome times of the
Pierce administration, and he returned just in good time to make the most out of the
disturbed situation that confronted him. The renomination and re-election of Pierce
were hopeless. Cass had been defeated by the people and suffered repeated defeats in
national conventions. Buchanan thus had a strong lead for the Presidential
nomination, and he was most fortunate in having the accomplished, devoted, and
tireless Colonel Forney to manage his campaign, not only for the nomination, but to
direct the national contest in the few Northern States which could be held to the
Democratic flag.
The Southern leaders had absolute confidence in Buchanan, and they were entirely
justified in their faith. He had been a Federal member of Congress in early days, and
later entered the Democratic party with all the strict construction ideas of Federalism,
which were then in harmony with the Democratic policy as applied to the slavery
issue. He was the logical Democratic candidate for President in 1856; and President
Pierce, an utterly impossible candidate, as it was known that he never could
command the necessary two-thirds vote in the convention, was his only serious
competitor when the balloting began.

JAMES BUCHANAN

The Democratic National Convention met in Cincinnati on the 2d of June, with full
delegations from every State, and two contesting delegations from New York and
Missouri. The quarrel between the factions in both States was intensely bitter. The
opposing factions of New York were known as the “Hards,” who were a spawn of the
old Hunkers, and the “Softs,” who took the place of the Barnburners. The Missouri
delegations were known as the Bentonites and the Regulars, the Bentonites having
lost the control of the party organization in the State. The convention solved the
problem by admitting both delegations from each State, and giving each delegate
only half a vote. John E. Ward, of Georgia, was made the permanent president, and
the two-thirds rule was reaffirmed without a contest.
It was at this convention that Stephen A. Douglas first developed as an aggressive
candidate for President, and as he had led the battle for the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise, he was in harmony with the Pierce administration. As will be seen by
the ballots, his strength was almost wholly given to Pierce until Pierce’s
unavailability was clearly established, when the Pierce vote was mostly transferred to
Douglas. The following table presents the 17 ballots in detail, resulting in the
nomination of Buchanan:

BALLOTS. Buchanan. Pierce. Douglas. Cass.
1 135 122 33 5
2 139 119¹⁄₂ 3¹⁄₂ 6
3 139¹⁄₂ 119 32 5¹⁄₂
4 141¹⁄₂ 119 30 5¹⁄₂
5 140 119¹⁄₂ 31 5¹⁄₂
6 155 117¹⁄₂ 28 5¹⁄₂
7 143¹⁄₂ 89 58 5¹⁄₂
8 147¹⁄₂ 87 56 5¹⁄₂
9 146 87 56 7
10 150¹⁄₂ 80¹⁄₂ 59¹⁄₂ 5¹⁄₂
11 147¹⁄₂ 80 63 5¹⁄₂
12 148 79 63¹⁄₂ 5¹⁄₂
13 150 77¹⁄₂ 63 5¹⁄₂
14 152¹⁄₂ 75 63 5¹⁄₂

15 168¹⁄₂ 3¹⁄₂ 118¹⁄₂ 4¹⁄₂
16 168 — 121 6
17 296 — — —

As Buchanan was from the North, the Vice-Presidency was conceded to the South,
and 10 candidates were placed in nomination. The 1st ballot resulted as follows:

J. A. Quitman, Miss. 59
Linn Boyd, Ky. 33
A. V. Brown, Tenn. 29
J. A. Bayard, Del. 31
T. J. Rusk, Texas 2
J. C. Breckenridge, Ky. 55
B. Fitzpatrick, Ala. 11
H. V. Johnson, Ga. 31
Trusten Polk, Mo. 5
J. C. Dobbin, N. C. 13

When the 2d ballot was called, a number of the candidates had their names
withdrawn, and Mr. Breckenridge was given a unanimous nomination. He was the
idol of the young Democracy of the South, having won his spurs by two of the most
remarkable Congressional campaigns in the history of Kentucky, in which he had
defeated Governor Letcher and Leslie Combs, two of the ablest of the old Clay
leaders in the Ashland district. His success was due entirely to his own personal
popularity. He was not only one of the ablest of all the Breckenridges, but he was a
most accomplished, genial, and delightful companion, and his nomination greatly
strengthened the Democratic ticket in all sections of the country.
The platform was finally adopted without a contest. It recited first the preamble
adopted in 1844, followed by ten resolutions from other previous platforms,
embracing the first five of 1840, and others embracing the Democratic views on the
proceeds of the public land; in opposition to a national bank; in favor of the
subtreasury system; in support of the veto power, and opposing any new limitations
upon naturalization. To these the following new resolutions were added:

And whereas, Since the foregoing declaration was uniformly adopted by our
predecessors in national convention, an adverse political and religious test has been
secretly organized by a party claiming to be exclusively American, and it is proper
that the American Democracy should clearly define its relations thereto, and declare
its determined opposition to all secret political societies, by whatever name they may
be called—
Resolved, That the foundation of this Union of States having been laid in, and its
prosperity, expansion, and pre-eminent example of free government built upon entire
freedom in matters of religious concernment, and no respect of persons in regard to
rank or place or birth, no party can be justly deemed national, constitutional, or in
accordance with American principles which bases its exclusive organization upon
religious opinions and accidental birthplace. And hence a political crusade in the
nineteenth century, and in the United States of America, against Catholics and
foreign-born, is neither justified by the past history nor future prospects of the
country, nor in unison with the spirit of toleration and enlightened freedom which
peculiarly distinguishes the American system of popular government.
Resolved, That we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose the well-considered
declarations of former conventions upon the sectional issue of domestic slavery and
concerning the reserved rights of the States—
1. That Congress has no power under the Constitution to interfere with or control
the domestic institutions of the several States, and that all such States are the sole and
proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs not prohibited by the
Constitution; that all efforts of the Abolitionists or others made to induce Congress to
interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are
calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such
efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and
endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be
countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.
2. That the foregoing covers, and was intended to embrace, the whole subject of
slavery agitation in Congress, and therefore the Democratic party of the Union,
standing on this national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of
the acts known as the “Compromise” Measures, settled by the Congress of 1850, the
act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor included; which act, being designed
to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot, with fidelity thereto, be
repealed, or so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency.
3. That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out
of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt
may be made.

4. The Democratic party will faithfully abide by and uphold the principle laid
down in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1797 and 1798, and in the report of
Mr. Madison to the Virginia Legislature in 1799; that it adopts these principles as
constituting one of the main foundations of its political creed, and is resolved to carry
them out in their obvious meaning and import.
And that we may more distinctly meet the issue on which a sectional party,
subsisting exclusively on slavery agitation, now relies to test the fidelity of the
people, North and South, to the Constitution and the Union—
1. Resolved, That, claiming fellowship with and desiring the co-operation of all
who regard the preservation of the Union under the Constitution as the paramount
issue, and repudiating all sectional issues and platforms concerning domestic slavery
which seek to embroil the States and incite to treason and armed resistance to law in
the Territories, and whose avowed purpose, if consummated, must end in civil war
and disunion, the American Democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained
in the organic laws establishing the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas as embodying
the only sound and safe solution of the slavery question, upon which the great
national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determined
conservation of the Union, and non-interference of Congress with slavery in the
Territories or in the District of Columbia.
2. That this was the basis of the compromise of 1850, confirmed by both the
Democratic and Whig parties in national conventions, ratified by the people in the
election of 1852, and rightly applied to the organization of the Territories in 1854.
3. That by the uniform application of the Democratic principle to the organization
of Territories, and the admission of new States with or without domestic slavery, as
they may elect, the equal rights of all the States will be preserved intact, the original
compacts of the Constitution maintained inviolate, and the perpetuity and expansion
of the Union insured to its utmost capacity of embracing, in peace and harmony,
every future American State that may be constituted or annexed with a republican
form of government.
Resolved, That we recognize the right of the people of all the Territories, including
Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of the
majority of the actual residents, and whenever the number of their inhabitants
justifies it, to form a constitution, with or without domestic slavery, and be admitted
into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States.
Resolved, Finally, that in view of the condition of popular institutions in the Old
World (and the dangerous tendencies of sectional agitation, combined with the
attempt to enforce civil and religious disabilities against the rights of acquiring and
enjoying citizenship in our own land), a high and sacred duty is devolved, with
increased responsibility, upon the Democratic party of this country, as the party of the

Union, to uphold and maintain the rights of every State, and thereby the Union of the
States; and to sustain and advance among us constitutional liberty, by continuing to
resist all monopolies and exclusive legislation for the benefit of the few at the
expense of the many; and by a vigilant and constant adherence to those principles and
compromises of the Constitution which are broad enough and strong enough to
embrace and uphold the Union as it was, the Union as it is, and the Union as it shall
be, in the full expansion of the energies and capacity of this great and progressive
people.
1. Resolved, That there are questions connected with the foreign policy of this
country which are inferior to no domestic question whatever. The time has come for
the people of the United States to declare themselves in favor of free seas, and
progressive free trade throughout the world, and by solemn manifestations to place
their moral influence at the side of their successful example.
2. Resolved, That our geographical and political position with reference to the
other States of this continent, no less than the interest of our commerce and the
development of our growing power, requires that we should hold sacred the
principles involved in the Monroe Doctrine. Their bearing and import admit of no
misconstruction, and should be applied with unbending rigidity.
3. Resolved, That the great highway, which nature as well as the assent of States
most immediately interested in its maintenance has marked out for free
communication between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, constitutes one of the
most important achievements realized by the spirit of modern times, in the
unconquerable energy of our people; and that result would be secured by a timely and
efficient exertion of the control which we have the right to claim over it; and no
power on earth should be suffered to impede or clog its progress by any interference
with relations that it may suit our policy to establish between our Government and the
governments of the States within whose dominions it lies. We can, under no
circumstances, surrender our preponderance in the adjustment of all questions arising
out of it.
4. Resolved, That, in view of so commanding an interest, the people of the United
States cannot but sympathize with the efforts which are being made by the people of
Central America to regenerate that portion of the continent which covers the passage
across the inter-oceanic isthmus.
5. Resolved, That the Democratic party will expect of the next administration that
every proper effort be made to insure our ascendancy in the Gulf of Mexico, and to
maintain permanent protection to the great outlets through which are emptied into its
waters the products raised out of the soil and the commodities created by the industry
of the people of our Western valleys and of the Union at large.

Resolved, That the administration of Franklin Pierce has been true to Democratic
principles, and therefore true to the great interests of the country. In the face of
violent opposition he has maintained the laws at home, and vindicated the rights of
American citizens abroad; and therefore we proclaim our unqualified admiration of
his measures and policy.
When Buchanan was nominated for President everything indicated his election by
a very large majority and without a serious struggle. It was evident to all that the
antislavery sentiment was making rapid strides in the North. The Democrats felt
certain of a solid vote in the South, and they did not regard it as possible for the
Republican party to unite the American and conservative Whig elements to sufficient
extent to enable it to make a hopeful contest in Pennsylvania, New York, and the
Western Democratic States; but very soon after the meeting of the first Republican
National Convention the new party grew with such rapidity that the Democratic
leaders finally looked the fact in the face that they had a very desperate and doubtful
contest before them.
The Republican party first appeared in the political arena in 1854. It had then a
small organization in New York State, and cast a sufficient number of votes to elect
Clark, the Whig candidate, for Governor, over Seymour, the Democratic candidate,
who lost the Governorship by 309 majority. I was at the cradle of the Republican
party; was a delegate to its first State convention, held in Pittsburg, Penn., in 1855. It
was a mass convention, composed of a loose aggregation of political free-thinkers,
but a number of very able men, including Giddings and Bingham, of Ohio, and
Allison, of Pennsylvania, who presided, delivered addresses. There was but one State
office to fill in Pennsylvania, that of Canal Commissioner. The convention was made
up very largely of the aggressive Abolition element of the State, small in number, but
bold and assertive in action, as was shown by the spontaneous nomination of
Passmore Williamson, who was then in prison for contempt of court in a fugitive
slave case. The nomination was resented by all the conservative Whigs and by the
Americans, and without the votes of those parties the Republican organization could
not carry a township in the State. Williamson was finally persuaded to retire, and the
Whig, American, and Republican committees united on Thomas Nicholson, of
Beaver, but the elements were too discordant, and the State was lost by some 12,000.
I was a delegate to the first Republican National Convention, that met in
Philadelphia on the 17th of June, 1856. It was also a mass convention, as the party
had no organization, and States sent large or small delegations as was most
convenient. I went to the convention, hoping to aid in the nomination of Judge
McLean for President, who was sufficiently conservative to command both the Whig
and American votes, and I had no faith whatever in the success of a distinctive
Republican candidate and party. I was surprised to find the Republicans of New
England and of New York who were attending the convention in favor of a radical

Republican policy, and I was so much dissatisfied with the evident outcome of the
convention that, although I attended its first session, I did not enroll as a delegate, and
did not participate in any of its important proceedings. I well remember meeting Mr.
Greeley among the first of those who came to the convention, and wondered how he
had lost all his political cunning when he told me, in the most enthusiastic way, that
Fremont would carry New York by 50,000 majority, and that the Republican party
would be sufficiently strong to win the battle without any concessions whatever to
the other elements opposed to the Democratic party. I had no faith in Fremont, either
as a candidate or as a President. I shared the general conservative Whig sentiment of
Pennsylvania that the Republican convention in nominating Fremont on a square-toed
Republican platform was altogether too “wild and woolley” in flavor to win at the
election. Greeley was mistaken as to New York only in making the Republican
majority one-third less than it turned up on election night, when Fremont had nearly
as many votes as Buchanan and Fillmore combined.
The nomination of Fremont was engineered by some of the shrewdest of the old
Democratic leaders, most conspicuous of whom was the elder Francis P. Blair, who
had been one of the most sagacious of the Democratic politicians during the
administrations of Jackson, Van Buren, and Polk. They believed it best to take a
candidate for the Presidency who had no political record whatever to antagonize the
conflicting political views which must be united to give the party success; and
Fremont was young, had served in the army with credit, had made what then were
regarded as wonderful explorations in the Rocky Mountains, and had the distinction
of having been forced to retire from the army for what was claimed to have been
conspicuously heroic and patriotic action on his part. He had never said anything or
done anything to offend any political prejudice. It turned out that he was strongest
where he was least known. The old California Forty-niners, who were back in
Pennsylvania, and some of them prominent in politics, did not enthuse over
Fremont’s nomination. I distinctly recollect the trite summing up of Fremont’s
qualities by one who had been with him in California by saying: “Fremont is a
millionaire without a dollar, a soldier who never fought a battle, and a statesman who
never made a speech;” but that his nomination was altogether the strongest that could
have been made in the Philadelphia convention cannot be doubted by any who study
the history of that contest and the marvellous political revolution it wrought. Henry S.
Lane, of Indiana, presided over the convention, and a single ballot was had for
President, as follows:

STATES. Fremont. McLean.
Maine 13 11
New Hampshire 15 —

Vermont 15 —
Massachusetts 39 —
Rhode Island 12 —
Connecticut 18 —
New York 93 3
New Jersey 7 14
Pennsylvania 10 71
Delaware — 9
Maryland 4 3
Ohio 30 39
Indiana 18 21
Illinois 14 19
Michigan 18 —
Wisconsin 15 —
Iowa 12 —
Minnesota — 3
Kansas 9 —
Nebraska — 3
Kentucky 5 —
California 12 —
Totals 359 196

The nomination of Fremont was made unanimous with great enthusiasm, and there
was only one ballot for Vice-President, resulting as follows:

William L. Dayton, N. J. 259
Abraham Lincoln, Ill. 110
N. P. Banks, Mass. 46
David Wilmot, Penn. 43

Charles Sumner, Mass. 35
Jacob Collamer, Vt. 15
John A. King, N. Y. 9
S. C. Pomeroy, Kan. 8
Thomas Ford, Ohio 7
Henry Wilson, Mass. 5
Cassius M. Clay, Ky. 4
Henry C. Carey, Penn. 3
Wm. F. Johnston, Penn. 2

Mr. Dayton was then declared the nominee of the convention by a unanimous vote,
and the following platform was adopted:
This convention of delegates, assembled in pursuance of a call addressed to the
people of the United States, without regard to past political differences or divisions,
who are opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, to the policy of the
present administration, to the extension of slavery into Free Territory; in favor of
admitting Kansas as a Free State, of restoring the action of the Federal Government
to the principles of Washington and Jefferson; and who purpose to unite in presenting
candidates for the offices of President and Vice-President, do resolve as follows:
Resolved, That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of
Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution is essential to the
preservation of our republican institutions, and that the Federal Constitution, the
rights of the States, and the union of the States, shall be preserved.
Resolved, That with our republican fathers we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that
all men are endowed with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior designs of our Federal
Government were to secure these rights to all persons within its exclusive
jurisdiction; that, as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our
national territory, ordained that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of
the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing
slavery in any Territory of the United States, by positive legislation, prohibiting its
existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a
Territorial Legislature, of any individual or association of individuals, to give legal
existence to slavery in any Territory of the United States while the present
Constitution shall be maintained.

Resolved, That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign power over the
Territories of the United States, for their government, and that in the exercise of this
power it is both the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those
twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery.
Resolved, That while the Constitution of the United States was ordained and
established by the people in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice,
insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, and secure the
blessings of liberty, and contains ample provision for the protection of the life,
liberty, and property of every citizen, the dearest constitutional rights of the people of
Kansas have been fraudulently and violently taken from them; their territory has been
invaded by an armed force; spurious and pretended legislative, judicial, and executive
officers have been set over them, by whose usurped authority, sustained by the
military power of the Government, tyrannical and unconstitutional laws have been
enacted and enforced; the rights of the people to keep and bear arms have been
infringed; test oaths of an extraordinary and entangling nature have been imposed as
a condition of exercising the right of suffrage and holding office; the right of an
accused person to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury has been denied; the
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures has been violated; they have been deprived of
life, liberty, and property without due process of law; that the freedom of speech and
of the press has been abridged; the right to choose their representatives has been
made of no effect; murders, robberies, and arsons have been instigated and
encouraged, and the offenders have been allowed to go unpunished; that all these
things have been done with the knowledge, sanction, and procurement of the present
administration; and that for this high crime against the Constitution, the Union, and
humanity, we arraign the administration, the President, his advisers, agents,
supporters, apologists, and accessories, either before or after the fact, before the
country and before the world, and that it is our fixed purpose to bring the actual
perpetrators of these atrocious outrages, and their accomplices, to a sure and condign
punishment hereafter.
Resolved, That Kansas should be immediately admitted as a State of the Union,
with her present free Constitution, as at once the most effectual way of securing to
her citizens the enjoyment of the rights and privileges to which they are entitled, and
of ending the civil strife now raging in her territory.
Resolved, That the highwayman’s plea, that “might makes right,” embodied in the
Ostend circular, was in every respect unworthy of American diplomacy, and would
bring shame and dishonor upon any government or people that gave it their sanction.
Resolved, That a railroad to the Pacific Ocean, by the most central and practical
route, is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country, and that the
Federal Government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction;

and, as an auxiliary thereto, the immediate construction of an emigrant route on the
line of the railroad.
Resolved, That appropriations by Congress for the improvement of rivers and
harbors, of a national character, required for the accommodation and security of our
existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution, and justified by the obligation
of Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.
The American or Know-Nothing party had become the leading factor of the
opposition elements to Democracy in the elections of 1854–55. In some sections the
Whig party was entirely obliterated, and in the South there was no organization
opposed to Democracy but the American. The cardinal principle of its faith was that
“Americans must rule America,” and its opposition to the Catholic Church was
positive and pronounced. It had gravitated from the original Native Americans of
1844 into the Order of United Americans, and it coalesced with the remnants of the
Whig party and with the antiadministration Democrats in most of the Northern States.
It had reached about its highest measure of strength in 1855, chiefly because of its
strong hold in the South. In New England and the far Western States the Americans
had been very generally absorbed in the Republican organization when the battle
opened for the Presidency in 1856.
The American National Council was called to meet in Philadelphia on the 19th of
February, 1856, and nearly all the States were represented. The Council was a secret
body, in accordance with the usages of the party. After three days of animated
discussion it adopted a party platform, and on the 22d of February the Council
adjourned and organized the American National Nominating Convention. Ephraim
Marsh, of New Jersey, was made president. An earnest effort was made in the
convention to antagonize the right of the National Council to make the platform for
the party. Mr. Killinger, of Pennsylvania, offered a resolution, declaring that the
Council had no authority to prescribe a platform of principles, and that the
convention should nominate no man for President or Vice-President “who is not in
favor of interdicting the introduction of slavery into territory North 36° 30´ by
Congressional action,” but his proposition failed by a vote of 141 to 59. The failure
of this resolution led to the retirement from the convention of the more pronounced
antislavery delegates or North Americans, as they were called. The convention then
proceeded to ballot for President as follows:

1st Ballot. 2d Ballot.
M. Fillmore, New York 71 179
George Law, New York 27 24
Garrett Davis, Kentucky 13 10

John McLean, Ohio 7 13
R. F. Stockton, New Jersey 8 —
Sam. Houston, Texas 6 3
John Bell, Tennessee 5 —
Kenneth Raynor, North Carolina 2 14
Erastus Brooks, New York 2 —
Lewis D. Campbell, Ohio 1 —
John M. Clayton, Delaware 1 —

After the 2d ballot, Mr. Fillmore was unanimously declared the nominee, and on
the 1st ballot Andrew Jackson Donelson, of Tennessee, who was the adopted son of
General Jackson, was nominated for Vice-President, receiving 181 votes to 8 for
Governor Gardner, of Massachusetts, 8 for Percy Walker, of Alabama, and 8 for
Kenneth Raynor, of North Carolina. The following platform was then unanimously
adopted:
1. An humble acknowledgment of the Supreme Being, for his protecting care
vouchsafed to our fathers in their successful Revolutionary struggle, and hitherto
manifested to us, their descendants, in the preservation of their liberties, the
independence and the union of these States.
2. The perpetuation of the Federal Union and Constitution, as the palladium of our
civil and religious liberties and the only sure bulwark of American independence.
3. Americans must rule America; and to this end native-born citizens should be
selected for all State, Federal and municipal offices of Government employment, in
preference to all others. Nevertheless,
4. Persons born of American parents residing temporarily abroad should be entitled
to all the rights of native-born citizens.
5. No person should be selected for political station (whether of native or foreign
birth) who recognizes any allegiance or obligation of any description to any foreign
prince, potentate, or power, or who refuses to recognize the Federal and State
Constitutions (each within its sphere) as paramount to all other laws as rules of
political action.
6. The unqualified recognition and maintenance of the reserved rights of the
several States, and the cultivation of harmony and fraternal good-will between the
citizens of the several States, and, to this end, non-interference by Congress with

questions appertaining solely to the individual States, and non-intervention by each
State with the affairs of any other State.
7. The recognition of the right of native-born and naturalized citizens of the United
States, permanently residing in any Territory thereof, to frame their constitution and
laws, and to regulate their domestic and social affairs in their own mode, subject only
to the provisions of the Federal Constitution, with the privilege of admission into the
Union whenever they have the requisite population for one representative in
Congress; provided, always, that none but those who are citizens of the United States,
under the Constitution and laws thereof, and who have a fixed residence in any such
Territory, ought to participate in the formation of a constitution or in the enactment of
laws for said Territory or State.
8. An enforcement of the principle that no State or Territory ought to admit others
than citizens to the right of suffrage, or of holding political offices of the United
States.
9. A change in the laws of naturalization, making a continued residence of twenty-
one years, of all not heretofore provided for, an indispensable requisite for citizenship
hereafter, and excluding all paupers and persons convicted of crime from landing
upon our shores; but no interference with the vested rights of foreigners.
10. Opposition to any union between Church and State; no interference with
religious faith or worship, and no test oaths for office.
11. Free and thorough investigation into any and all alleged abuses of public
functionaries, and a strict economy in public expenditures.
12. The maintenance and enforcement of all laws constitutionally enacted, until
said laws shall be repealed or shall be declared null and void by competent judicial
authority.
13. Opposition to the reckless and unwise policy of the present administration in
the general management of our national affairs, and more especially as shown in
removing “Americans” (by designation) and conservatives in principle from office,
and placing foreigners and ultraists in their places; as shown in a truckling
subserviency to the stronger, and an insolent and cowardly bravado toward the
weaker powers; as shown in reopening sectional agitation, by the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise; as shown in granting to unnaturalized foreigners the right of
suffrage in Kansas and Nebraska; as shown in its vacillating course on the Kansas
and Nebraska question; as shown in the corruptions which pervade some of the
departments of the Government; as shown in disgracing meritorious naval officers
through prejudice or caprice; and as shown in the blundering mismanagement of our
foreign relations.

14. Therefore, to remedy existing evils, and to prevent the disastrous consequences
otherwise resulting therefrom, we would build up the “American party” upon the
principles hereinbefore stated.
15. That each State Council shall have authority to amend their several
constitutions, so as to abolish the several degrees, and substitute a pledge of honor,
instead of other obligations, for fellowship and admission into the party.
16. A free and open discussion of all political principles embraced in our platform.
The seceding delegates, consisting of the antislavery wing of the party and small in
number, organized a convention of their own, and without the formality of a ballot,
nominated John C. Fremont, of California, for President, and Ex-Governor William F.
Johnston, of Pennsylvania, for Vice-President, but they finally supported Fremont
and Dayton.
The fragments of the old Whig party met in national convention at Baltimore on
the 17th of September, in which 26 States were raggedly represented. Edward Bates,
of Missouri, presided over the convention, and the proceedings were uneventful.
Fillmore and Donelson, the candidates nominated by the American party, were
unanimously nominated for President and Vice-President by resolution, and the
following platform adopted:
Resolved, That the Whigs of the United States, now here assembled, hereby declare
their reverence for the Constitution of the United States, their unalterable attachment
to the national Union, and a fixed determination to do all in their power to preserve
them for themselves and their posterity. They have no new principles to announce, no
new platform to establish, but are content to broadly rest—where their fathers rested
—upon the Constitution of the United States, wishing no safer guide, no higher law.
Resolved, That we regard with the deepest interest and anxiety the present
disordered condition of our national affairs—a portion of the country ravaged by civil
war, large sections of our population embittered by mutual recriminations; and we
distinctly trace these calamities to the culpable neglect of duty by the present national
administration.
Resolved, That the Government of the United States was formed by the
conjunction in political unity of widespread geographical sections, materially
differing not only in climate and products, but in social and domestic institutions; and
that any cause that shall permanently array the different sections of the Union in
political hostility and organized parties, founded only on geographical distinctions,
must inevitably prove fatal to a continuance of the national Union.
Resolved, That the Whigs of the United States declare, as a fundamental rule of
political faith, an absolute necessity for avoiding geographical parties. The danger so
clearly discerned by the Father of his Country has now become fearfully apparent in

the agitation now convulsing the nation, and must be arrested at once if we would
preserve our Constitution and our Union from dismemberment, and the name of
America from being blotted out from the family of civilized nations.
Resolved, That all who revere the Constitution and the Union must look with alarm
at the parties in the field in the present Presidential campaign—one claiming only to
represent sixteen Northern States, and the other appealing mainly to the passions and
prejudices of the Southern States; that the success of either faction must add fuel to
the flame which now threatens to wrap our dearest interests in a common ruin.
Resolved, That the only remedy for an evil so appalling is to support a candidate
pledged to neither of the geographical sections now arrayed in political antagonism,
but holding both in a just and equal regard. We congratulate the friends of the Union
that such a candidate exists in Millard Fillmore.
Resolved, That, without adopting or referring to the peculiar doctrines of the party
which has already selected Mr. Fillmore as a candidate, we look to him as a well-tried
and faithful friend of the Constitution and the Union, eminent alike for his wisdom
and firmness; for his justice and moderation in our foreign relations; for his calm and
pacific temperament, so well becoming the head of a great nation; for his devotion to
the Constitution in its true spirit; his inflexibility in executing the laws; but, beyond
all these attributes, in possessing the one transcendant merit of being a representative
of neither of the two sectional parties now struggling for political supremacy.
Resolved, That, in the present exigency of political affairs, we are not called upon
to discuss the subordinate questions of administration in the exercising of the
constitutional powers of the Government. It is enough to know that civil war is
raging, and that the Union is imperilled; and we proclaim the conviction that the
restoration of Mr. Fillmore to the Presidency will furnish the best if not the only
means of restoring peace.
The campaign of 1856 was one of the most desperately fought conflicts in the
history of American politics. In some of the Northern States, and particularly in
Pennsylvania, that had to be carried against Buchanan in October to give promise of
his defeat, the American party, or the supporters of Fillmore and Donelson, were
nearly or quite as strong as the distinctive Republicans. Both were opposed to the
election of Buchanan, but they were wide apart not only on the slavery issue, but on
the questions of citizenship and religious proscription. As the contest warmed up the
necessity for some sort of union between these elements was accepted on both sides,
and in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, and some other States the Americans,
Republicans, and old Whigs united on State tickets. Illinois, while it gave its electoral
vote to Buchanan, elected Colonel Bissell, an antislavery and anti-Buchanan
Democrat, Governor, and in Pennsylvania the Democratic ticket was successful in
October only by a very small majority.

In several of the States they harmonized on an electoral ticket. They did it by
printing two electoral tickets for the two wings of the opposition. On one ticket the
first candidate for elector was John C. Fremont, and on the other ticket was the name
of Millard Fillmore. The understanding was that if the Union electoral ticket
succeeded, the entire vote, less the one lost by using the names of Fillmore and
Fremont, should be cast for either candidate if thereby he could be elected, and if
such united vote would not elect either candidate the vote was to be divided between
Fillmore and Fremont, as the voters indicated by the first name at the head of the
ticket.
In common with the great mass of conservative Whigs who were at first greatly
disappointed in the nomination of Fremont and the radical attitude of the new
Republican party, I gradually drifted into the contest because of the offensive
deliverances on slavery made by the Cincinnati platform. I knew Mr. Buchanan
personally, and if I could have obeyed my individual preferences as to a candidate,
would have voted for him. The slavery issue soon became so sharply defined that the
great mass of the Whigs of the North fell in to the support of Fremont. There was
considerable defection of prominent Whigs in Buchanan’s State, embracing the
Reeds, the Ingersolls, the Whartons, the Randalls, and others of Philadelphia, whose
conservative Whig views, with their great personal respect for Buchanan, influenced
them to support him. Buchanan was not a magnetic man, not a popular man in the
common acceptation of the term, but he was respected by all not only for his ability,
but for his integrity and generally blameless reputation. He was a very courteous
gentleman, but the multitude did not rush into his arms as it did into the arms of Clay
and Blaine, and it is quite probable that his bachelor life, a destiny given him by a
devotion with tragic end, doubtless made him less genial than he might have been.
Pennsylvania was the pivotal State in the contest, and Colonel Forney was
chairman of the Democratic State Committee. He was thoroughly familiar with the
political situation, and greatly impaired his health by his exhaustive efforts to save
Buchanan in his home State. His relations with Buchanan were of the closest and
most confidential nature, and each implicitly trusted the other. Buchanan knew
Forney’s ability in the management of a great political battle, and there was no
concealment between them as to the reward Forney should receive if Buchanan
succeeded. Forney’s ambition was to continue in journalism, and it was not only
understood, but the assurance voluntarily given to Forney by Buchanan, that if
Buchanan became President, Forney should conduct the national organ in
Washington and receive the Senate printing. What was then known as the Senate
printing was an abuse that had grown up from small to large proportions until it
became a fortune to any man who received it during the period of an administration.
Gales and Seaton, of the National Intelligencer, had enjoyed it for many years, and
when Democratic administrations became more distinctly partisan the favoritism was
continued and the profits magnified. It was deemed a necessity for each

administration to have an organ, and it was accepted in those days as the Democratic
oracle of the nation. By making Forney the editor of the administration organ at
Washington with the Senate printing, his highest ambition in his journalistic career
would have been gratified, with ample fortune added. So intimate were Buchanan and
Forney, that Forney’s family spent part of the summer at Wheatland, where Forney
would occasionally tarry for a day’s rest and to consult with his chief.
Both parties were very confident of carrying the State in October, but Forney
outgeneralled the leaders of the Union ticket by his masterful manipulation of
Philadelphia, and the Buchanan State ticket was successful in October by 3500
majority. Had the Buchanan State ticket been defeated, Buchanan’s defeat for
President would have been clearly foreshadowed, as it would doubtless have made a
successful union on the electoral tickets in New Jersey, Indiana, and Illinois, as had
already been done in Pennsylvania. Notwithstanding the loss of Pennsylvania in
October, the friends of Fremont and Fillmore made desperate efforts to carry the State
in November, and so well did they fight their battle that Buchanan’s majority in the
State over the combined vote of Fremont and Fillmore was only 1025. The Fremont
and Fillmore people believed that they had been defrauded out of the October
election in Pennsylvania, and Forney was denounced with extreme bitterness that had
lost none of its intensity in the Senatorial fight of 1857, when the resentments of the
opposition made Forney’s defeat for Senator possible in a Democratic Legislature.
Buchanan, Fremont, and Fillmore each bore themselves with great dignity during
the campaign. Fillmore was not in sympathy with Buchanan, but he had even less
sympathy for Fremont and the radical Republican policy he represented. Fremont
made his home during the contest in New York, under the strictest orders not to
discuss any political question, either orally or by letter, with any outside of those in
charge of his campaign. Along with several others, I called upon him at his home
some time before the election, simply to pay our respects to the man we were
supporting for President, and he was so extremely cautious that he evaded the most
ordinary expressions relating to the conduct and prospects of the battle. He impressed
me as possessing a stronger individuality than I had credited him with, and his
enforced policy of silence made him appear as a severely dignified gentleman with
strong intellectual possibilities. But considering the record he made in the early part
of the war, when he had, for the first time, opportunity to display his abilities, there
are few who will not feel that his election to the Presidency might have been equally
disastrous to himself and to the country.
The battle ended by the election of Buchanan, although Fremont carried the New
England States and New York and the Northwestern Democratic States with the whirl
of the tempest. The following table exhibits the popular and electoral vote:

Popular Vote. Electoral Vote.

STATES. James John C. Millard
Buchanan, Fremont, Fillmore, Buchanan. Fremont. Fillmore.
Penn. Cal. N. Y.
Maine 39,080 67,379 3,325 — 8 —
New
32,789 38,345 422 — 5 —
Hampshire
Vermont 10,569 39,561 545 — 5 —
Massachusetts 39,240 108,190 19,626 — 13 —
Rhode Island 6,680 11,467 1,675 — 4 —
Connecticut 34,995 42,715 2,615 — 6 —
New York 195,878 276,007 124,604 — 35 —
New Jersey 46,943 28,338 24,115 7 — —
Pennsylvania 230,710 147,510 82,175 27 — —
Delaware 8,004 308 6,175 3 — —
Maryland 39,115 281 47,460 — — 8
Virginia 89,706 291 60,310 15 — —
North
48,246 —— 36,886 10 — —
Carolina
South
—— —— —— 8 — —
Carolina[15]
Georgia 56,578 —— 42,228 10 — —
Alabama 46,739 —— 28,552 9 — —
Florida 6,358 —— 24,195 7 — —
Louisiana 22,164 —— 20,709 6 — —
Texas 31,169 —— 15,639 4 — —
Arkansas 21,910 —— 10,787 4 — —
Missouri 58,164 —— 48,524 9 — —
Tennessee 73,638 —— 66,178 12 — —
Kentucky 74,642 314 67,416 12 — —

Ohio 170,874 187,497 28,126 — 23 —
Michigan 52,136 71,762 1,660 — 6 —
Indiana 118,670 94,375 22,386 13 — —
Illinois 105,348 96,189 37,444 11 — —
Wisconsin 52,843 66,090 579 — 5 —
Iowa 36,170 43,954 9,180 — 4 —
California 53,365 20,691 36,165 4 — —
Totals 1,838,169 1,341,264 874,534 174 114 8

A quarrel between Buchanan and Forney was more far-reaching in its results than
can well be estimated by those not entirely familiar with the beginning and the end of
the dispute. During the campaign, Buchanan, greatly pressed with the increased
correspondence that came to him, asked Forney to send him a competent and
trustworthy secretary, and Buchanan, for the first time, abandoned his uniform policy
of writing all his own letters in clear, beautiful copper-plate style. Forney sent one of
his own assistants to aid Buchanan, and having charge of Buchanan’s correspondence
he became cognizant of the fact that the Southern leaders were very generally and
earnestly demanding of Buchanan the pledge that Forney should not be made editor
of the administration organ.
Buchanan parried the appeals of the Southern friends for some time, but finally,
knowing that his election depended upon a united South, they became mandatory, and
Buchanan, without advising Forney of the fact, finally gave his pledge that Forney
should not be chosen. The secretary was indignant at this betrayal of his friend, and
quietly sought Forney, advised him of the fact and expressed his purpose not to
return. Forney required the secretary to go back and perform his duties and take no
note of what had happened. He was greatly disappointed, as it denied him what was
the great ambition of his life, involving editorial distinction and fortune, but he
believed that Buchanan had yielded to imperious necessity and that he would not be
allowed to suffer from the change.
It was not until after the election that Buchanan informed Forney of the necessity
of making a change in his reward, and Forney proposed to accept a position in the
Cabinet, to which Buchanan would have willingly consented, but the same intense
opposition to Forney as a Cabinet officer surged against him from the South. It was
next proposed by Buchanan that Forney should take the Berlin mission with a liberal
commercial salary added, but Mrs. Forney peremptorily refused to entertain it. It was
finally agreed that Forney should be elected to the Senate. The Democrats had a

majority of three on joint ballot, and it was not doubted that any Democrat nominated
by the caucus would be chosen. Henry D. Foster, a very prominent Democrat, who
had been in Congress and who was the Democratic candidate for Governor in 1860,
was a member of the House. He was a candidate for Senator, and doubtless would
have been chosen had Forney not been suddenly injected into the field. It was not
until the Legislature was about to meet that Forney’s candidacy was decided upon. It
required very prompt and positive action to secure the nomination of Forney, and
Buchanan, with all his extreme caution under ordinary circumstances, wrote a letter
to Senator Mott urging the election of Forney. That letter became public and greatly
exasperated the friends of the other candidates, but a new Democratic administration
with the President from the State and just on the threshold of great political power
was able to command the nomination for Forney, and it was accomplished, but
leaving many open sores.
The Republicans and Americans of the Legislature were smarting under what they
regarded as the fraud that Forney engineered to give the State to Buchanan, and they
were quite willing to join any movement to defeat him. General Cameron had come
into the Republican party in 1856, and was at the head of the electoral ticket, and he
had a very strong hold upon some old Democratic friends. He proposed to the
Republicans and Americans of the Legislature that if they would give him a united
vote he could command three Democratic votes and be elected. The Union caucus, as
it was called, appointed a committee to whom three Democrats must be shown and
give their pledges to vote for Cameron, and if such report was made back to the
caucus by the committee, without giving the names of the Democrats who were to
vote for Cameron, the Republicans were pledged to vote unitedly for Cameron on the
1st ballot. The committee saw Representatives Lebo, Maneer, and Wagonseller,
Democrats, who pledged themselves to vote for Cameron if they could elect him, and
to the surprise of all parties except the very few who understood the arrangement,
Cameron was elected Senator and Forney suffered a most humiliating defeat.
After Forney’s defeat for Senator, it became much more difficult than even before
for Buchanan to reward him, as he doubtless felt should be done. Efforts were made
to give him a liberal share of the post-office printing, but Forney and Buchanan were
gradually becoming estranged, and finally Forney decided that he could not
harmonize with Buchanan and his friends, and that he would renew his journalistic
career on independent lines. The result was the establishment of the Philadelphia
Press.
The slavery issue speedily divided Douglas and Buchanan, and Forney had his
opportunity. He had suffered much from the proscriptive hatred of the South, and he
became Douglas’s ablest and most enthusiastic supporter in the North, which brought
him into direct antagonism with Buchanan. From the time that battle began, Forney
and Buchanan were strangers during the remainder of their lives, and no one man did

more to educate the North up to the election of Abraham Lincoln than John W.
Forney.
We are told that the political methods of the present age are greatly degenerate as
compared with the political methods of the old-school leaders, of which Buchanan
was about the last representative in the White House. It will surprise many of the
present day to be told that Buchanan gave personal attention not only to organize
county leaders in his support for the Presidency, but wrote elaborate letters even to
township leaders. I have in my possession a number of Mr. Buchanan’s anti-
Presidential letters, and I think it due to the truth of history to give one of them as a
foot-note to illustrate the politics of half a century ago.[16] Perry County, to which the
letter refers, is a small county adjoining Franklin, the birthplace of Buchanan. It had
only a single delegate to the Democratic State Convention, and, considering
Buchanan’s location, he should have been able to command its support without
special effort. The friend to whom he wrote was an Associate Judge of the county and
active in politics, and when it is remembered that this letter is only one of very many
written to a single small county to gain a single delegate for Buchanan against
General Cass, who lived in a distant State, the political methods employed to reach
the Presidency in that day will be generally accepted as no improvement on the
methods now employed to gain the highest honors of the Republic.
Buchanan entered the Presidency earnestly determined to end the slavery agitation,
but unfortunately he hoped to end it by the unqualified success of slavery in all of the
new Territories and the right of transit through the free States of slaves as servants.
The Dred Scott decision was foreshadowed in his inaugural address, and he and the
pro-slavery statesmen of that time were confident that the Republican ebullition of
1856 was a mere tidal wave that would speedily perish, and that the South would be
so strongly entrenched for the defence of slavery that it could not be successfully
assailed. He was elected by the South; he was the strictest of strict constructionists on
all Constitutional questions, and he naturally sustained the South in going far beyond
what his judgment approved in the efforts to force slavery into Kansas and Nebraska.
The strength of the slavery sentiment steadily grew under the aggravations of the
pro-slavery men who sought to force slavery into the new Territories of the West, and
it was this continued discussion and the outrages perpetrated on the people of Kansas
and Nebraska that made the election of a Republican President possible in 1860, and
that finally precipitated the Civil War. Buchanan adhered to the South until open
rebellion was organized by the capture of forts and arsenals and the organization of a
Confederate government, but when he found himself powerless to restrain the South
from armed rebellion, he reorganized his Cabinet and exhausted his then wasted
powers to bring the South into submission to the Government. He had an
aggressively loyal Cabinet during the last few months of his administration, and
when he retired, generally denounced by the loyal sentiment of the country as a

faithless Executive, he earnestly supported the Government in every measure
necessary to suppress the rebellion and prevent the dismemberment of the Republic.
He died soon after the close of the war, a thoroughly honest and patriotic public
servant, but widely misunderstood. His revolutionary Kansas-Nebraska policy made
the Republican revolution of 1860 inevitable, and made Abraham Lincoln President.

THE LINCOLN-BRECKENRIDGE-DOUGLAS-BELL CONTEST

1860
In 1860 the nation proclaimed the third great political epoch of its history by an aggressive departure from
Democracy to the Republicanism that has since ruled without material interruption. There have been two
Democratic administrations since the Republican epoch of 1860, but though they, for the time, halted and modified
the Republican policy, they never had the power to make a decisive reversal of Republican mastery. Thus an epoch
of twelve years of Federalism, another of sixty years of Democracy, and another of forty years of Republicanism
tell the story of the political revolutions of the Republic during a period of one hundred and twelve years.
When Fremont made his brilliant campaign of 1856 and narrowly escaped election to the Presidency, it was
generally accepted by all the varied phases of politics opposed to radical Republicanism that the Republican
movement was like a bee—biggest at its birth—and that it never could win a national victory; but all the chief
events affecting the political sentiment of the country from 1856 until 1860 tended to strengthen Republican
sentiment and to alienate a large portion of the intelligent elements of Democracy. The significant elections of
1858 and 1859, with the Kansas-Nebraska war convulsing the country from centre to circumference, steadily
strengthened Republican lines, and when the leaders of the party came to face the great battle of 1860 they well
understood that success was within their reach, and never did a party exhibit greater sagacity in leadership than
was displayed in the convention that nominated Lincoln.
William H. Seward was the confessed Republican leader of the nation. He was admittedly its ablest champion
and was among its earliest supporters. He had been long in the Senate, and was the peer of any in the discussion of
all the grave questions which then agitated our national Legislature. He was not only the ablest of his party, but he
was one of the most exemplary and courteous of men. Two-thirds of all the delegates elected to that convention
were friends of Seward and expected to vote for him, and his nomination would have been inevitable on the 1st
ballot had not the convention been restrained by considerations of expediency which were most reluctantly
accepted. Lincoln’s own delegation from Illinois embraced one-third of positive Seward men. They were instructed
for Lincoln without hope of his nomination at the time, and most of them expected to perform a mere perfunctory
duty by voting for him on one or more ballots.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Horace Greeley had sounded the first note of warning against the nomination of Seward, and his paper, the New
York Tribune, was then the most influential journal ever published in this country. It was the Republican Bible, and

its weekly edition was more read in the West than all other Eastern papers combined. He startled the party by a
series of dignified and masterly articles in favor of Edward Bates, of Missouri, for President, on the ground that
Seward was not available, and that a man of the great ability and conservative attitude of Bates alone could win in
that contest. But though the conservative element of the opposition to the Democracy was not enthusiastic for
Seward and his “irrepressible conflict,” the true reason of Seward’s defeat was not presented either by Mr. Greeley
or by any public discussion before the meeting of the convention.
I have read many romances about how, why and by whom Abraham Lincoln was nominated for President at
Chicago, but the explanation is very simple, and when presented must be accepted by all as conclusive. Henry S.
Lane had been nominated as the Republican candidate for Governor of Indiana, and Andrew G. Curtin had been
nominated by the Republicans for Governor of Pennsylvania. These States voted for Governor and other State
officers on the second Tuesday of October, and they were the pivotal States of the national contest. It was an
absolute necessity to carry them in October to assure the election of a Republican President, and the first inquiry of
the Republican leaders at Chicago, outside of those who were blindly devoted to Seward, was “Who can carry
Indiana and Pennsylvania?”
Lane and Curtin were there solely for the purpose of getting the strongest possible national ticket nominated to
aid them in their State contests. With Lane was John D. Defrees, as Chairman of the Republican State Committee
of Indiana, and I was with Curtin, as he had charged me with the same responsible duty in Pennsylvania. Curtin
and Lane decided that they could not be elected if Seward were nominated for President. They were not personally
or politically hostile to him; they had but one thing in view, and that was their own election, which was essential to
elect a Republican President.
Prior to 1860 the Republican party had never carried either Pennsylvania or Indiana. Opposition to the pro-
slavery policy of the Buchanan administration had crystallized antislavery Democrats, Whigs, and Americans into
the support of Union State tickets, and had elected them; but in Pennsylvania the Republican name was omitted
from necessity, and the organization was entitled the People’s party. In both of these States there was an organized
and powerful American party yet in existence, without which the Republicans could not succeed. It was the
remnant of the American or Know-Nothing revolution of 1854, and they cherished their own faith with great
fidelity and would not support any candidate who was friendly to the Catholics.
When Seward was elected Governor of New York in 1838 it was largely by the influence of Archbishop Hughes,
one of the ablest Catholic prelates this country has ever had; and Seward, not only because of his gratitude to his
Catholic friends, but because of his broad and liberal views generally, in a message to the Legislature urged a
division of the school fund between the Catholics and Protestants. That was the rock on which Seward was
wrecked. Had he been nominated, the entire American element of the opposition would have been aggressively
against him, and Pennsylvania and Indiana would have been lost not only by the defeat of Curtin and Lane in
October, but by the defeat of Seward in November.
The situation was earnestly presented by Curtin and Lane, and Mr. Defrees and I accompanied them in their
conferences with various delegations which were devoted to Seward, but were willing to abandon him—not
because they loved Seward less, but because they loved Republican success more. I saw several rural delegates
from New England States shed tears as they confessed that they must abandon Seward because he could not carry
Pennsylvania and Indiana, and certainly more than one-third of all the delegates who voted for Lincoln in that
convention did it in sincerest sorrow because compelled to abandon their great leader for the sake of victory.
Under such conditions the Seward lines were steadily weakening, but never was a movement so ably led as was
the Seward movement at Chicago. It was literally a battle of giants. Thurlow Weed, the master of masters in
politics, led the fight for Seward, and he had around him Governor Morgan, Chairman of the National Committee;
Raymond, of the Times, and many others of distinguished ability in such struggles. Weed invited Lane to drive
with him, and, in the course of their conversation, assured him that if his delegation would support Seward all the
money needed to carry his election in Indiana would be generously furnished; but Lane knew that no amount of
money could give him victory in October with Seward as the national candidate.
The convention met on Wednesday, May 16, and George Ashman, of Massachusetts, was made permanent
president. The first day was devoted to routine duties, and the second to the adoption of a platform and rules to
govern the convention. The convention adjourned on Thursday evening profoundly impressed with the great battle
that was to be fought on the following day, and both sides exhausted political strategy to gain the advantage. Weed
organized a most imposing street parade of the Seward people. They had thousands of Seward spectators outside of

the delegates, and it was one of the most impressive public displays I have ever witnessed. They paraded the
streets for an hour or more before the meeting of the convention.
The friends of Lincoln had been tireless in their efforts, and they displayed wonderful ability in handling their
forces. The leaders in immediate charge of the Lincoln people were Colonel Medill, of the Chicago Tribune; David
Davis, afterward Judge of the Supreme Court; Norman B. Judd, Chairman of the Republican State Committee, and
Leonard Swett, who was almost a copy of Lincoln physically, and who was Lincoln’s closest friend until the day of
his death. When they found that the Seward parade was to come off, they counselled how to meet it, and they
finally decided that while the Seward men were parading they would fill the immense temporary wigwam—
erected for the convention, and capable of holding five thousand spectators—with men who should go there solely
for the purpose of hurrahing for Lincoln. They carried this plan into very successful operation, and when the
Seward procession attempted to march into the convention hall they found it filled to overflowing, and very few
Seward men outside the delegation could obtain admission.
Just before the convention opened I saw the New York delegation file in and fill the only vacant place in the
immense building. They were appalled when they saw how they had been outgeneralled. Almost immediately
behind the New York men, who were under the lead of Evarts as Chairman of the delegation, sat Horace Greeley at
the head of the Oregon delegation. That new State, just admitted into the Union, was so far from civilization, as the
iron horse had not yet been heard in either the Rockies or the Sierra Nevadas, that the Republican convention
selected a number of prominent men in the East, including Greeley, to represent the State. I never saw a more
benignant face than that of Greeley’s when the nomination of Lincoln was declared. It was known by the
supporters of Seward that Pennsylvania and Indiana had both decided to support Lincoln, the Pennsylvanians
having declared for Lincoln by four majority over Bates, after giving a complimentary ballot to Cameron.
With very little preliminary movement the ballot began, and Seward’s two-thirds vote of the convention
dwindled down to 173¹⁄₂ when 234 were necessary to a choice. Lincoln, with Pennsylvania and Ohio giving
complimentary ballots to Cameron and Chase, had 102 votes. As the ballots were announced, every vote for
Lincoln was cheered to the echo, while there were but few cheers for Seward except from the delegates
themselves. When the 2d ballot was called the Seward people felt that they must largely increase their strength or
fall in the race. As Lincoln gained most of the vote of Pennsylvania, with important gains from other States, the
wildest cheering greeted the announcements, and when the ballot was given with only 10 votes gained by Seward
and 75 votes gained by Lincoln, it became evident to all that Seward’s strength was exhausted and that Lincoln
was the coming man. The next and last ballot soon showed Lincoln as leading Seward, and from that time on it
was difficult to announce the votes of the States because of the frenzied cheers for “Abe Lincoln.”
When the last State was called it was known that Lincoln was either nominated or very close to it. The vote as
recorded was 231¹⁄₂ for Lincoln, being 2¹⁄₂ votes short of a majority, and 180 for Seward, with some 50 scattering.
Before the result was announced Chairman Carter, of Ohio, got up on his chair to assure the attention of the
President, and said:
“I rise to announce the change of four votes from Ohio from Mr. Chase to Abraham Lincoln.”
It was known then that this gave Lincoln the majority, and I have never before nor since witnessed such a scene
as was made by the great mass of the Lincoln people who were in the hall. A large charcoal picture of Lincoln was
presented in the gallery at the rear of the hall, and the whole vast audience, with few exceptions outside of the New
York delegation, rose to indulge in the wildest enthusiasm for some minutes.
When order was finally restored, Maine, Massachusetts, and Missouri changed a number of votes to Lincoln,
giving him a total of 354, being 120 odd votes more than he needed. When the vote was announced by the
President cheers broke out afresh, but they soon quieted down to await the action of the New York delegation that
was expected to move the unanimous nomination. There was certainly fully five minutes of dead silence in the
body, as the New York delegates were mortified beyond expression at their discomfiture; but after a long wait that
seemed to be vastly longer than it was, the tall form of William M. Evarts arose, and with reluctance that was
unconcealed said:
“Mr. President, I move that the nomination of Abraham Lincoln be made unanimous.”
Governor Andrew, of Massachusetts, rose as soon as he saw Evarts rise, and when Evarts’s motion was made
Andrew seconded it, and with the unanimous vote of the convention and the heartiest huzzas from the many
thousands who witnessed the proceedings, Abraham Lincoln was declared the Republican candidate for President.
The convention adjourned to meet again in the evening to nominate a candidate for Vice-President.

As there will be general interest felt in the proceedings of the Republican National Convention that gave the
country the first Republican President in Abraham Lincoln, I give the detailed vote of each State represented in the
convention on the three ballots for President, as follows:

1st Ballot.
STATES.
Seward. Lincoln. Wade. Cameron. Bates. McLean. Read. Chase. Dayton. Sumner. Frem
Maine 10 6 — — — — — — — —
New
1 7 — — — — — 1 — —
Hampshire
Vermont — — — — — — — — — —
Massachusetts 21 4 — — — — — — — —
Rhode Island — — — — 1 5 1 1 — —
Connecticut — 2 1 — 7 — — 2 — —
New York 70 — — — — — — — — —
New Jersey — — — — — — — — 14 —
Pennsylvania 1¹⁄₂ 4 — 47¹⁄₂ — 1 — — — —
Maryland 3 — — — 8 — — — — —
Delaware — — — — 6 — — — — —
Virginia 8 14 — 1 — — — — — —
Kentucky 5 6 2 — — 1 — 8 — 1
Ohio — 8 — — — 4 — 34 — —
Indiana — 26 — — — — — — — —
Missouri — — — — 18 — — — — —
Michigan 12 — — — — — — — — —
Illinois — 22 — — — — — — — —
Texas 4 — — — 2 — — — — —
Wisconsin 10 — — — — — — — — —
Iowa 2 2 — 1 1 1 — 1 — —
California 8 — — — — — — — — —
Minnesota 8 — — — — — — — — —
Oregon — — — — 5 — — — — —
Kansas 6 — — — — — — — — —
Nebraska 2 1 — 1 — — — 2 — —
District of
2 — — — — — — — — —
Columbia
Totals 173¹⁄₂ 102 3 50¹⁄₂ 48 12 1 49 14 1

2d Ballot.
STATES.
Seward. Lincoln. Bates. Cameron. McLean. Chase. Dayton. C. M. Clay.

Maine 10 6 — — — — — —
New Hampshire 1 9 — — — — — —
Vermont — 10 — — — — — —
Massachusetts 22 4 — — — — — —
Rhode Island — 3 — — 2 3 — —
Connecticut — 4 4 — — 2 — 2
New York 70 — — — — — — —
New Jersey 4 — — — — — 10 —
Pennsylvania 2¹⁄₂ 48 — 1 2¹⁄₂ — — —
Maryland 3 — 8 — — — — —
Delaware — 6 — — — — — —
Virginia 8 14 — 1 — — — —
Kentucky 7 9 — — — 6 — —
Ohio — 14 — — 3 29 — —
Indiana — 26 — — — — — —
Missouri — — 18 — — — — —
Michigan 12 — — — — — — —
Illinois — 22 — — — — — —
Texas 6 — — — — — — —
Wisconsin 10 — — — — — — —
Iowa 2 5 — — ¹⁄₂ ¹⁄₂ — —
California 8 — — — — — — —
Minnesota 8 — — — — — — —
Oregon — — 5 — — — — —
Kansas 6 — — — — — — —
Nebraska 3 1 — — — 2 — —
Dist. of Columbia 2 — — — — — — —
Totals 184¹⁄₂ 181 35 2 8 42¹⁄₂ 10 2

3d Ballot.
STATES.
Seward. Bates. Chase. Lincoln. McLean. Dayton. C. M. Clay.
Maine 10 — — 6 — — —
New Hampshire 1 — — 9 — — —
Vermont — — — 10 — — —
Massachusetts 18 — — 8 — — —
Rhode Island 1 — 1 5 1 — —
Connecticut 1 4 2 4 — — 1
New York 70 — — — — — —

New Jersey 5 — — 8 — 1 —
Pennsylvania — — — 52 2 — —
Maryland 2 — — 9 — — —
Delaware — — — 6 — — —
Virginia 8 — — 14 — — —
Kentucky 6 — 4 13 — — —
Ohio — — 15 29 2 — —
Indiana — — — 26 — — —
Missouri — 18 — — — — —
Michigan 12 — — — — — —
Illinois — — — 22 — — —
Texas 6 — — — — — —
Wisconsin 10 — — — — — —
Iowa 2 — ¹⁄₂ 5¹⁄₂ — — —
California 8 — — — — — —
Minnesota 8 — — — — — —
Oregon 1 — — 4 — — —
Kansas 6 — — — — — —
Nebraska 3 — 2 1 — — —
Dist. of Columbia 2 — — — — — —
Totals 180 22 24¹⁄₂ 231¹⁄₂ 5 1 1

So keen were the disappointments of the New York delegation, and Mr. Weed, who was the Seward leader, that
when earnestly urged to name a candidate for Vice-President, who would have been accepted by a nearly
unanimous vote, they churlishly refused to do so. Governor Morgan would have been taken as the candidate to
emphasize the desire of the friends of Lincoln to recognize the friends of Seward, but he peremptorily refused to
accept it, and the convention then nominated Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine, as a representative of the Democratic-
Republican element; but New York divided her vote between five candidates, giving a bare majority to Hamlin
from personal choice.
As the friends of Seward declined to indicate a candidate for Vice-President the convention reassembled in the
evening to enter a free-for-all race for the second place on the ticket. Hamlin commanded nearly a solid vote from
New England that attracted others. He was known throughout the country as the man who had resigned the
chairmanship of his committee in the Senate in 1856 to declare himself for Fremont, although an earnest Democrat
up to that time, and that he had accepted the Republican nomination for Governor and won out by an
overwhelming majority. There was a strong sentiment in the convention in favor of Cassius M. Clay, not because
he was personally preferred, but because it was thought wise by many to desectionalize the party by taking a
candidate for Vice-President from a Slave State. Hamlin had a good lead on the 1st ballot, and on the 2d won an
easy victory. The two ballots were as follows:

1st Ballot. 2d Ballot.
STATES.
C. M. Clay. Banks. Reeder. Hickman. Hamlin. Hamlin. Clay. Hickman.
Maine — — — — 16 16 — —

New Hampshire — — — — 10 10 — —
Vermont — — — — 10 10 — —
Massachusetts — 20 1 1 1 26 — —
Rhode Island — — — — 8 8 — —
Connecticut 2 1 — 2 5 10 — 2
New York 9 4 2 11 35 70 — —
New Jersey 1 — 7 — 6 14 — —
Pennsylvania 4¹⁄₂ 2¹⁄₂ 24 7 11 54 — —
Maryland 2 — — 1 8 10 1 —
Delaware 3 — — 1 2 6 — —
Virginia 23 — — — — — 23 —
Kentucky 23 — — — — — 28 —
Ohio — — — — 48 46 — —
Indiana 18 — — — 8 12 14 —
Missouri — 9 — 9 — 13 5 —
Michigan 4 — — — 8 8 4 —
Illinois 2 — 16 2 2 20 2 —
Texas — — — — — — 6 —
Wisconsin 5 — — — 5 5 5 —
Iowa — 1 1 — 6 3 — —
California — — — 8 — 7 1 —
Minnesota 1 — — 1 6 7 1 —
Oregon — 1 — 3 1 3 — 2
Kansas — — — 6 — 2 1 3
Nebraska 1 — — 5 — — — 6
District of Columbia 2 — — — — 2 — —
Totals 101¹⁄₂ 38¹⁄₂ 51 58 194 367 86 13

The Chicago convention that nominated Lincoln for President was not only the ablest national political body
that ever met in the country up to that time, but it exhibited the highest type of political strategy. It has never since
then been equalled in ability and leadership, with the single exception of the Republican convention of 1880, in
which the friends of Grant made their last stand to give their chieftain a third term. As compared with these two, all
subsequent conventions were tame.
The following platform was unanimously adopted:
Resolved, That we, the delegated representatives of the Republican electors of the United States, in convention
assembled, in discharge of the duty we owe to our constituents and our country, unite in the following declarations:
1. That the history of the nation, during the last four years, has fully established the propriety and necessity of
the organization and perpetuation of the Republican party, and that the causes which called it into existence are
permanent in their nature, and now, more than ever before, demand its peaceful and constitutional triumph.
2. That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the
Federal Constitution—“that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”—is essential
to the preservation of our republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the
union of the States, must and shall be preserved.
3. That to the union of the States this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population, its surprising
development of material resources, its rapid augmentation of wealth, its happiness at home, and its honor abroad;
and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for disunion, come from whatever source they may; and we congratulate
the country that no Republican member of Congress has uttered or countenanced the threats of disunion so often
made by Democratic members, without rebuke and with applause from their political associates; and we denounce
those threats of disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendancy, as denying the vital principles of a
free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant people
sternly to rebuke and forever silence.
4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and
control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of
power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless
invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of
crimes.
5. That the present Democratic administration has far exceeded our worst apprehensions, in its measureless
subserviency to the exactions of a sectional interest, as especially evinced in its desperate exertions to force the
infamous Lecompton Constitution upon the protesting people of Kansas; in construing the personal relation
between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in person; in its attempted enforcement,
everywhere, on land and sea, through the intervention of Congress and of the Federal courts, of the extreme
pretensions of a purely local interest; and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power entrusted to it by a
confiding people.
6. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the
Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic
plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans; while the recent startling developments of frauds and
corruptions at the Federal metropolis show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded.
7. That the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries slavery into any or all of the Territories of
the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself,
with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and
subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.
8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican
fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no person should be deprived of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law, it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation
is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the
authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individual, to give legal existence to slavery in any
Territory of the United States.
9. That we brand the recent reopening of the African slave-trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by
perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age; and we
call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable
traffic.
10. That in the recent vetoes, by their Federal governors, of the acts of the Legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska,
prohibiting slavery in those Territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted Democratic principle of non-
intervention and popular sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and a demonstration of the deception
and fraud involved therein.
11. That Kansas should of right be immediately admitted as a State under the Constitution recently formed and
adopted by her people and accepted by the House of Representatives.
12. That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imports, sound
policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of
the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the workingmen liberal

wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill,
labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.
13. That we protest against any sale or alienation to others of the public lands held by actual settlers, and against
any view of the free-homestead policy which regards the settlers as paupers or suppliants for public bounty; and
we demand the passage by Congress of the complete and satisfactory homestead measure which has already
passed the House.
14. That the Republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws, or any State legislation by
which the rights of citizenship hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired;
and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or
naturalized, both at home and abroad.
The bitter estrangement of Douglas and President Buchanan made an impassable gulf between Douglas and the
radical Southerners who stood by Buchanan. Douglas had a desperate contest in his State for re-election to the
Senate in 1858, when he was opposed by Lincoln as the Republican candidate, and was even more vindictively
opposed by all the power of the national administration. Lincoln won the State, as he carried the Republican or
Union State ticket, but the legislative districts were so gerrymandered that Douglas won the Legislature and came
back in triumph to defy the President. There was no reasonable prospect, therefore, of Democratic unity in the
campaign of 1860. Douglas, who was the most astute of all the Democratic politicians of his day, clearly foresaw
that the violent attitude of the South must result in the defeat of the slavery party and the early extinction of
slavery; but slavery had always been omnipotent since the battle began, and it would not learn that its mastery
could be overthrown.
The Democratic National Convention was called for the first time to meet far South, in the city of Charleston,
the home of Calhoun, the cradle of nullification, and the one place in the Union where secession ran rampant. It
was obviously intended to environ the convention with an army of the ablest Southern leadership. The convention
met on the 23d of April, 1860, and every State was fully represented, with double delegations from Illinois and
New York. The few administration followers in Illinois had made a rump Democratic organization and sent an
anti-Douglas delegation to Charleston, and in New York they had another contest between the “Hards” and the
“Softs,” the “Hards” being opposed to Douglas and the “Softs” for him. Caleb Cushing was made permanent
president, and it was decided that no ballot should be had for President until a platform was adopted. On the
following day the convention did not get beyond the settlement of contested seats, admitting the “Softs” of New
York and the Douglas men from Illinois, and the debates on even the most trivial disputes were unusually bitter.
On the third day threats of bolting became common among the Southern delegates, as the admission of the
Douglas delegates from New York and Illinois clearly indicated that the Douglas people controlled the convention.
On the fourth day majority and minority reports were made on the platform, the majority by Mr. Avery, of North
Carolina, and the minority by Mr. Payne, of Ohio. General Benjamin F. Butler, who was a prominent delegate in
the convention, as he would be anywhere, and who voted for Jefferson Davis for the Presidency right along,
presented a minority report of his own, and Senator Bayard, of Delaware, followed with a platform of his
invention. On the fifth day Senator Bigler, of Pennsylvania, moved to recommit the platforms to the committee
with instructions to report in an hour, and the motion to recommit was carried, 152 to 151, while the motion to
instruct was lost by a very large vote. On the same day Mr. Avery, from the majority of the committee on platform,
reported a new declaration of principles, and an elaborate discussion followed, and Mr. Samuels, of Iowa,
presented a new minority report.
After a protracted and ill-tempered debate, it was finally decided that the vote on the platform should be taken
on Monday, the 30th, and on that day the convention proceeded to vote without debate. Butler’s platform was
rejected by 198 to 105. Next the minority report of Mr. Samuels, being the Douglas platform, was carried by 165
to 138. The report of the committee as amended was then adopted without a vote by States, upon which the
Alabama delegation presented a written protest announcing the purpose of the delegates to withdraw from the
convention. The Mississippi, Florida, and Texas delegations gave like notice, and the Louisiana delegation
excepting two, the South Carolina delegation excepting three, with three of the Arkansas delegation, two of the
Delaware delegation, including Senator Bayard, and one from North Carolina then withdrew from the convention.
There were great pomp and ceremony in this proceeding, as formal protests and elaborate speeches were made by
the retiring delegates. The convention was thus largely depleted, but a resolution, declaring that two-thirds of a full
convention, being 202 votes, shall be necessary to make nominations, was adopted by 141 to 112. The convention
then proceeded to ballot for President with the following result:

BALLOTS. Douglas. Guthrie. Hunter. Dickinson. A. Johnson. Lane. Jeff. Davis. Toucey. F. Pierce.
1 145¹⁄₂ 35 42 7 12 6 1¹⁄₂ 2¹⁄₂ 1
2 147 36¹⁄₂ 41¹⁄₂ 6¹⁄₂ 12 6 1 2¹⁄₂ —
3 148¹⁄₂ 42 36 6¹⁄₂ 12 6 1 — —
4 149 37¹⁄₂ 41¹⁄₂ 5 12 6 1 — —
5 149¹⁄₂ 37¹⁄₂ 41 5 12 6 1 — —
6 149¹⁄₂ 39¹⁄₂ 41 3 12 7 — — —
7 150¹⁄₂ 38¹⁄₂ 41 4 11 6 1 — —
8 150¹⁄₂ 38¹⁄₂ 40¹⁄₂ 4¹⁄₂ 11 6 1¹⁄₂ — —
9 150¹⁄₂ 41 39¹⁄₂ 1 — 6 1¹⁄₂ — —
10 150¹⁄₂ 39¹⁄₂ 39 4 12 5¹⁄₂ 1¹⁄₂ — —
11 150¹⁄₂ 39¹⁄₂ 38 4 12 6¹⁄₂ 1¹⁄₂ — —
12 150¹⁄₂ 39¹⁄₂ 38 4 12 6 1¹⁄₂ — —
13 149¹⁄₂ 39¹⁄₂ 28¹⁄₂ 1 12 20 1 — —
14 150 41 27 ¹⁄₂ 12 20¹⁄₂ 1 — —
15 150 41¹⁄₂ 26¹⁄₂ ¹⁄₂ 12 20¹⁄₂ 1 — —
16 150 42 26 ¹⁄₂ 12 20¹⁄₂ 1 — —
17 150 42 26 ¹⁄₂ 12 20¹⁄₂ 1 — —
18 150 41¹⁄₂ 26 1 12 20¹⁄₂ 1 — —
19 150 41¹⁄₂ 26 1 12 20¹⁄₂ 1 — —
20 150 42 26 ¹⁄₂ 12 20¹⁄₂ 1 — —
21 150¹⁄₂ 41¹⁄₂ 26 ¹⁄₂ 12 20¹⁄₂ 1 — —
22 150¹⁄₂ 41¹⁄₂ 26 ¹⁄₂ 12 20¹⁄₂ 1 — —
23 152¹⁄₂ 41¹⁄₂ 25 ¹⁄₂ 12 19¹⁄₂ 1 — —
24 151¹⁄₂ 41¹⁄₂ 25 1¹⁄₂ 12 19¹⁄₂ 1 — —
25 151¹⁄₂ 41¹⁄₂ 25 1¹⁄₂ 12 19¹⁄₂ 1 — —
26 151¹⁄₂ 41¹⁄₂ 25 12 12 9 1 — —
27 151¹⁄₂ 42¹⁄₂ 25 12 12 8 1 — —
28 151¹⁄₂ 42 25 12¹⁄₂ 12 8 1 — —
29 151¹⁄₂ 42 25 13 12 7¹⁄₂ 1 — —
30 151¹⁄₂ 45 25 13 11 5¹⁄₂ 1 — —
31 151¹⁄₂ 47¹⁄₂ 32¹⁄₂ 3 11 5¹⁄₂ 1 — —
32 152¹⁄₂ 47¹⁄₂ 22¹⁄₂ 3 11 5¹⁄₂ 1 — —
33 152¹⁄₂ 47¹⁄₂ 22¹⁄₂ 3 11 14¹⁄₂ 1 — —
34 152¹⁄₂ 47¹⁄₂ 22¹⁄₂ 5 11 12¹⁄₂ 1 — —
35 152 47¹⁄₂ 22 4¹⁄₂ 12 13 1 — —
36 151¹⁄₂ 48 22 4¹⁄₂ 12 13 1 — —
37 151¹⁄₂ 64¹⁄₂ 16 5¹⁄₂ ¹⁄₂ 12¹⁄₂ 1¹⁄₂ — —
38 151¹⁄₂ 66 16 5¹⁄₂ — 13 — — —

39 151¹⁄₂ 66¹⁄₂ 16 5¹⁄₂ — 12¹⁄₂ — — —
40 151¹⁄₂ 66¹⁄₂ 16 5¹⁄₂ — 12¹⁄₂ — — —
41 151¹⁄₂ 66¹⁄₂ 16 5¹⁄₂ — 12¹⁄₂ — — —
42 151¹⁄₂ 66¹⁄₂ 16 5 — 13 — — —
43 151¹⁄₂ 65¹⁄₂ 16 5 — 13 1 — —
44 151¹⁄₂ 65¹⁄₂ 16 5 — 13 1 — —
45 151¹⁄₂ 65¹⁄₂ 16 5 — 13 1 — —
46 151¹⁄₂ 65¹⁄₂ 16 5 — 13 1 — —
47 151¹⁄₂ 65¹⁄₂ 16 5 — 13 1 — —
48 151¹⁄₂ 65¹⁄₂ 16 5 — 13 1 — —
49 151¹⁄₂ 65¹⁄₂ 16 4 — 14 1 — —
50 151¹⁄₂ 65¹⁄₂ 16 4 — 14 1 — —
51 151¹⁄₂ 65¹⁄₂ 16 4 — 14 1 — —
52 151¹⁄₂ 65¹⁄₂ 16 4 — 14 1 — —
53 151¹⁄₂ 65¹⁄₂ 16 4 — 14 1 — —
54 151¹⁄₂ 61 20¹⁄₂ 2 — 16 1 — —
55 151¹⁄₂ 65¹⁄₂ 16 4 — 14 1 — —
56 151¹⁄₂ 65¹⁄₂ 16 4 — 14 1 — —
57 151¹⁄₂ 65¹⁄₂ 16 4 — 14 1 — —

Douglas had a large plurality of the votes, but could not obtain even a two-thirds vote of the remaining
delegates. After the 57th ballot a motion was made to adjourn the convention to reassemble at Baltimore on the
18th of June. That was adopted by 195 to 55, whereupon President Cushing adjourned the convention to reconvene
in Baltimore. The retiring delegates met at St. Andrew’s Hall, in Charleston, elected Senator Bayard, of Delaware,
president, and after much discussion adopted a platform of its own. After spending four days wholly devoted to
discussion, that body adjourned to reconvene in Richmond on the second Monday in June. This convention
reconvened in Richmond on the 11th of June, with delegates from Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, and Virginia. John Erwin, of Alabama, was made President, when it
adjourned to meet again in Richmond on the 21st of June, and reassembled on that day and awaited the action of
the Democratic seceders of the Baltimore convention, who nominated Breckenridge and Lane, when it accepted
the candidates of the seceders and their platform, and adjourned sine die.
The regular Democratic National Convention reassembled in Baltimore on the 18th of June, and the first three
days were devoted to a wrangling discussion on rules, platforms, rights of delegates, etc. The first disturbing
questions the convention had to meet were the admission of delegates and the right of partial delegations
representing States to cast the full vote of the State. The decision of the convention started another small tidal wave
of secession and Virginia retired. North Carolina followed, then Tennessee, and a portion of Maryland. Later
California and Delaware withdrew with a part of Kentucky, and President Cushing became so disgusted that he
resigned his position and bolted himself. The convention finally proceeded to ballot for President, and two ballots
were had, with the following result:

1st Ballot. 2d Ballot.
STATES.
Douglas. Breckenridge. Guthrie. Douglas. Breckenridge. Guthrie.
Maine 5¹⁄₂ — — 7 — —

New Hampshire 5 — — 5 — —
Vermont 5 — — 5 — —
Massachusetts 10 — — 10 — —
Rhode Island 4 — — 4 — —
Connecticut 3¹⁄₂ 1 — 3¹⁄₂ ¹⁄₂ —
New York 35 — — 35 — —
New Jersey 2¹⁄₂ — — 2¹⁄₂ — —
Pennsylvania 10 3 3 10 7 2¹⁄₂
Maryland 2¹⁄₂ — — 2¹⁄₂ — —
Virginia 1¹⁄₂ — — 3 — —
North Carolina 1 — — 1 — —
Alabama 9 — — 9 — —
Louisiana 6 — — 6 — —
Arkansas 1 ¹⁄₂ — 1¹⁄₂ — —
Missouri 4¹⁄₂ — 1¹⁄₂ 4¹⁄₂ — 1¹⁄₂
Tennessee 3 — — 3 — —
Kentucky — — 4¹⁄₂ 3 — 1¹⁄₂
Ohio 23 — — 23 — —
Indiana 13 — — 13 — —
Illinois 11 — — 11 — —
Michigan 6 — — 6 — —
Wisconsin 5 — — 5 — —
Iowa 4 — — 4 — —
Minnesota 2¹⁄₂ ¹⁄₂ 1 4 — —
173¹⁄₂ 5 10 181¹⁄₂ 7¹⁄₂ 5¹⁄₂

As Douglas had received nearly the unanimous vote of the remaining delegates, it was finally resolved that as he
had two-thirds of all the votes given in the convention, he was the nominee of the party for President. Benjamin
Fitzpatrick, Senator from Alabama, was nominated for Vice-President, receiving 198¹⁄₂ votes to 1 for William C.
Alexander, of New Jersey. Senator Fitzpatrick declined the nomination when notified of it, and the National
Committee supplied the vacancy by the nomination of Herschel V. Johnson, of Georgia. The platform adopted by
this convention was as follows:
1. Resolved, That we, the Democracy of the Union, in convention assembled, hereby declare our affirmance of
the resolutions unanimously adopted and declared as a platform of principles by the Democratic convention at
Cincinnati in the year 1856, believing that Democratic principles are unchangeable in their nature when applied to
the same subject-matters; and we recommend as the only further resolutions the following:
Inasmuch as differences of opinion exist in the Democratic party as to the nature and extent of the powers of a
Territorial legislature, and as to the powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the United States,
over the institution of slavery within the Territories—
2. Resolved, That the Democratic party will abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States on
the questions of constitutional law.

3. Resolved, That it is the duty of the United States to afford ample and complete protection to all its citizens,
whether at home or abroad, and whether native or foreign.
4. Resolved, That one of the necessities of the age, in a military, commercial, and postal point of view, is speedy
communication between the Atlantic and Pacific States; and the Democratic party pledge such constitutional
government aid as will insure the construction of a railroad to the Pacific Coast at the earliest practicable period.
5. Resolved, That the Democratic party are in favor of the acquisition of the island of Cuba, on such terms as
shall be honorable to ourselves and just to Spain.
6. Resolved, That the enactments of State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave law
are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effects.
7. Resolved, That it is in accordance with the interpretation of the Cincinnati platform, that, during the existence
of the Territorial governments, the measure of restriction, whatever it may be, imposed by the Federal Constitution
on the power of the Territorial Legislature over the subject of the domestic relations, as the same has been, or shall
hereafter be, finally determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, should be respected by all good
citizens, and enforced with promptness and fidelity by every branch of the General Government.
The seceders from the Baltimore convention, who were really representing the seceders from the Charleston
convention then in session at Richmond, immediately organized a new convention in the Front Street Theatre, of
Baltimore, with 21 States fully or partially represented. Caleb Cushing was made chairman, and after adopting the
two-thirds rule, a ballot was had for President, all of the votes being cast for J. C. Breckenridge, of Kentucky, by
the following States:

Vermont ¹⁄₂
Massachusetts 8
New York 2
Pennsylvania 4
Maryland 4¹⁄₂
Virginia 11¹⁄₂
North Carolina 8¹⁄₂
Georgia 10
Florida 3
Alabama 9
Louisiana 6
Mississippi 7
Texas 4
Arkansas 4
Missouri 1
Tennessee 9¹⁄₂
Kentucky 4¹⁄₂
Minnesota 1
California 4
Oregon 3

Breckenridge, having received the unanimous vote of the convention, was declared the candidate with great
enthusiasm, and Joseph Lane, of Oregon, received a like unanimous vote for Vice-President on the 1st ballot. The

convention then adopted the following platform, being the same that had been reported to the Charleston
convention by the majority of the platform committee:
Resolved, That the platform adopted by the Democratic party at Cincinnati be affirmed, with the following
explanatory resolutions:
1. That the government of a Territory organized by an act of Congress is provisional and temporary; and during
its existence all citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their property in the Territory,
without their rights either of person or of property being destroyed or impaired by Congressional legislation.
2. That it is the duty of the Federal Government, in all its departments, to protect, when necessary, the rights of
persons and property in the Territories, and wherever else its constitutional authority extends.
3. That when the settlers in a Territory, having an adequate population, form a State constitution, the right of
sovereignty commences, and, being consummated by admission into the Union, they stand on an equal footing
with the people of other States; and the State thus organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union, whether
its constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of slavery.
4. That the Democratic party are in favor of the acquisition of the island of Cuba, on such terms as shall be
honorable to ourselves and just to Spain, at the earliest practicable moment.
5. That the enactments of State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave law are hostile
in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.
6. That the Democracy of the United States recognize it as the imperative duty of this Government to protect the
naturalized citizen in all his rights, whether at home or in foreign lands, to the same extent as its native-born
citizens.
Whereas, One of the greatest necessities of the age, in a political, commercial, postal, and military point of view,
is a speedy communication between the Pacific and Atlantic coasts—
Therefore be it Resolved, That the Democratic party do hereby pledge themselves to use every means in their
power to secure the passage of some bill, to the extent of the constitutional authority of Congress, for the
construction of a Pacific railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, at the earliest practicable
moment.
A convention of delegates, representing the Constitutional Union party, met at Baltimore on the 9th of May and
nominated John Bell, of Tennessee, for President, and Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, for Vice-President. Two
ballots were had, as follows:

1st Ballot. 2d Ballot.
John Bell 68¹⁄₂ 138
Samuel Houston 57 69
John M. Botts 9¹⁄₂ 7
John McLean 21 1
J. J. Crittendon 28 1
Edward Everett 25 9¹⁄₂
William Goggin 3 —
William A. Graham 22 18
William L. Sharkey 7 8¹⁄₂
William C. Rieves 13 —

Mr. Bell was declared the unanimous choice of the convention, and Mr. Everett was unanimously nominated
without the formality of a ballot. The following platform was adopted by this convention:

Whereas, Experience has demonstrated that platforms adopted by the partisan conventions of the country have
had the effect to mislead and deceive the people, and at the same time to widen the political divisions of the
country by the creation and encouragement of geographical and sectional parties, therefore—
Resolved, That it is both the part of patriotism and of duty to recognize no political principle other than the
Constitution of the country, the union of the States, and the enforcement of the laws, and that, as representatives of
the constitutional Union men of the country in national convention assembled, we hereby pledge ourselves to
maintain, protect, and defend, separately and unitedly, these great principles of public liberty and national safety,
against all enemies at home and abroad, believing that thereby peace may once more be restored to the country, the
rights of the people and of the States re-established, and the Government again placed in that condition of justice,
fraternity, and equality which, under the example and Constitution of our fathers, has solemnly bound every citizen
of the United States to maintain a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the
common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
It will be noticed that the American party had entirely disappeared as a political factor in 1860, and what was
called the Constitutional Union party had its origin from a number of old and conservative Americans who could
not follow either of the old parties. The movement originated chiefly with the friends of General Houston, of
Texas, who had separated from the Democratic party and was elected Governor of his State after he identified
himself with the American organization. It was expected by those who did the preliminary work of organizing the
Constitutional Union party that Houston would be made the candidate for President, and it will be seen that on the
1st ballot he was within 9 votes of Bell. The movement gained unexpected strength through the North, and when
the delegates assembled at Baltimore a majority of them regarded it as a necessity to nominate two of the ablest,
cleanest, and most conservative men of the country, and John Bell was taken because it was known that he could
command a much larger vote from the old Whigs and Americans of the South, where the Republicans could have
no votes, than any other candidate. The American party never reappeared in the political arena after 1856, when it
succeeded in carrying the electoral vote of Maryland for Fillmore.
The contest was one of great activity, with much more bitterness exhibited by the Democratic factions toward
each other than either displayed toward the Republicans. Douglas took the stump and spoke as far South as New
Orleans, throughout the West, in various places in New York and other Eastern States. His speeches were the ablest
and most aggressive ever delivered in a national contest. Lincoln, Breckenridge, and Bell took no prominent
individual part in the battle. One of the peculiar features of the campaign of 1860 was the development of a war
spirit in the North that was quickened by the organization known as “The Wide-Awakes.” They were Republican
organizations uniformed by caps and capes, and each one carrying a lantern in night processions. Many of them
drilled as military companies, for the threat of war came up with almost every echo from the South. The young
men of the North, and especially the young men just from our colleges, entered largely and very enthusiastically
into the Lincoln ranks, and in no previous Presidential battle was there such able and general discussion of public
questions on the hustings. The slavery question had presented a new phase to the people of the North. It was not a
mere battle against slavery, although that appealed very strongly to the convictions of most of the Republicans, but
the South had, by the deliverances of its leading men, made the issue directly against the mastery of the free labor
of the North. It was denounced by some of the ablest Southern leaders as unworthy of respect or recognition,
holding that labor was menial, and that the North was made up very largely of “small-fisted farmers” and “greasy
mechanics,” and Senator Chestnut, of South Carolina, who delivered the most honest and one of the ablest
speeches on the labor question, compared the slave labor of the South most favorably with the “mud-sills of the
North.” This attitude of the South logically brought the most intelligent labor classes of all conditions into the
support of the Republican ticket to vindicate their own manhood and independence. The following table presents
the popular and electoral vote:

Popular Vote. Electoral Vote.

STATES. Abraham Stephen A. John C. John
Lincoln, Douglas, Breckenridge, Bell, Lincoln. Douglas. Breckenridge. Bell.
Ill. Ill. Ky. Tenn.
Maine 62,811 26,693 6,368 2,046 8 — — —
New
37,519 25,881 2,112 441 5 — — —
Hampshire

Vermont 33,808 6,849 218 1,969 5 — — —
Massachusetts 106,533 34,372 5,939 22,331 13 — — —
Rhode Island 12,244 [18] ——— ——— 4 — — —
7,707
Connecticut 43,792 15,522 14,641 3,291 6 — — —
New York 362,646 312,510[18] ——— ——— 35 — — —
New Jersey 58,324 62,801[18] ——— ——— 4 3 — —
Pennsylvania 268,030 16,765 178,871[18] 12,776 27 — — —
Delaware 3,815 1,023 7,337 3,864 — — 3 —
Maryland 2,294 5,966 42,482 41,760 — — 8 —
Virginia 1,929 16,290 74,323 74,681 — — — 15
North
——— 2,701 48,539 44,990 — — 10 —
Carolina
South
——— ——— ——— ——— — — 8 —
Carolina[17]
Georgia ——— 11,590 51,889 42,886 — — 10 —
Florida ——— 367 8,543 5,437 — — 3 —
Alabama ——— 13,651 48,831 27,875 — — 9 —
Mississippi ——— 3,283 40,797 25,040 — — 7 —
Louisiana ——— 7,625 22,861 20,204 — — 6 —
Texas ——— ——— 47,548 15,438 [18] — — 4 —
Arkansas ——— 5,227 28,732 20,094 — — 4 —
Missouri 17,028 58,801 31,317 58,372 — 9 — —
Tennessee ——— 11,350 64,709 69,274 — — — 12
Kentucky 1,364 25,651 53,143 66,058 — — — 12
Ohio 231,610 187,232 11,405 12,194 23 — — —
Michigan 88,480 65,057 805 405 6 — — —
Indiana 139,033 115,509 12,295 5,306 13 — — —
Illinois 172,161 160,215 2,404 4,913 11 — — —
Wisconsin 86,110 65,021 888 161 5 — — —
Minnesota 22,069 11,920 748 62 4 — — —
Iowa 70,409 55,111 1,048 1,763 4 — — —
California 39,173 38,516 34,334 6,817 4 — — —
Oregon 5,270 3,951 5,006 183 3 — — —
Totals 1,866,452 1,375,157 847,953 590,631 180 12 72 39

The election of Lincoln was the second great political revolution in the history of the country, and it came with
fearful import. The revolution won by Jefferson in 1800 simply displaced the Federalists, gave authority to the
Republicans, and liberalized the policy of the Government. The revolution that brought Lincoln into the
Presidency was the first popular expression emphasizing the purpose of the nation to halt the extension of slavery;
and while the Republican policy meant no more than to prevent slavery extension, it was well understood in the

South that it menaced the safety of slavery even where it was then undisputed. The Southerners had little tolerance
for Republicanism. They had seen it grow from the despised Abolition cranks to the Republican party that had
dominated Congress before it elected a President. Republicans in Congress were seldom treated with respect by
their Southern associates, and often the most wanton and flagrant insults were given them not only on the floor of
the House but on other occasions.
Personal encounters disgraced the record of both House and Senate, and the most respectable term the South
ever applied to antislavery members was that of “Black Republican.” Even in Philadelphia, that became the most
loyal of all cities, nearly the whole commercial and financial interests were arrayed against Lincoln, because they
regarded the Republican party as disturbers of national tranquillity and of all the interests of trade. So strong was
the conservative element among the old Whigs in that State that the name of Republican had to be discarded.
Curtin was elected Governor as the candidate of the “People’s party,” and the delegates to the Chicago convention
represented only that organization. When Lincoln’s election was announced the Democrats could not reconcile
themselves to the mastery of a party they had so openly and persistently despised.
I witnessed an interesting episode in Philadelphia, on the night of Curtin’s election. The Prince of Wales was
then on a visit to this country, and had just arrived at the Continental Hotel in Philadelphia. My headquarters as
chairman of the Lincoln committee were at the Girard House immediately opposite, and I saw the handsome
young Prince, then a picture of manly vigor and beauty, stand on the Chestnut Street balcony for an hour,
surrounded by his suite of nobles, watching what he regarded as the dying agonies of the Republic. The main
streets of the city were crowded with shouting, wrangling, and rioting partisans, and the Prince obviously
congratulated himself that he had just happened in this country in time to see its angry dissolution. He witnessed
the riotous enthusiasm of the Republicans, and the much more riotous madness of the defeated party, until he
wearied of it, and he was astounded the next morning to discover that the city was as quiet and serene as an
average Philadelphia Sunday.
Lincoln brought to the Presidency the strongest personality that has ever adorned the highest trust of the nation.
It is studied with increased interest as time passes onward in its flight, and it is worthy of extended notice here. I
had not met Lincoln personally until after his election. I had attended the Chicago convention as chairman of the
State committee along with Curtin, and bore some humble part in aiding the nomination of Lincoln; and my
correspondence with him during the campaign would have made one of the most interesting of Lincoln relics, but
unfortunately the letters were destroyed when Chambersburg, including my own house, was burnt by General
McCausland.
Pennsylvania was the battle ground, and he naturally tried to keep in close touch with it. His letters were always
kind and hopeful, sometimes quaint, and always going directly to the point of winning the State. He communicated
with me every week from the time I opened headquarters early in June until after the election, and I prized more
highly the Lincoln correspondence of that struggle than any of all the many valued letters I have ever received. I
think it safe to say that he was as familiar with the details of the contest in Pennsylvania as I was myself, and knew
every element of strength and every element of weakness in our lines. He was never enthusiastic or sentimental,
but always thoroughly practical, with occasional flashes of his exquisite Western humor.
After such intercourse with Lincoln, lasting from the beginning to the close of the great battle of his life, I of
course had formed what I supposed to be an intelligent and accurate estimate of the character and attributes of the
man, but I never had a glimpse of the grandeur of Lincoln’s character until I met him personally at his home in
Springfield on the 3d of January, 1861. A contest over the appointment of Cameron to the Cabinet, in which I took
part, in opposition to Cameron, made Lincoln telegraph me on the 2d of January to visit him at Springfield. I was
then a member of the Senate; the Legislature was just about to meet, and I made as hurried a trip as possible. I
reached Springfield about seven o’clock on the evening of the 3d, having telegraphed him in advance that I would
arrive at that hour and must return at eleven. I went from the depot directly to his house, and when I rang the bell
the door was opened by Lincoln himself, and I saw no other person during my stay.
I think I did not well conceal my disappointment when I stood before him in the dimly lighted hall looking up
into the face of the new President. There was nothing in his appearance calculated to make a favorable impression
at first sight. He was illy clad, ungraceful in movement, and his rudely chiselled face, that was always sad in
repose, clearly portrayed the fretting anxieties which his election to the Presidency to meet the severest trial of the
Republic had brought upon him. He had then decided to appoint Cameron to the Cabinet, against which I had
protested, and he had sent for me to know whether there were good reasons for a change of judgment. We sat down
in his plainly furnished parlor, and for an hour or more he heard me patiently with evident interest. During this part

of the conversation he said but little, but gave many incisive questions to be answered. He did not exhibit a single
trace of humor, and it seemed to me most of the time as if I were making my appeal to a sphinx. He gave no sign
whatever as to whether I impressed him or not, and when I left him I had not a single clue by which to judge what
importance he had attached to my arguments, but before he retired that night he wrote a letter to Cameron revoking
the appointment, and suggesting that Cameron should regard the position as tendered, and give a letter of
declination.
In that letter, which can be found in Nicolay and Hay’s “Life of Lincoln,” he uses this language: “You will say
this comes of an interview with McClure, and this is partly but not wholly true.” The result was that the position of
Secretary of War was held open until Lincoln arrived in Washington, when Seward and Weed finally prevailed
upon the President to give the position to Cameron. He advised me of his purpose after he had decided, and was
much gratified for the assurance that no factional hostility would be made against either Cameron or the
administration. Seward and Weed were much embittered at Curtin and Lane for defeating Seward at Chicago, and
they dealt a retributive blow by securing the appointment of Cameron, as Cameron and Curtin were never in
political accord after the bitter struggle they had for Senator in 1855.
It was not until after the question of the Cabinet appointment was dismissed that I had an opportunity to see
something of Lincoln as he was. It was my part to do the talking on the Cabinet issue; after that it was his part to
talk, and he gradually developed all the great and grand qualities of his character. He was appalled at the prospect
of civil war being the sequel of his election to the Presidency, and above all things, he wanted peace if consistent
with the line of duty. He fully appreciated that he was confronted by graver problems than had ever beset
American statesmanship, and that he was compelled to meet the great issue of the threatened dismemberment of
the Republic.
He was painfully and profoundly impressed with the fearful responsibility that devolved upon him, but the first
great attribute of his character developed by this discussion, or rather by his statements of the situation, was his
unswerving fidelity to duty regardless of all personal or political interests, and even regardless of life itself. He
well understood that armed rebellion was apparently inevitable, and that he must meet the most appalling peril that
ever confronted our free government, and one for which neither the history of this Government nor of any other
Government of the world furnished precedents to guide him in his course. The right of secession had been claimed
and denied since the formation of the Constitution with almost equal ability and integrity, and there he was,
crowned with the laurels of the highest trust of the civilized world, with the prospect of a nearly united South in
rebellion, and the North divided—and intensely divided—as to the power of the Government to maintain the unity
of the States by force. I heard Lincoln in this conversation but a short time before I discovered that he had but one
purpose, from which no interests could swerve him, and that was to perform his duty with fidelity and accept the
consequences. He felt that as a Republican President he would owe it to his party to give it the advantages of
power; yet he understood that the Government could not be maintained without the co-operation of the Democrats.
My next meeting with Lincoln was under circumstances well calculated to study his true character intelligently.
I was one of a dozen or more who dined with him at what is now the Commonwealth Hotel in Harrisburg on the
evening of the 22d of February, 1861. The dinner was given by Governor Curtin to the President-elect, and I
believe that none of the guests are now living but myself. The story of Lincoln’s sudden departure on the
memorable midnight journey to Washington from Harrisburg on that night has been many times told, and in no
instance with entire correctness. He arrived in Philadelphia on the evening of February 21, and the published
programme of his journey to Washington was from Philadelphia to Harrisburg on the 22d, and from Harrisburg to
Washington by the Northern Central Railroad through Baltimore on the 23d. He was met in Philadelphia by Mr.
Fenton, President of the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad, and by Pinkerton’s detectives, who
informed him that he could not pass through Baltimore according to his published programme without inviting
assassination, that had been deliberately planned; and the son of Senator Seward brought Lincoln a letter signed by
Seward and General Scott, insisting that he should change his route, because he could not safely pass through
Baltimore if the time of his coming were known.
He was earnestly urged to omit his Harrisburg appointment and take the eleven o’clock train from Philadelphia
to Washington that night, but he peremptorily refused, and left the question to be determined at Harrisburg. He
hoisted the flag on Independence Hall early on the morning of the 22d, and delivered an address that betrayed none
of the serious emotions which must have agonized him at the time. He arrived at Harrisburg early in the afternoon,
where I was one of the legislators to receive him, had a reception and delivered a brief address in the hall of the
House, and soon after five o’clock he sat down to the dinner at the hotel as the guest of Governor Curtin, who was

there advised by Colonel Lamon and Colonel Sumner of the information received in Philadelphia the night before,
and of the necessity of considering the question of changing his route.
Dinner was hastily served, when the servants were cleared from the dining-hall, and Governor Curtin stated the
facts to the dining guests, and insisted that Lincoln’s programme should be changed. Every one present promptly
responded in approval, and the only silent man at the table was Lincoln. I sat near enough to him to watch and
study his face, and there was not a sign of agitation upon it, and when he was called upon to give his views, it was
at once made evident to all that he thought much more of commanding the respect and honor of the nation than of
preserving his life. His answer was substantially, and I think exactly, in these words: “I cannot consent. What
would the nation think of its President stealing into its capital like a thief in the night?” His voice was clear and
distinct, and his cool and earnest manner made his expression painfully pathetic.
Fortunately, among the guests was the late Colonel Thomas A. Scott, and when Governor Curtin declared that
the question was not one for Lincoln to decide, Colonel Scott at once proposed to take charge of the new
programme, and send Lincoln back to Philadelphia on a special train in time to make the eleven o’clock from
Broad and Prime Streets to Washington that night. Scott was a master alike in keenness of perception and swiftness
of execution. He at once directed the Governor to take Lincoln down to the front of the hotel, where there were
multitudes awaiting to cheer them, and loudly call a carriage to take them to the Executive Mansion, as that would
be the natural place for them to go. They entered the carriage, drove up along the river front toward the Executive
Mansion, and then made a detour to reach the depot in thirty minutes, as instructed by Colonel Scott. I
accompanied Colonel Scott to the depot, when he first cleared one track of his line to Philadelphia, forbidding
anything to enter upon it until released, and with his own hands cut all of the few telegraph wires which then came
into Harrisburg. A locomotive and a car were in readiness at the time appointed a square below the depot, where
Lincoln and Curtin arrived with Colonel Lamon, and Lincoln and Lamon entered the car for their journey. When I
shook hands with Lincoln and wished him God’s protection on his journey, he was as cool and deliberate as ever in
his life.
Every precaution had been taken to prevent the knowledge of a change in Lincoln’s programme being known to
any who might possibly communicate by telegraph, and when the wires were all cut we felt assured that unless
Lincoln should be accidentally detected in Philadelphia, none would know of his journey until he arrived at
Washington. But one person in Philadelphia was advised of the movement, and he was Superintendent Kenney, of
the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad, still prominently connected with its service, who was
instructed by Colonel Scott to meet Lincoln at the Pennsylvania depot and conduct him to the Broad and Prime
station. Beyond Superintendent Kenney, no one outside of the few in Harrisburg who had arranged and started
Lincoln on his journey had any knowledge of the change in his route.
He was received by Superintendent Kenney in a carriage, taken to the Broad and Prime station, where a section
of a sleeping car had been engaged for him, entered it without attracting attention, and at six o’clock the next
morning he was in Washington. We had a sleepless and a terribly long and anxious night at Harrisburg, but about
six o’clock Colonel Scott reunited the wires in his railroad station, and received the despatch: “Plums delivered
Nuts safely,” which announced the safe arrival of the President.

ANDREW JOHNSON

THE LINCOLN-McCLELLAN CONTEST
1864
The average intelligent student of our Civil War a generation after the
conflict ended, with Lincoln’s achievements in the grateful remembrance of
every patriot, would naturally assume that Lincoln’s re-election to the
Presidency in 1864 was never in any measure doubtful; but in fact three
months after his renomination in Baltimore his defeat by General
McClellan was generally apprehended by his friends and frankly conceded
by Lincoln himself. On the 23d of August, 1864, he wrote the following
with his signature appended:
“This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that
this administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to co-
operate with the President-elect so as to save the Union between the
election and the inauguration, as he will have secured his election on such
grounds that he cannot possibly save it afterward.”
This paper he sealed and delivered to Secretary Welles with notice not to
open it until after the election.
There was very earnest opposition to Lincoln’s renomination by men of
eminent ability and influential leadership in the Republican party. Chase,
Wade, Henry Winter Davis, and Horace Greeley were bitterly opposed to
accepting him as the Republican candidate for the second contest, as they
believed that he could not be elected. In addition to these, Sumner was not
heartily for him; Stevens was earnestly opposed to the President because he
had not pressed confiscation and other punishments against the South, and
the extreme radical wing of the Republican party was aggressive in its
hostility. Lincoln’s strength was with the people, and they overwhelmed the
leaders who sought his overthrow.
The only exhibition of weakness I ever saw in Lincoln was exhibited
during what might be called the contest for his renomination. There was, in
point of fact, no contest at all, as after all the efforts of the opposing leaders
had been exhausted the Republican people rallied to his support and

asserted their mastery. He was painfully impressed with the apprehension
that he might be defeated in the convention, and on a number of occasions I
heard him discuss the question with a degree of interest that was painful.
Even after a majority of all the delegates to the convention had been
positively instructed for him, and certainly two-thirds of the remainder were
publicly pledged to his support, he could not dismiss the fears of his
possible defeat.
I visited him several times within a month of the convention, in
obedience to his telegrams, when he discussed only the political dangers
which beset him. He told me that his name would go into history darkly
shadowed by a fraternal war that he would be held responsible for
inaugurating if he were unable to continue in office to conquer the
Rebellion and restore the Union.
Lincoln was human, as are all men, and a more anxious candidate I have
never known. The last time I conferred with him on the subject was within
two weeks of the meeting of the convention, and I could hardly treat with
respect his anxiety about his renomination. He had given close study to the
election of delegates, and I called his attention to the fact that a decided
majority were positively instructed for him, and that he certainly knew that
a majority of the others could not be diverted from him. He had to admit
that there seemed to be no plausible reason for doubting the result, but, with
a merry twinkle of the eye, he said:
“Well, McClure, I don’t quite forget that I was nominated by a
convention that was two-thirds for the other fellow.”
I had to admit that he had been nominated by a convention that was two-
thirds for Seward, but no such conditions could arise as presented
themselves in the Seward fight to swerve the convention from its purpose.
So anxious was he about the situation that he made the very unreasonable
request of me to become a delegate-at-large from Pennsylvania when I had
already been unanimously elected a delegate from my Congressional
district. I vainly attempted to convince him that it mattered not whether I
was a delegate-at-large or a district delegate, as my power to serve him
would be just the same; but he persisted in urging me to go before the State
convention with the ungracious request to elect me a delegate-at-large—a

position that was sought as one of honor—when I was already a member of
the delegation from my district.
The only possible explanation I could conceive was that, as Cameron was
certain to be a delegate-at-large, he desired me to be one with Cameron, and
thus have both the Cameron and Curtin wings of the party equally
represented at the head of the delegation. Fortunately, political conditions
enabled me to carry out his wish, and Cameron and I were elected on the
1st ballot by a nearly unanimous vote.
I never suspected Lincoln’s purpose in asking me to change my position
as a delegate until three days before the meeting of the convention, when I
went to Washington in obedience to his summons. He then asked me to vote
for the nomination of Andrew Johnson for Vice-President. He had Cameron
already committed to the nomination of Johnson as a War Democrat to
succeed Hamlin, but he gave me no intimation of Cameron’s position. I was
favorable to the renomination of Hamlin, but after hearing Mr. Lincoln’s
reasons for the request he made I would have voted for Johnson in
obedience to a sense of public duty, although Lincoln was not wrong in
assuming that I was likely to vote for any candidate for Vice-President he
specially desired. He was not opposed to Hamlin, but he knew that the
success of the party depended upon bringing into the Republican fold a
large body of War Democrats who had never become Republicans, such as
Judge Holt, General Dix, General Butler, and Governor Johnson, and he
wished to nationalize the Republican party.
But the conclusive reason why he desired the nomination of Johnson was
that it would most effectually prevent the recognition of the Confederacy by
England and France. That was the great peril in the last year of the war, and
Lincoln believed that in no way could the success of the Government in the
suppression of the Rebellion be so clearly presented to the world as by
taking Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, who had filled every important
position within the gift of his State, and elect him to the Vice-Presidency
from a reorganized rebellious State in the heart of the Confederacy. It is
needless to say that, notwithstanding my prejudice against Johnson, I
agreed to support him; but Lincoln’s caution prevented him from giving me
any intimation as to the attitude of Cameron, who was equally pledged to
Lincoln in the Johnson cause. Cameron and I met at the convention in
Baltimore on June 7 without either knowing the position of the other, and as

our political relations were not of the confidential order, although our
personal intercourse was always pleasant, it required some diplomacy for us
to reach an understanding. Cameron had been committed to Hamlin, with
whom he had served in the Senate, and was somewhat embarrassed, and he
suggested that while he was friendly to Hamlin he did not believe that he
could be nominated, to which I agreed. He then proposed that we should
line up the two factions of the State in the delegation and cast a unanimous
vote for Hamlin when the State was first called, and change it to a
unanimous vote for Johnson when the roll-call ended, to which I readily
assented; and with some effort we had a harmonious delegation on that line
with the exception of Thaddeus Stevens, who sat beside me when I cast my
vote for Johnson, and who with a grim smile said to me: “Can’t you find a
candidate for Vice-President without going down into a d——d rebel
province?” The vote of the State was, however, recorded unanimously for
Johnson, and it was the like efforts of Lincoln in his very quiet and earnest
way that made Andrew Johnson Vice-President and President.
The Republican National Convention met in Baltimore on the 7th of
June, 1864, and the venerable Rev. Dr. Robert J. Breckinridge, of Kentucky,
was temporary president and Ex-Governor William Dennison, of Ohio,
permanent president. Every State outside of the Southern Confederacy, and
some that were partially inside of it, were fully represented. There was no
contest for President, as the nomination of Lincoln was conceded. He
received the unanimous vote of every State on 1st ballot with the exception
of the Missouri delegation, that was instructed for Grant, and that was
promptly changed to Lincoln to make the vote unanimous. There was a
considerable undercurrent in the convention that was not friendly to
Lincoln, but so powerless that no attempt was made to assert it.
The important contest of the convention was for Vice-President. Until a
short time before the meeting it was generally expected that Vice-President
Hamlin would be renominated with President Lincoln; but when the
delegates came together, opposition to Hamlin was developed and
unexpectedly to many of the members, and it soon became evident that a
powerful organization had been quietly crystallized to nominate Andrew
Johnson, of Tennessee, then Military Governor of that State. The 1st ballot
gave Andrew Johnson 200 and 150 for Hamlin and 108 for Dickinson, with
61 votes scattered; but before the ballot closed Pennsylvania led off by

changing from Hamlin and giving a unanimous vote for Johnson. Stevens
was opposed to the change, but finding himself alone in the delegation, he
permitted his vote to be recorded with the majority. Other changes were
made, and the 1st and only ballot was finally announced as 494 for Johnson,
17 for Dickinson, and 9 for Hamlin. The following platform was prepared
and reported to the convention by Henry J. Raymond, of New York, and
unanimously adopted:
1. Resolved, That it is the highest duty of every American citizen to
maintain against all their enemies the integrity of the Union, and the
permanent authority of the Constitution and laws of the United States; and
that, laying aside all differences of political opinion, we pledge ourselves as
Union men, animated by a common sentiment, and aiming at a common
object, to do everything in our power to aid the Government in quelling by
force of arms the rebellion now raging against its authority, and in bringing
to the punishment due to their crimes the rebels and traitors arrayed against
it.
2. Resolved, That we approve the determination of the Government of the
United States not to compromise with rebels, or to offer them any terms of
peace, except such as may be based upon an unconditional surrender of
their hostility and a return to their just allegiance to the Constitution and
laws of the United States; and that we call upon the Government to
maintain this position, and to prosecute the war with the utmost possible
vigor to the complete suppression of the rebellion, in full reliance upon the
self-sacrificing patriotism, the heroic valor, and the undying devotion of the
American people to their country and its free institutions.
3. Resolved, That as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes the
strength of this rebellion, and as it must be, always and everywhere, hostile
to the principles of republican government, justice and the national safety
demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic; and
that, while we uphold and maintain the acts and proclamations by which the
Government, in its own defence, has aimed a deathblow at this gigantic
evil, we are in favor, furthermore, of such amendment to the Constitution,
to be made by the people in conformity with its provisions, as shall
terminate and forever prohibit the existence of slavery within the limits or
the jurisdiction of the United States.

4. Resolved, That the thanks of the American people are due to the
soldiers and sailors of the army and navy who have perilled their lives in
defence of their country and in vindication of the honor of its flag; that the
nation owes to them some permanent recognition of their patriotism and
their valor, and ample and permanent provision for those of their survivors
who have received disabling and honorable wounds in the service of the
country; and that the memories of those who have fallen in its defence shall
be held in grateful and everlasting remembrance.
5. Resolved, That we approve and applaud the practical wisdom, the
unselfish patriotism, and the unswerving fidelity with which Abraham
Lincoln has discharged, under circumstances of unparalleled difficulty, the
great duties and responsibilities of the Presidential office; that we approve
and endorse, as demanded by the emergency and essential to the
preservation of the nation and as within the provisions of the Constitution,
the measures and acts which he has adopted to defend the nation against its
open and secret foes; that we approve, especially, the proclamation of
emancipation and the employment as Union soldiers of men heretofore held
in slavery; and that we have full confidence in his determination to carry
these and all other constitutional measures essential to the salvation of the
country into full and complete effect.
6. Resolved, That we deem it essential to the general welfare that
harmony should prevail in the national councils, and we regard as worthy of
public confidence and official trust those only who cordially endorse the
principles proclaimed in these resolutions, and which should characterize
the administration of the Government.
7. Resolved, That the Government owes to all men employed in its
armies, without regard to distinction of color, the full protection of the laws
of war; and that any violation of these laws, or of the usages of civilized
nations in time of war, by the rebels now in arms, should be made the
subject of prompt and full redress.
8. Resolved, That foreign immigration, which in the past has added so
much to the wealth, development of resources, and increase of power to this
nation—the asylum of the oppressed of all nations—should be fostered and
encouraged by a liberal and just policy.

9. Resolved, That we are in favor of a speedy construction of the railroad
to the Pacific coast.
10. Resolved, That the national faith, pledged for the redemption of the
public debt, must be kept inviolate, and that for this purpose we recommend
economy and rigid responsibility in the public expenditures, and a vigorous
and just system of taxation; and that it is the duty of every loyal State to
sustain the credit and promote the use of the national currency.
11. Resolved, That we approve the position taken by the Government,
that the people of the United States can never regard with indifference the
attempt of any European power to overthrow by force or to supplant by
fraud the institutions of any republican Government on the western
continent; and that they will view with extreme jealousy, as menacing to the
peace and independence of their own country, the efforts of any such power
to obtain new foot-holds for monarchical governments, sustained by foreign
military force, in near proximity to the United States.
The sixth resolution, read in the light of the present, would seem to be a
very harmless and proper expression on general principles, but every
member of the convention voted for it, well understanding that it meant a
demand from the supreme authority of the party that Montgomery Blair
should retire from the position of Postmaster-General. He was not in
harmony with the policy of the administration, but Lincoln hesitated to
remove him, as their personal relations were always pleasant. Some weeks
after the convention had adjourned the more earnest opponents of
Postmaster-General Blair were disappointed that Lincoln did not remove
him, and several of them called upon Lincoln to explain why he had not
obeyed the command of the party. Lincoln answered that he fully
recognized the right of the Republican party, through its highest tribunal, to
instruct him as to members of the Cabinet, but he added, with a significant
twinkle of the eye, that those resolutions related to the next administration
and not to the present. Soon thereafter, however, Mr. Blair resigned, and
Governor Dennison, of Ohio, succeeded him.
The Democratic convention met in Chicago on August 29, and Horatio
Seymour was permanent president. It was on the 23d of the same month
that Lincoln had written the paper before referred to, expressing his settled
belief that he would be defeated. Grant had been hammering away between

the Wilderness and the James with appalling sacrifice of life and without
visible substantial results. Sherman had been fighting his way toward
Atlanta, and had never won anything approaching a victory over Johnson.
Thus the summer was well-nigh ended without the inspiration of victory,
and the long, fearful strain and sacrifice suffered by the people made many
patriotic hearts inclined to accept peace on any reasonable terms.
The Democratic convention thus met just when the country was most
profoundly impressed with the terrible sacrifices of war and the
apprehension that the military power of the Confederacy could not be
conquered. It was this condition that made the Democrats commit the fatal
blunder of declaring in their national platform, “As the sense of the
American people that, after four years of failure to restore the Union by the
experiment of war, under the pretence of a military necessity of a war
power higher than the Constitution,” considerations of humanity, liberty,
and the public welfare demand “that immediate efforts be made for a
cessation of hostilities with a view to an ultimate convention of all the
States.” Had the election been held at that time, McClellan would have been
elected, but the delegates from the Democratic convention when on their
way home after their fatal deliverance against the war met the people at
every city and village cheering to the echo over the capture of Atlanta, and
by night they found almost a continuous line of torches displayed by
crowds cheering themselves hoarse over the great victory that was the
beginning of the end of the war.
It was universally accepted by the Democrats before the Chicago
convention met that General George B. McClellan would be their candidate.
He had been in retirement at Orange, N. J., after he had been removed from
the command of the Army of the Potomac in the fall of 1862, and his
friends were very enthusiastic in his support. It was believed that he had
sufficient flavor of the soldier to hold war Democrats, and he was known to
be in very positive antagonism with the whole political and war policy of
the President. He was a man of blameless character and altogether the
strongest candidate upon whom the Democrats could unite. The 1st and
only ballot for President in the convention gave 174 votes to McClellan,
with 38 for Thomas H. Seymour, of Connecticut, 12 for Horatio Seymour,
of New York, with ¹⁄₂ vote for Charles O’Conor, of New York, and 1¹⁄₂ votes
blank. Changes were made before the ballot closed, giving McClellan 202¹⁄₂

votes to 28¹⁄₂ for Thomas H. Seymour, and the nomination of McClellan
was made unanimous with great enthusiasm.
There was only one ballot for Vice-President, as follows:

James Guthrie, Ky. 65¹⁄₂
Geo. H. Pendleton, Ohio 55¹⁄₂
Lazarus W. Powell, Ky. 32¹⁄₂
George W. Cass, Pa. 26
Daniel W. Voorhees, Ind. 13
J. H. Caton 16
Augustus C. Dodge, Iowa 9
John S. Phelps, Mo. 8

Very soon after the 2d ballot began Mr. Guthrie’s name was withdrawn,
followed by the withdrawal of other candidates, and Mr. Pendleton was
nominated unanimously. The following platform was adopted with little
opposition:
Resolved, That in the future, as in the past, we will adhere with
unswerving fidelity to the Union under the Constitution as the only solid
foundation of our strength, security, and happiness as a people, and as a
framework of Government equally conducive to the welfare and prosperity
of all the States, both Northern and Southern.
Resolved, That this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the
American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the
experiment of war, during which, under the pretence of a military necessity,
or war power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been
disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden
down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired—
justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate
efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate
convention of the States, or other peaceable means, to the end that, at the

earliest practicable moment, peace may be restored on the basis of the
Federal union of the States.
Resolved, That the direct interference of the military authorities of the
United States in the recent elections held in Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri,
and Delaware was a shameful violation of the Constitution; and a repetition
of such acts in the approaching election will be held as revolutionary, and
resisted with all the means and power under our control.
Resolved, That the aim and object of the Democratic party is to preserve
the Federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired; and they hereby
declare that they consider that the administrative usurpation of
extraordinary and dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution; the
subversion of the civil by military law in States not in insurrection; the
arbitrary military arrest, imprisonment, trial, and sentence of American
citizens in States where civil law exists in full force; the suppression of
freedom of speech and of the press; the denial of the right of asylum; the
open and avowed disregard of State rights; the employment of unusual test
oaths; and the interference with and denial of the right of the people to bear
arms in their defence; are calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union
and the perpetuation of a Government deriving its just powers from the
consent of the governed.
Resolved, That the shameful disregard of the administration to its duty in
respect to our fellow-citizens who are now, and long have been, prisoners of
war and in a suffering condition, deserves the severest reprobation, on the
score alike of public policy and common humanity.
Resolved, That the sympathy of the Democratic party is heartily and
earnestly extended to the soldiery of our army and the sailors of our navy,
who are and have been in the field and on the sea, under the flag of our
country; and, in the event of its attaining power, they will receive all the
care, protection, and regard that the brave soldiers and sailors of the
Republic have so nobly earned.
The renomination of Lincoln by the Republican National Convention was
so entirely assured early in the year that the Republican opponents of the
President made a desperate effort to crystallize an opposition to Lincoln of
such formidable character as to compel the national convention to choose
another candidate. The call for the Republican convention to meet at

Baltimore was issued on the 22d of February, and very active efforts were
made by the leaders of the opposition to place a Republican ticket in the
field before Lincoln could be renominated. A mass convention was called,
to meet at Cleveland on the 31st of May, and some three hundred and fifty
responded to the call. John Cochrane, of New York, was made permanent
president, and without the formality of a ballot John C. Fremont was
nominated for President and John Cochrane for Vice-President by
acclamation. Both promptly accepted the nominations, but instead of
inspiring Republican revolt against Lincoln, as was anticipated, the
nominations gave no exhibition of popular strength, and after considerable
conference between the insurgents and the regulars, Fremont and Cochrane
announced their retirement from the contest on the 21st of September, and
urged the re-election of Lincoln. The following platform was adopted by the
Fremont convention:
First. That the Federal Union shall be preserved.
Second. That the Constitution and laws of the United States must be
observed and obeyed.
Third. That the Rebellion must be suppressed by force of arms, and
without compromise.
Fourth. That the rights of free speech, free press, and the habeas corpus
be held inviolate, save in districts where martial law has been proclaimed.
Fifth. That the Rebellion has destroyed slavery, and the Federal
Constitution should be amended to prohibit its re-establishment, and to
secure to all men absolute equality before the law.
Sixth. That integrity and economy are demanded at all times in the
administration of the Government, and that in time of war the want of them
is criminal.
Seventh. That the right of asylum, except for crime and subject to law, is
a recognized principle of American liberty; that any violation of it cannot be
overlooked, and must not go unrebuked.
Eighth. That the national policy known as the “Monroe Doctrine” has
become a recognized principle, and that the establishment of an anti-
republican government on this continent by any foreign power cannot be
tolerated.

Ninth. That the gratitude and support of the nation are due to the faithful
soldiers and the earnest leaders of the Union army and navy for their heroic
achievements of deathless valor in defence of our imperilled country and
civil liberty.
Tenth. That the one-term policy for the Presidency adopted by the people
is strengthened by the force of the existing crisis, and should be maintained
by constitutional amendments.
Eleventh. That the Constitution should be so amended that the President
and Vice-President shall be elected by a direct vote of the people.
Twelfth. That the question of the reconstruction of the rebellious States
belongs to the people, through their representatives in Congress, and not to
the Executive.
Thirteenth. That the confiscation of the lands of the rebels, and their
distribution among the soldiers and actual settlers, is a measure of justice.
The country was prepared, at the time the Democratic platform was
adopted, to receive its demands relating to the war with some respect, but
the aspect of the contest was speedily changed by Sherman’s capture of
Atlanta and Sheridan’s brilliant victories in the Shenandoah Valley. General
McClellan and his friends appreciated the unfortunate expression of the
convention against the war, that was made very generally odious among
loyal people by the thrilling victories of the army, and in his letter of
acceptance, that he delayed long enough to give the fullest consideration to
the subject, he plainly dissented from the war plank of the platform. He
said: “I could not look in the face of my gallant comrades of the army and
navy who have survived so many bloody battles and tell them that their
labors and the sacrifice of so many of our slain and wounded brethren had
been in vain, that we had abandoned that Union for which we have so often
perilled our lives;” to which he added: “No peace can be permanent without
union.”
While the contest had been fairly doubtful and at times exceedingly
gloomy for Lincoln, the victories of Sherman and Sheridan caused a sudden
tidal wave, that utterly overwhelmed McClellan and left him the worst
defeated candidate of history in any contested election, receiving only 21
electoral votes to 212 for Lincoln. The following table gives the popular

and electoral vote, with the soldier vote in a separate table, as cast in the
field:

Popular Vote. Electoral Vote.
STATES.
Lincoln. McClellan. Lincoln. McClellan.
Maine 72,278 47,736 7 —
New Hampshire 36,595 33,034 5 —
Vermont 42,422 13,325 5 —
Massachusetts 126,742 48,745 12 —
Rhode Island 14,343 8,718 4 —
Connecticut 44,693 42,288 6 —
New York 368,726 361,986 33 —
New Jersey 60,723 68,014 — 7
Pennsylvania 296,389 276,308 26 —
Delaware 8,155 8,767 — 3
Maryland 40,153 32,739 7 —
Kentucky 27,786 64,301 — 11
West Virginia 23,223 10,457 5 —
Ohio 265,154 205,568 21 —
Indiana 150,422 130,233 13 —
Illinois 189,487 158,349 16 —
Michigan 85,352 67,370 8 —
Iowa 87,331 49,260 8 —
Wisconsin 79,564 63,875 8 —
Minnesota 25,060 17,375 4 —
Kansas 14,228 3,871 3 —

Missouri 72,991 31,026 11 —
Nevada[19] 9,826 6,594 2 —
California 62,134 43,841 5 —
Oregon 9,888 8,457 3 —
Totals 2,213,665 1,802,237 212 21

Soldier Vote.
STATES.
Lincoln. McClellan.
Maine 4,174 741
New Hampshire 2,066 690
Vermont 243 49
Pennsylvania 26,712 12,349
Maryland 2,800 321
Kentucky 1,194 2,823
Ohio 41,146 9,757
Michigan 9,402 2,959
Iowa 15,178 1,364
Wisconsin 11,372 2,458
California 2,600 237
Totals 116,887 33,748

The army vote of Vermont, Kansas, and Minnesota was not received in
time to be taken into the official count, and part of the vote of Wisconsin
was rejected for informality.
The States of Tennessee and Louisiana also held elections and were
carried for Lincoln, but their votes were not necessary to the election of the

Republican ticket, and although Lincoln earnestly desired that these States
should be recognized and the votes counted, Congress, by joint resolution,
that Lincoln signed with great reluctance, declared that they should not be
recognized, and they were omitted in the final count by Congress.
Pennsylvania was the only Republican State that faltered in the fall
elections of 1864. There was no State ticket to be chosen, and the
Republicans in charge of the campaign assumed that Lincoln would carry
the State without extraordinary efforts, while the friends of McClellan, a
native of the State, with strong individual and social relations, made
exhaustive efforts to give him the victory.
The October election was practically a stand-off, and Lincoln telegraphed
me on the morning after the election to come to Washington. He was much
distressed at the attitude of our State, and apprehensive that New York, with
Horatio Seymour as Governor, one of the ablest Democrats of the country,
might vote for McClellan, as Tammany was then in the very zenith of its
power. I had been Chairman of the State Committee when Lincoln was
elected in 1860, and General Cameron was my successor in 1864. He was
thoroughly competent for the task, but evidently did not appreciate the
perils which confronted him. Lincoln asked me to join Cameron and devote
the intervening month between the October and November elections to
assure a victory. I answered that I could not make the suggestion to
Cameron, as our political relations were not especially friendly, to which he
replied, asking me whether I would do it if so requested by Cameron. I of
course assented, and the following day I received a letter from Cameron at
my home in Chambersburg, requesting me to join him, where I found
Honorable Wayne MacVeagh, who had been the Republican chairman the
year before and who was then not more friendly to Cameron than myself.
We all united in an earnest effort to win the State, always acting in entire
harmony with Cameron and his committee.
I had private quarters at the Continental, while Cameron’s quarters were
at the Girard, and, as requested, advised Lincoln each day of the apparent
progress of the battle. My reports were not so assuring as he desired, for the
friends of McClellan, inspired by the partial victory of October, renewed
their energies for the November fight. Postmaster-General Dennison came
to see me on a special mission from Lincoln about two weeks before the
election to learn the situation as precisely as possible, and I had to tell him

that I saw but little hope of carrying the State on the home vote. The army
vote would doubtless be largely for Lincoln and give him the State, but it
would be declared a “bayonet election,” and with such a result in
Pennsylvania, and New York lost, as was possible, while Lincoln’s election
could not be defeated, as the Southern States did not vote, the moral power
of the new administration to prosecute the war and attain peace would be
greatly impaired. My answer to Lincoln was that I would go to Washington
within a few days if it should appear necessary to take extreme measures to
save the State on the home vote.
As the political conditions did not improve, I telegraphed to Lincoln that
I would meet him at nine o’clock in the evening to discuss the campaign. I
found him nervously anxious about Pennsylvania, although not doubting his
re-election. He knew that New York was trembling in the balance and might
be lost, and his fears were fully warranted, as he had but little over 6000
majority in a million votes. I told him that I had not confidence in the State
being carried by the home vote, but that it could be done without interfering
with the military operations of the army, as Grant was then besieging
Petersburg and Sheridan had whipped the Confederates clear out of the
valley. I suggested that he should in some way have Grant furlough five
thousand Pennsylvania soldiers home for twenty days, and that Sheridan
should do the same, as that vote cast at home would insure a home majority.
He hesitated about making the request of Grant for reasons which I could
not understand, and I then suggested that General Meade was a soldier and
a gentleman, and that he could safely send an order to him as Commander
of the Army of the Potomac, and that Meade would obey it and permit the
order to be returned.
A messenger from the War Office went the next morning to Meade,
bearing the order from Lincoln, brought it back with him, and fully five
thousand Pennsylvania soldiers were furloughed to return home. I said:
“How about Sheridan?” Lincoln’s face brightened and with great
enthusiasm he said:
“Oh, Phil; he’s all right.”
The same order went to Sheridan, of which no record was ever kept, and
Sheridan sent five thousand of his veterans home to vote as they shot, and

Lincoln’s majority on the home vote was 5712, to which the army vote
added 14,363, making a total majority in the State of 20,075.
It is not generally known how earnestly Lincoln labored for compensated
emancipation. He made earnest efforts to save the Border States to the
Union by the assurance of compensation for slaves, and even after all the
slave States south of the Potomac and the Ohio had joined the Confederacy,
he adhered to the policy of compensated emancipation until the day of his
death. In August, 1864, when the political situation presented a very
gloomy aspect, I had a long conference with Lincoln at the White House,
and he then introduced the subject of compensated emancipation.
In that conversation he gave me the first intimation of his purpose to try
and end the war by paying the South $400,000,000 as compensation for the
freedom of the slaves. He had the proposition written out in his own
handwriting, but he well knew that if such a purpose on his part were made
public, it would make his re-election impossible. He discussed it freely and
very earnestly, however, and said that he regarded compensated
emancipation as the only way to restore fellowship between the States. He
did not doubt the ability of the North to overthrow the military power of the
Confederacy, but what he most feared was that the people of the South,
driven to desperation by the severe sacrifices they had suffered, and the
general desolation of their country, that gave them no hope of regaining
prosperity, would make their armies disband into guerrilla squads and
would be implacable in their resentments against the Government.
In all of the many expressions I heard Lincoln make use of, toward the
close of the war, he always exhibited an earnest desire to do something that
would impressively teach the Southern people that they were not to be held
as conquered subjects of a despotic power, but were to come back into the
Union and enjoy the blessings of a reunited people.
Lincoln believed that in no way could he so widely and profoundly
impress the Southern people with the desire of the Government to deal with
them in generous justice as by paying them $400,000,000 as compensation
for the loss of their slaves. I can never forget the earnestness with which he
spoke of this proposition at a time when he did not dare breathe it to the
public. He said the war was costing $4,000,000 a day, and that it would
certainly last for more than four months, thus costing the Government more

than the whole amount he would have gladly given as compensation for the
freedom of the slaves, not to calculate the sacrifice of life and destruction of
property. He fretted because he could not convey to the South what he
believed should be done to close the war and enable them to re-establish
their homes and fruitful fields. He believed in his theory of compensated
emancipation until his death, and he abandoned it only a short time before
the surrender of Lee. He would have suggested it to Vice-President
Stephens, of the Confederacy, at their City Point meeting in the winter of
1865, had not Stephens advised him at the outset that he was instructed by
Jefferson Davis to entertain no proposition that did not perpetuate the
Confederacy, and after his return he wrote a message to Congress in favor
of it, submitted it to his Cabinet, by which it was nearly or quite
unanimously disapproved, and he endorsed upon it the disapproval of the
Cabinet and laid it away.
Lincoln was the most notable combination of sadness and mirth that I
ever met with in any of our public men. His face in repose, under all
circumstances, was one of the saddest I ever beheld. It would brighten in
conversation, and at times would portray a measure of sorrow that could not
be surpassed. He was from his youth much given to melancholy. While he
was known as fond of sports and brimful of humor, a very large portion of
his life was always given to isolation and solitude, when he gave free
latitude to the melancholy tendencies of his mind.
Strange as it may seem, he was always a hopeful man, never pessimistic,
and always inclined when discussing any question to take the bright side.
He was severely conscientious in his convictions and in his actions. He had
faith in the present and greater faith in the future. He had been in early life
what is now commonly called an agnostic, with a strong inclination to
atheism, but in his mature years he never exhibited a trace of it. I have
never known any man who had greater reverence for God than Abraham
Lincoln. Throughout his writings, political and otherwise, will be found
multiplied expressions of his abiding faith in the Great Ruler of nations and
individuals.
In a single sentence to be found in Lincoln’s second inaugural address the
country and the world have the most complete portrayal of his character.
When he was inaugurated for a second term as President, on the 4th of
March, 1865, the military power of the Confederacy was broken, and many

in his position would have exhibited the pride of the victor over the
vanquished on such an occasion; but after stating in the kindest and most
temperate language the duty of himself and of the patriotic people of the
country to protect the Union against dismemberment, he does not utter a
word of resentment against the South. “With malice toward none; with
charity for all,” was the brief and eloquent sentence in which he defined the
duty of those who had then substantially destroyed the power of the
Rebellion. That beautiful expression came from the heart of Abraham
Lincoln, and it profoundly impressed the whole country, then wildly
impassioned by the bitterness of fraternal strife. He knew the resentments
which must confront him in restoring the shattered fragments of the Union,
and his supreme desire was to have the bitterness of the conflict perish
when peace came.
No man who has filled the Presidential chair was so vindictively and
malignantly defamed as was Lincoln in the South. The opponents of the war
in the North were guilty of unpardonable assaults upon his integrity, his
ability, and his methods, but the South had no knowledge of him, as he had
filled no important part in national affairs before his election to the
Presidency; and his humble birth in Kentucky, close by the birthplace of
Jefferson Davis, and his exaggerated rudeness of appearance and manner
made the people of the South ready to believe anything to his discredit. He
was proclaimed throughout the Confederacy as a second Nero; as a bloody
and remorseless butcher; as a vulgar clown who met the sorrows of the
nation with ribald jest. Not a single virtue was conceded to him.
No one could know Lincoln well without seeing some features of his
home life. I have seen him in grave conversation with public men on the
most momentous subjects, when “Tad” Lincoln, his favorite boy, would
rush into the room, bounce on to his father’s lap, throw his arms around his
neck, and play hobby-horse on his foot regardless of all the sacred affairs of
State. There never was a frown from the father, and the fretting questions of
even a great war seemed to perish until “Tad” had completed his romp. The
greatest sorrow of Lincoln’s life shadowed the altar of his own home, and it
was one he had to suffer in silence. The calamity that befell Mrs. Lincoln
after his death was visible to those who had opportunity to see for
themselves at an early period of his administration. Mrs. Lincoln was
mentally unbalanced, but not sufficiently so to prevent the performance of

her social functions, and her vagaries often led to severe reflections upon
the President, at times even to the extent of charging her with sympathy for
the South, as her brothers were prominent in the Southern army.
I first saw Mrs. Lincoln at Harrisburg on the night that Lincoln made his
midnight journey to Washington, and the greatest difficulty we had on that
occasion was to prevent her from creating a scene that would have given
publicity to the movement. I thought her a fool, and was so disgusted with
her that I never spoke to her afterward, although I had frequently gone with
ladies to her receptions. I wronged her, for she was then not wholly
responsible, and soon after Lincoln’s death the climax came, leaving her to
grope out the remainder of her life in the starless midnight of insanity. With
Lincoln’s many other sorrows, considering his love of home and family, it
may be understood how keenly he suffered, and how he was clouded by
shadows for which the world could give no relief.
No man ever came in contact with Abraham Lincoln who did not learn to
love, honor, and even reverence him. His ablest political enemies ever paid
the highest tributes, not only to his personal attributes, but to his masterly
ability, and none surpassed Stephen A. Douglas, the ablest foeman Lincoln
ever met, in his appreciation of Lincoln’s qualities. He had to accept vastly
the gravest responsibilities ever put upon any President of the United States,
and I am quite sure that no other man could have filled Lincoln’s place
during the Civil War with equal safety to the Republic. Had he been
vindictive and resentful his fame would not be without blemish to-day.
What was to me the most beautiful tribute I have ever heard paid to him
came from the lips of Jefferson Davis, when I visited him at his home in
Mississippi some ten years after the war. He never tired of discussing the
character and the actions of Lincoln, and asked me many questions about
his personal qualities. After he had heard all that could be given in the brief
time that I had, he said with a degree of mingled earnestness and pathos that
few could have equalled:
“Next to the destruction of the Confederacy, the death of Abraham
Lincoln was the darkest day the South has ever known.”

THE GRANT-SEYMOUR CONTEST

1868
To the casual reader of our political history, the election and re-election of Grant to the Presidency immediately
after the close of the war would seem to be a result at once logical and inevitable; but there are few of the present
day who have any knowledge of the many obstacles which confronted Grant in his transfer from the highest
military to the highest civil duties of the nation.
It is noted that Grant, the Great Captain of the Age, was elected and re-elected by large majorities; that General
Hayes, another soldier of national fame, succeeded him; that General Garfield, a soldier-statesman, succeeded
Hayes, defeating Hancock, the most brilliant Democratic soldier of the war, by only a few thousands on the
popular vote; that Blaine, the first civilian candidate of the party, was the first Republican to suffer defeat after the
political revolution of 1860; that General Harrison, another honored soldier, was successful as the Republican
candidate in 1888, and that Major McKinley, now Chief Magistrate of the Republic, carried his musket as a private
in the flame of battle, and came out of the war an officer promoted for gallantry. With such a line of military
Presidents, the natural assumption of the student of our political history would be that General Grant’s election
came about because none could question its fitness.
There were very serious obstacles to Grant’s nomination for the Presidency by the Republicans in 1868. First, he
was not a Republican and never had been. He had never voted a Republican ticket, and he never cast a Republican
ballot until after he had been eight years a Republican President. His last vote before he re-entered the army was
cast for a radical pro-slavery Democrat, and he did not even sympathize with Stephen A. Douglas in 1860,
although he lived in Illinois, the home of the great Democratic leader of that day. Second, he was resolutely averse
to being a candidate for the Presidency. He was General of the Army, with freedom to retire without diminution of
pay; he had no political training, and felt himself unfitted for a political career. He was honest and apparently fixed
in his purpose not to become a candidate. These objections at first appeared to be insuperable obstacles to Grant’s
nomination, but he was human, and had he declined the Presidency when it was apparently within his reach, he
would have stood as the only man in the history of the Republic who had refused its crown.

U. S. GRANT

The Democrats were in a hopeless condition, and they at once began a systematic movement to make him their
candidate. This alarmed the Republicans, and they made equally earnest and methodical efforts to make him their

leader. It is doubtful upon which side General Grant would have fallen had it not been for the early estrangement
between President Johnson and himself. Johnson made repeated attempts to overslaugh him either directly or
indirectly. He ordered Grant to Mexico to get him out of the country, but Grant refused to go, and he afterward
made an earnest effort to supersede Grant by calling General Thomas to the command of the army, but Thomas
stubbornly refused to consider the call. As the Republicans were then in bitter warfare against Johnson, Grant
logically found sympathy in Republican circles, and finally, with visible reluctance, he agreed to become the
candidate of the Republicans. Had he been nominated by the Democrats he would have been elected, but his
administration would have greatly conserved and liberalized the Democratic teachings of that day. His final assent
to become the Republican candidate for President was obtained by the late Colonel Forney.
The assassination of Lincoln and the succession of Vice-President Johnson to the Presidency repeated the
political history of Tyler and Fillmore in a radical change of the policy of the Government. Johnson started under a
cloud in his career as Vice-President. On the day of his inauguration he appeared in the Senate visibly intoxicated,
and delivered a maudlin harangue so disgraceful that a correct report was never permitted to be given to the public.
The report of that address as severely modified by the omission of the most offensive expressions was highly
discreditable. He was immediately hurried away to the country residence of the elder Francis P. Blair, and there
remained most of the time until more than a month later, when Lincoln was assassinated. He never attempted to
resume his place in the Senate as presiding officer, although he was frequently in Washington and was there on the
night of the assassination.
As President he at first startled the country by the most violent demands for the punishment of all those
prominently engaged in the Rebellion. His favorite declaration was that “treason must be made odious.” It was not
long, however, until his views were materially changed, and he gradually drifted into entire sympathy with the
South and aggressively against the policy of the Republicans in Congress. It was this conflict between the
Executive and the legislative powers of the Government that led to the radical policy of reconstruction and the
wholesale enfranchisement of the colored voters of the South. All the reconstruction measures were vetoed by the
President and passed over his veto by the Senate and House, and the issue grew more and more in bitterness until it
culminated in the impeachment of Johnson, in which he escaped conviction by a single vote. Grant and Johnson
had an acrimonious dispute when Grant, as Secretary of War ad interim, admitted Stanton back to the office after
the Senate had refused to approve his removal by the President, and from that time Grant and Johnson never met or
exchanged courtesies on any other than official occasions, where the necessity for it was imperative. When the
arrangements were about to be made for the inauguration of Grant, he peremptorily refused to permit President
Johnson to accompany him in the carriage to the Capitol for the inauguration ceremonies, and Johnson did not
make his appearance on that occasion.
I never met President Johnson but once during his term in the White House. I had met him casually before and
during the war, but cherished a strong prejudice against him as an arch demagogue because of a debate between
him and Senator Bell, his colleague from Tennessee, that I happened to hear in the Senate. Bell was one of the
ablest and most dignified of Senators, and I never witnessed a more offensive exhibition of the studied arts of the
demagogue than Johnson displayed in that Senatorial controversy. It was on some phase of the sectional issue, and
Bell’s exalted patriotism and manly plea for union and fellowship contrasted with Johnson as the soaring eagle
contrasts with the mousing owl. I had voted for his nomination for Vice-President in the Republican convention of
1864, because I surrendered my own preferences to considerations of expediency presented by Lincoln.
When he made the disgraceful exhibition of himself on inauguration day as he appeared as Vice-President in the
Senate, I published an editorial in my Chambersburg paper denouncing Johnson as having offended against the
dignity and decency not only of our own Government, but of civilized governments throughout the world, and
demanded his resignation. Little more than a month thereafter he became President, and a troop of new friends
flocked about him. It is needless to say that he was soon advised of the severe criticism I had made upon the
inauguration address. I did not see or hear from him or communicate with him in any way until the early fall, when
Governor Curtin informed me that he had received a request from the President for Curtin and myself to visit him
at Washington. My answer to Curtin was that as he was in an official position it was probably his duty to regard a
request from the President as a command, but as I was not anybody of consequence, I would not go. Within a
fortnight a second and more pressing request was made to Curtin for us to come to Washington to confer with the
President on the political situation. Curtin felt that we should go. He thought it possible that Johnson might yet be
saved from political apostasy, although I had no confidence whatever in the future of the administration, judging
from the surroundings he had invited, but I accompanied the Governor to Washington and called upon the
President.

At that time Johnson had attempted and largely carried out a scheme of reconstruction of his own, that had
gradually drifted him into very close and sympathetic relations with the ruling class of the South that had been
active in rebellion. He had appointed provisional Governors, Legislatures had been chosen, Congressmen and
Senators had been elected to some extent, and I was utterly surprised to find the President entirely confident that
his scheme of reconstruction would be sanctioned by Congress. I was well informed by conference with the
leading Republicans of the North as to the policy they would pursue in Congress, and I knew that there was not the
shadow of a chance for any of his reconstructed States to be readmitted into the Union on the basis of his policy.
Curtin’s more responsible official position and general distrust made him quite willing to avoid discussion with
the President, who opened the conversation by an earnest appeal to us to give tranquillity to the country and
renewed prosperity to business by accepting his method of reconstruction, that he always spoke of as “my policy.”
I answered by stating that it would be simply a waste of time and effort to attempt to maintain his policy, as not a
single Senator and Representative then elected to the next Congress, or to be elected thereafter by Southern States
as then reconstructed, would be admitted into Congress. He seemed to be utterly amazed at the audacity of such a
declaration, and informed me in the most imperious and insolent manner that every State would be restored to the
Union and to representation in the coming Congress. I told him that he was suffering from the common misfortune
of power in seldom hearing the truth. He exhibited much irritation, and several times walked the full length of the
Executive Chamber with rapid step, apparently to get cooling time for his passion. He finally tempered the
discussion by more courteous expression, and we went over the whole ground with rugged frankness on both sides,
ending in the disagreement on which we had started.
I then asked him what he proposed to do with Jefferson Davis, who was still in prison at Fortress Monroe,
charged with complicity in the assassination of Lincoln. I saw that he was much embarrassed by the inquiry, and
told him that he owed it to the truth of history, to Davis himself and to public justice to give him a fair trial. I
reminded him also that Wurz, who had just been tried by a court-martial for wanton and murderous brutality to the
Union prisoners, with the judgment in the case then in the hands of the Government, but not announced, would be
condemned and executed, as he was poor and friendless. I said that if Wurz was guilty of studied brutality to
prisoners he deserved to die, but that if he was simply executing the policy of the government of the Confederacy,
as was then publicly charged, of deliberately and systematically murdering Union prisoners by giving them
unwholesome or insufficient food, and withholding the necessary and possible attention to the sick and dying, the
responsible criminal was Jefferson Davis. In answer, the President asked how that could be done, to which I
responded by saying that a court-martial, consisting of Generals Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Sheridan and Meade,
could well be charged with so grave an inquiry, as their judgment would be accepted by the country and the world.
If they condemned Davis, he deserved to be executed. If they acquitted him, as I believed they would, he would
stand acquitted of one of the most colossal crimes ever charged against an individual. To my surprise, the President
answered that there was strong prejudice growing up against court-martials. He was quite right in that declaration,
as up to that time he had used them freely and almost wholly in the administration of justice in all cases having any
connection with the war. He had denounced Davis as an assassin, and in his new relations with the South, which
changed his conditions materially, he was anxious to protect Davis, and evidently did not wish his accusations to
be passed upon by a competent court.
I then said to the President that it was his duty to discharge Davis; that Davis should either be tried or given his
liberty at an early day, as he had already been long in prison, and I reminded him also that he could not try a man
for treason who was President of a government that had beleaguered our Capitol for four years, and that had been
recognized by our own Government and by the leading governments of the world as a belligerent power. The
discussion of the Davis question, that was a very unpleasant one to the President, brought the conference to a
finish, and every prediction that I made to him about his reconstruction policy was fulfilled to the letter. Curtin
took only an incidental part in the conference, and we parted with ceremonial courtesy, never to meet again.
While the Republicans had been seriously divided by Johnson’s defection, chiefly because of the large patronage
he had to dispense, their columns became gradually reunited, and in 1868 it was practically a solid Republican
party arrayed against Johnson with a very few deserters; and the Democrats, while appreciating Johnson’s betrayal
of the Republicans, had no love and little respect for the betrayer. From the time that Grant’s candidacy was
announced no other aspirant was seriously discussed in Republican circles, and his name brought not only most of
the later stragglers of the party into the fold, but commanded the support of a large Democratic element in
addition.
The Republican National Convention met at Chicago on the 20th of May, and easily finished its work in two
days. Carl Schurz was temporary president, and General Joseph R. Hawley, of Connecticut, was the permanent

president. The usual preliminaries were disposed of without jar during the first day, and the committee on
resolutions reported promptly on the morning of the second day. The following is the full text of the platform as
adopted by a unanimous vote:
The National Republican party of the United States, assembled in national convention in the city of Chicago, on
the 21st day of May, 1868, make the following declaration of principles:
1. We congratulate the country on the assured success of the reconstruction policy of Congress, as evinced by
the adoption, in the majority of the States lately in rebellion, of constitutions securing equal civil and political
rights to all; and it is the duty of the Government to sustain those institutions and to prevent the people of such
States from being remitted to a state of anarchy.
2. The guarantee by Congress of equal suffrage to all loyal men at the South was demanded by every
consideration of public safety, of gratitude, and of justice, and must be maintained; while the question of suffrage
in all the loyal States properly belongs to the people of those States.
3. We denounce all forms of repudiation as a national crime; and the national honor requires the payment of the
public indebtedness in the uttermost good faith to all creditors at home and abroad, not only according to the letter,
but the spirit of the laws under which it was contracted.
4. It is due to the labor of the nation that taxation should be equalized, and reduced as rapidly as the national
faith will permit.
5. The national debt, contracted as it has been for the preservation of the Union for all time to come, should be
extended over a fair period for redemption; and it is the duty of Congress to reduce the rate of interest thereon,
whenever it can be honestly done.
6. That the best policy to diminish our burden of debt is so to improve our credit that capitalists will seek to loan
us money at lower rates of interest than we now pay, and must continue to pay, so long as repudiation, partial or
total, open or covert, is threatened or suspected.
7. The Government of the United States should be administered with the strictest economy; and the corruptions
which have been so shamefully nursed and fostered by Andrew Johnson call loudly for radical reform.
8. We profoundly deplore the untimely and tragic death of Abraham Lincoln, and regret the accession to the
Presidency of Andrew Johnson, who has acted treacherously to the people who elected him and the cause he was
pledged to support; who has usurped high legislative and judicial functions; who has refused to execute the laws;
who has used his high office to induce other officers to ignore and violate the laws; who has employed his
executive powers to render insecure the property, the peace, the liberty and life of the citizen; who has abused the
pardoning power; who has denounced the national Legislature as unconstitutional; who has persistently and
corruptly resisted, by every means in his power, every proper attempt at the reconstruction of the States lately in
rebellion; who has perverted the public patronage into an engine of wholesale corruption; and who has been justly
impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and properly pronounced guilty thereof by the vote of thirty-five
Senators.
9. The doctrine of Great Britain and other European powers, that because a man is once a subject he is always
so, must be resisted at every hazard by the United States as a relic of feudal times, not authorized by the laws of
nations, and at war with our national honor and independence. Naturalized citizens are entitled to protection in all
their rights of citizenship, as though they were native born; and no citizen of the United States, native or
naturalized, must be liable to arrest and imprisonment by any foreign power for acts done or words spoken in this
country; and, if so arrested and imprisoned, it is the duty of the Government to interfere in his behalf.
10. Of all who were faithful in the trials of the late war, there were none entitled to more special honor than the
brave soldiers and seamen who endured the hardships of campaign and cruise and imperilled their lives in the
service of the country; the bounties and pensions provided by the laws for these brave defenders of the nation are
obligations never to be forgotten; the widows and orphans of the gallant dead are the wards of the people—a
sacred legacy bequeathed to the nation’s protecting care.
11. Foreign immigration, which in the past has added so much to the wealth, development, and resources, and
increase of power to this Republic—the asylum of the oppressed of all nations—should be fostered and
encouraged by a liberal and just policy.
12. This convention declares itself in sympathy with all oppressed peoples struggling for their rights.

13. We highly commend the spirit of magnanimity and forbearance with which men who have served in the
Rebellion, but who now frankly and honestly co-operate with us in restoring the peace of the country and
reconstructing the Southern State governments upon the basis of impartial justice and equal rights, are received
back into the communion of the loyal people; and we favor the removal of the disqualifications and restrictions
imposed upon the late rebels in the same measure as the spirit of disloyalty will die out, and as may be consistent
with the safety of the loyal people.
14. We recognize the great principles laid down in the immortal Declaration of Independence as the true
foundation of Democratic government; and we hail with gladness every effort toward making these principles a
living reality on every inch of American soil.
The convention then proceeded to make nominations, and after an able and impassioned speech by General
Logan presenting General Grant’s name, the roll was called and every vote responded in favor of Grant, giving 650
in all. As soon as the vote was announced, a curtain on the rear of the stage was lifted, presenting a heroic picture
of Grant, and the convention responded to the nomination and the picture of the Great Captain with deafening
cheers.
There was a spirited contest for the Vice-Presidency. Wade, of Ohio, had the lead, and Fenton, of New York,
Wilson, of Massachusetts, and Colfax, of Indiana, all started with a very promising vote. I was chairman of the
Pennsylvania delegation, and in obedience to the unanimous instructions of the State, presented to the convention
the name of Andrew G. Curtin for second place on the ticket. It soon became evident that the contest would be
between Wade and Colfax, and when the struggle was thus narrowed Colfax won an easy victory. The following
table presents the several ballots for Vice-President:

First. Second. Third. Fourth. Fifth.
Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio 147 170 178 206 38
Reuben E. Fenton, of New York 126 144 139 144 69
Henry Wilson, of Massachusetts 119 114 101 87 —
Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana 115 145 165 186 541
Andrew G. Curtin, of Penn. 51 45 40 — —
Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine 28 30 25 25 —
James Speed, of Kentucky 22 — — — —
James Harlan, of Iowa 16 — — — —
John A. J. Creswell, of Maryland 14 — — — —
Samuel C. Pomeroy, of Kansas 6 — — — —
William D. Kelley, of Penn. 4 — — — —

The swift mutations in American politics were strangely illustrated in the nomination for Vice-President at that
convention. Senator Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio, who was about closing a term of eighteen years in the service of
the Senate, who was then President pro tem. of that body, and who was expected to reach the Presidency for a
period of eight months by the impeachment and dismissal of President Johnson, was the prominent candidate for
Vice-President before the meeting of the convention. It was generally believed that Johnson would be successfully
impeached; that Wade would become President for the remainder of the term, with illimitable patronage, and that
his nomination for the Vice-Presidency was apparently assured. But when many delegates were on their way to
Chicago on Saturday, the 16th, the trained lightning sped the message westward that Johnson had been acquitted
by a single vote in the Senate, and that ended Wade’s candidacy. He had many friends independent of the
prospective power that had made him formidable, and they made a stubborn battle for him, but though he was
highest of all on the 1st ballot, on the 5th and final vote he had but 38 votes to 541 for Schuyler Colfax and 69 for
Senator Fenton, of New York. Thus two crushing disasters had befallen Wade in a single week. He had the
Presidency apparently within his grasp—and this would have carried the Vice-Presidency for another term—but he

was smitten in both efforts, and these crowning disasters closely followed his defeat for re-election to the Senate.
He was the sturdy, bluff, uncompromising patriot of the Senate during the war, and after these three disasters came
upon him in quick succession, the old man groped his way along for a few years in solitude and then slept the
dreamless sleep of the dead.
The Democratic National Convention met in New York on the 4th of July, and there was a strong sentiment
among the delegates favorable to the nomination of a liberal Republican for President. The Republicans had
nominated a Democrat, and Chief Justice Chase, who was an old-time Democrat, and who had won a very large
measure of Democratic confidence by his rulings in the impeachment case of President Johnson, was a favorite
with a very powerful circle of friends, who had quietly, but very thoroughly, as they believed, organized to have
him nominated by a spontaneous tidal wave after a protracted deadlock between the leading candidates. I have
every reason to believe that Chase would have been nominated at the time Seymour was chosen, and in like
manner, had it not been for the carefully laid plan of Samuel J. Tilden to prevent the success of Chase. Horatio
Seymour, the ablest Democrat of that day, was president of the convention, and he had no more idea of being
nominated for President than he had of becoming the Czar of Russia. It was generally supposed that Seymour left
the chair of the convention because some votes had been cast for him for President, but he really left the chair
because he expected to aid in the nomination of Chase, and when Seymour called another to preside, the Tilden
strategy completed its purpose by an able Democrat demanding the nomination of Horatio Seymour, and
delivering a most eloquent and impressive eulogy upon the confessed leader of the Democracy. In vain did
Seymour give a peremptory declination. The convention had been organized for its work, and men in nearly every
delegation who had been assigned to their task rose and swelled the hurrah for Seymour. When he found the tide
was likely to be overwhelming, he declared with equal earnestness and pathos, “Your candidate I cannot be;” but
the wave sped on and Seymour was made the candidate by a practically unanimous vote.
He was prevailed upon to consider the subject, and that meant, of course, that he could not decline. There had
been twenty-one ballots before the nomination of Seymour, in which Pendleton, Hancock, and Hendricks were the
leading competitors. It was then that the nomination of Chase was expected to be made just as the nomination of
Seymour was made, and Tilden’s was the master hand that shaped the action of the convention.
Tilden was a master leader, as subtle and sagacious as he was able, and he thoroughly organized the plan to
nominate Seymour, not so much because he desired Seymour as the candidate, as because he was implacable in his
hostility to Chase. It was well known by Chase and his friends that Tilden crucified Chase in the Democratic
convention of 1868, and this act of Tilden’s had an impressive sequel eight years later, when the election of Tilden
hung in the balance in the Senate, and when the accomplished daughter of Chase decided the battle against Tilden.
The convention met on the 4th of July, which was Saturday, and nothing beyond organization was accomplished
until Monday. The supporters of Pendleton were altogether the most aggressive of all the candidates. They
represented the “Greenback” issue that had then taken form, and exhibited considerable popular strength, not only
in the Democratic party, but to some extent in the Republican party. The two-thirds rule was reaffirmed, and on
Tuesday the committee on platform reported the following resolutions, which were unanimously adopted:
The Democratic party, in national convention assembled, reposing its trust in the intelligence, patriotism, and
discriminating justice of the people, standing upon the Constitution as the foundation and limitation of the powers
of the Government and the guarantee of the liberties of the citizen, and recognizing the questions of slavery and
secession as having been settled, for all time to come, by the war, or the voluntary action of the Southern States in
constitutional conventions assembled, and never to be renewed or reagitated, do, with the return of peace, demand:
1. Immediate restoration of all the States to their rights in the Union under the Constitution, and of civil
government to the American people.
2. Amnesty for all past political offences, and the regulation of the elective franchise in the States by their
citizens.
3. Payment of the public debt of the United States as rapidly as practicable; all moneys drawn from the people
by taxation, except so much as is requisite for the necessities of the Government, economically administered, being
honestly applied to such payment, and where the obligations of the Government do not expressly state upon their
face, or the law under which they were issued does not provide that they shall be paid in coin, they ought, in right
and in justice, to be paid in the lawful money of the United States.
4. Equal taxation of every species of property according to its real value, including Government bonds and other
public securities.

5. One currency for the Government and the people, the laborer and the officeholder, the pensioner and the
soldier, the producer and the bondholder.
6. Economy in the administration of the Government; the reduction of the standing army and navy; the abolition
of the Freedmen’s Bureau, and all political instrumentalities designed to secure negro supremacy; simplification of
the system, and discontinuance of inquisitorial modes of assessing and collecting internal revenue, so that the
burden of taxation may be equalized and lessened; the credit of the Government and the currency made good; the
repeal of all enactments for enrolling the State militia into national forces in time of peace; and a tariff for revenue
upon foreign imports, and such equal taxation under the internal revenue laws as will afford incidental protection
to domestic manufacturers, and as will, without impairing the revenue, impose the least burden upon and best
promote and encourage the great industrial interests of the country.
7. Reform of abuses in the administration, the expulsion of corrupt men from office, the abrogation of useless
offices, the restoration of rightful authority to, and the independence of, the executive and judicial departments of
the Government, the subordination of the military to the civil power, to the end that the usurpations of Congress
and the despotism of the sword may cease.
8. Equal rights and protection for naturalized and native-born citizens, at home and abroad; the assertion of
American nationality which shall command the respect of foreign powers, and furnish an example and
encouragement to peoples struggling for national integrity, constitutional liberty, and individual rights, and the
maintenance of the rights of naturalized citizens against the absolute doctrine of immutable allegiance, and the
claims of foreign powers to punish them for alleged crime committed beyond their jurisdiction.
In demanding these measures and reforms, we arraign the Radical party for its disregard of right, and the
unparalleled oppression and tyranny which have marked its career.
After the most solemn and unanimous pledge of both Houses of Congress to prosecute the war exclusively for
the maintenance of the Government and the preservation of the Union under the Constitution, it has repeatedly
violated that most sacred pledge under which alone was rallied that noble volunteer army which carried our flag to
victory. Instead of restoring the Union, it has, so far as in its power, dissolved it, and subjected ten States, in the
time of profound peace, to military despotism and negro supremacy. It has nullified there the right of trial by jury;
it has abolished the habeas corpus, that most sacred writ of liberty; it has overthrown the freedom of speech and
the press; it has substituted arbitrary seizures and arrests, and military trials and secret star-chamber inquisitions
for the constitutional tribunals; it has disregarded, in time of peace, the right of the people to be free from searches
and seizures; it has entered the post and telegraph offices, and even the private rooms of individuals, and seized
their private papers and letters without any specific charge or notice or affidavit, as required by the organic law; it
has converted the American Capitol into a bastile; it has established a system of spies and official espionage to
which no constitutional monarchy of Europe would now dare to resort; it has abolished the right of appeal, on
important constitutional questions, to the supreme judicial tribunals, and threatened to curtail or destroy its original
jurisdiction, which is irrevocably vested by the Constitution, while the learned Chief Justice has been subjected to
the most atrocious calumnies, merely because he would not prostitute his high office to the support of the false and
partisan charges preferred against the President. Its corruption and extravagance have exceeded anything known in
history, and, by its frauds and monopolies, it has nearly doubled the burden of the debt created by the war. It has
stripped the President of his constitutional power of appointment, even of his own Cabinet. Under its repeated
assaults the pillars of the Government are rocking on their base, and should it succeed in November next and
inaugurate its President, we will meet, as a subjected and conquered people, amid the ruins of liberty and the
scattered fragments of the Constitution.
And we do declare and resolve that ever since the people of the United States threw off all subjection to the
British crown the privilege and trust of suffrage have belonged to the several States, and have been granted,
regulated, and controlled exclusively by the political power of each State respectively, and that any attempt by
Congress, on any pretext whatever, to deprive any State of this right, or interfere with its exercise, is a flagrant
usurpation of power, which can find no warrant in the Constitution, and, if sanctioned by the people, will subvert
our form of government, and can only end in a single centralized and consolidated government, in which the
separate existence of the States will be entirely absorbed, and unqualified despotism be established in place of a
Federal union of coequal States. And that we regard the Reconstruction Acts (so-called) of Congress, as such, as
usurpations, and unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void.
That our soldiers and sailors, who carried the flag of our country to victory against a most gallant and
determined foe, must ever be gratefully remembered, and all the guarantees given in their favor must be faithfully

carried into execution.
That the public lands should be distributed as widely as possible among the people, and should be disposed of
either under the pre-emption or homestead lands, or sold in reasonable quantities, and to none but actual
occupants, at the minimum price established by the Government. When grants of the public lands may be allowed,
necessary for the encouragement of important public improvements, the proceeds of the sale of such lands, and not
the lands themselves, should be so applied.
That the President of the United States, Andrew Johnson, in exercising the powers of his high office in resisting
the aggressions of Congress upon the constitutional rights of the States and the people, is entitled to the gratitude
of the whole American people, and in behalf of the Democratic party we tender him our thanks for his patriotic
efforts in that regard.
Upon this platform the Democratic party appeal to every patriot, including all the conservative element and all
who desire to support the Constitution and restore the Union, forgetting all past differences of opinion, to unite
with us in the present great struggle for the liberties of the people; and that to all such, to whatever party they may
have heretofore belonged, we extend the right hand of fellowship, and hail all such co-operating with us as friends
and brethren.
Resolved, That this convention sympathize cordially with the workingmen of the United States in their efforts to
protect the rights and interests of the laboring classes of the country.
Resolved, That the thanks of the convention are tendered to Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase for the justice,
dignity, and impartiality with which he presided over the court of impeachment on the trial of President Andrew
Johnson.
The ballots for President began on Tuesday and ended Thursday. The following table gives the ballots in detail:

Winfield Sanford James
Geo. H. Andrew Asa Joel James R. Thos. A. Ho
S. E. E.
BALLOTS. Pendleton, Johnson, Packer, Parker, Doolittle, Hendricks, Sey
Hancock, Church, English,
Ohio. Tenn. Penn. N. J. Wis. Ind. N
Penn. N. Y. Conn.
1 105 65 33¹⁄₂ 33 26 13 16 13 2¹⁄₂
2 104 52 40¹⁄₂ 33 26 15¹⁄₂ 12¹⁄₂ 12¹⁄₂ 2
3 119¹⁄₂ 34¹⁄₂ 45¹⁄₂ 33 26 13 7¹⁄₂ 12 9¹⁄₂
4 118¹⁄₂ 32 43¹⁄₂ 33 26 13 7¹⁄₂ 8 11¹⁄₂
5 122 24 46 33 27 13 7 15 19¹⁄₂
6 122¹⁄₂ 21 47 33 27 13 6 12 30
7 137¹⁄₂ 12¹⁄₂ 42¹⁄₂ — — 7 6 12 39¹⁄₂
8 156¹⁄₂ 6 28 — — 7 6 12 75
9 144 5¹⁄₂ 24¹⁄₂ — — 7 6 12 80¹⁄₂
10 147¹⁄₂ 6 34 — — 7 — 12 82¹⁄₂
11 144¹⁄₂ 5¹⁄₂ 32¹⁄₂ — — 7 — 12¹⁄₂ 88
12 145¹⁄₂ 4¹⁄₂ 30 — — 7 — 12¹⁄₂ 89
13 134¹⁄₂ 4¹⁄₂ 48¹⁄₂ — — 7 — 13 81
14 130 — 50 — — 7 — 13 84¹⁄₂
15 129¹⁄₂ 5¹⁄₂ 79¹⁄₂ — — 7 — 12 82¹⁄₂
16 107¹⁄₂ 5¹⁄₂ 113¹⁄₂ — — 1 — 12 70¹⁄₂
17 70¹⁄₂ 6 137¹⁄₂ — — 7 — 12 80
18 56¹⁄₂ 10 144¹⁄₂ — — 31¹⁄₂ — 12 87

19 — — 135¹⁄₂ — — 22 6 4 107¹⁄₂
20 — — 142¹⁄₂ — — — 16 12 121
21 — — 135¹⁄₂ — — — 19 12 132
22 — 4 90¹⁄₂ — — — 1 4 140¹⁄₂

Before the 22d ballot was announced delegations began to change their votes to Seymour, and the changes were continued amid great enthusiasm until
he received the unanimous nomination. The twenty-one votes given him on the last ballot were all cast by Ohio delegates.

It was charged that the nomination of Seymour had been carefully planned by his friends before the meeting of
the convention, in imitation of the nominations of Polk and Pierce, but in point of fact the nomination of Seymour
was not planned by his friends nor had they any idea of nominating him when the convention met, as his name was
not before the convention at all until the 22d ballot and the third day of balloting. He was most earnestly averse to
accepting the nomination. His health was impaired, he had had many and very earnest political conflicts, and he
felt himself physically and mentally unequal to the exacting duties of a campaign. His nomination was, as I have
stated, conceived and executed for the purpose of defeating Chase.
Having failed to nominate a Republican for President, the convention unanimously nominated General Frank P.
Blair, of Missouri, for Vice-President without the formality of a ballot. He was one of the most radical and
aggressive of Republicans when the Republican party was organized in 1856, and brought the first important
victory to that party when, in the early fall of 1856, he was elected to Congress from St. Louis, being the first
Republican who ever represented a Southern State in the national Legislature. I remember meeting him in
Washington just before the clash of arms began, after the bombardment of Sumter. He was impatient with Lincoln
for not precipitating the war, and told me that he would go back to Missouri the next day, and that the country
would soon hear of battles fought in that State. He executed his purpose, for it was through him chiefly or wholly
that the early and bloody battles of Missouri were fought. He was one of the most brilliant of the corps
commanders of the army, but had evidently fallen into disfavor with Grant, and Blair was as tireless a fighter as
Grant himself. In a public letter, directed to J. C. Broadhead a short time before the convention met, General Blair
denounced Grant as aiming at imperialism, and declared that his election to the Presidency would date the
downfall of our Republican institutions.
General Blair spoke frequently during the contest, but his speeches were so violent that they gave offence to
many conservative Democrats; and after the October elections, which were disastrous to the Democrats, the New
York World, the leading Democratic organ, came out in a leader demanding that he be retired from the ticket; but
Blair was not the man to retreat under fire. Seymour took the stump, to present the party in a more conservative
attitude, and delivered a number of speeches, which rank among the ablest popular addresses of American politics;
but he could not halt the tidal wave that swept Grant into the Presidency. The following table gives the electoral
and popular vote:

Popular Vote. Electoral Vote.
STATES.
Grant. Seymour. Grant. Seymour.
Maine 70,426 42,396 7 —
New Hampshire 38,191 31,224 5 —
Vermont 44,167 12,045 5 —
Massachusetts 136,477 59,408 12 —
Rhode Island 12,993 6,548 4 —
Connecticut 50,641 47,600 6 —
New York 419,883 429,883 — 33
New Jersey 80,121 83,001 — 7

Pennsylvania 342,280 313,382 26 —
Delaware 7,623 10,980 — 3
Maryland 30,438 62,357 — 7
[20] ——— ——— — —
Virginia
West Virginia 29,025 20,306 5 —
North Carolina 96,226 84,090 9 —
South Carolina 62,301 45,237 6 —
Georgia 57,134 102,822 — 9
[21] ——— ——— 3 —
Florida
Alabama 76,366 72,086 8 —
Mississippi[20] ——— ——— — —
Louisiana 33,263 80,225 — 7
[20] ——— ——— — —
Texas
Arkansas 22,152 19,078 5 —
Missouri 85,671 59,788 11 —
Tennessee 56,757 26,311 10 —
Kentucky 39,566 115,889 — 11
Ohio 280,128 238,700 21 —
Michigan 128,550 97,069 8 —
Indiana 176,552 166,980 13 —
Illinois 250,293 199,143 16 —
Wisconsin 108,857 84,710 8 —
Minnesota 43,542 28,072 4 —
Iowa 120,399 74,040 8 —
Nebraska 9,729 5,439 3 —
Kansas 31,049 14,019 3 —
Nevada 6,480 5,218 3 —
California 54,592 54,078 5 —
Oregon 10,961 11,125 — 3
Totals 3,012,833 2,703,249 214 80

There was dispute as to the right of some of the Southern States to participate in the election. It will be seen that
West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and
Kentucky had all participated in the election. Fortunately, the disputed States did not in any way affect the result,
and Congress passed a joint resolution declaring that none of the rebellious States should be entitled to electoral
votes, unless at the time of the election they had adopted Constitutions since the 4th of March, 1867, and had an
organized State Government, and unless such States had representation in Congress under the Reconstruction laws.
Of course, President Johnson vetoed the measure, but it was promptly passed over the veto by both branches of
Congress, and became a law. By that resolution, Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas were absolutely excluded from
the election.

The other Southern States had representation in Congress, with the exception of Georgia. The question whether
Georgia should be permitted to have her vote counted resulted in a very serious dispute, on which the Senate and
the House divided, but Mr. Wade, President of the Senate, in declaring the result, counted the vote of Georgia and
precipitated a very disgraceful scene, in which General Butler most offensively assailed the presiding officer.
There was no question whatever as to the election of Grant and Colfax, and Congress duly declared them President
and Vice-President of the United States.
The contest of 1868 crystallized the “Greenback” sentiment of the country under the leadership of George H.
Pendleton, who was the nominee for Vice-President with McClellan in 1864, and who expected to capture the
Democratic National Convention of 1868, to nominate himself for President on the Greenback platform. The
Pendleton followers were the hustlers of that convention, and they were all decorated with a badge that was an
imitation of the greenback. Gold had been at a high premium during the war, and was at a considerable premium in
1868, with resumption apparently very far off. The cheap-money idea had been industriously impressed upon the
people by the demagogues of that day, and as many of the obligations of the United States were payable only in
lawful money, while the bonds issued during the war were payable in coin, it was easy to make plausible appeal to
the prejudices of the industrial classes, who were paying very high prices for all the necessaries of life.
This theory had been very widely discussed by the various shades of opposition to the Republicans, but the
Pendleton movement for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency dignified it as a national issue, and it
succeeded in making the New York Democratic platform go more than half way in favor of repudiation of our
obligations by payment in greenbacks. The greenback issue thus vitalized became a very important one in many of
the States and caused strange political revolutions, such as the election of Democratic Governors and Democratic
Legislatures in Maine and Ohio.
It is doubtful whether the Republicans could have been lined up squarely in the support of the national credit
with any other candidate than Grant, and one of the first acts that he signed as President distinctly provided for the
payment in coin of all bonds of the Government bearing interest, and declared also that specie payments should be
resumed as speedily as practicable. The Greenback party not only figured largely in State politics, but became
formidable as a third party in national contests, and the free-silver theory of to-day is simply the old greenback
issue of cheap money in another form.

THE GRANT-GREELEY CONTEST

1872
General Grant was a thorough soldier, with little qualification for civil duties and a natural distaste for politics. I
doubt whether he had any defined political policy when he entered the Presidency. He believed in maintaining the
credit of the Government, and accepted in a conservative way the general policy of the Republican party, but he
knew little or nothing of the political leadership of the nation, and his friends generally felt that the success of his
administration would depend very largely upon surrounding him with a Cabinet composed of the ablest and most
sagacious men of the party, but Grant cherished no such ideas himself. He evidently assumed that politics could be
run by general orders, as an army could be commanded, and it was that mistake that alienated a very large portion
of the Republicans from him in the early period of his administration, and culminated in the Liberal Republican
Convention at Cincinnati in 1872.
I had frequently met General Grant before his nomination and election to the Presidency, but only in the most
casual way on social occasions, and never had any conversation with him, either on politics generally or on his
candidacy for the Presidency. I was earnestly in favor of his nomination and election, because I believed that
calling him to the Presidency would do more to reconcile the South and give better assurance of sectional
tranquillity than the election of any of the leading Republican statesmen of that day. I had just changed my
residence to Philadelphia, having suffered serious financial disaster in the burning of Chambersburg by
McCausland, and it was my settled purpose after Grant’s election to cease active participation in politics and
devote my efforts wholly to my profession.
My first and only meeting with Grant before his retirement from the Presidency, at which we had any protracted
conversation, was a short time before his inauguration. Chief Justice Read, of Pennsylvania, handed me a letter,
addressed to the President-elect, and asked me to deliver it in person when I next visited Washington. I did not
know its contents, but inferred that it related to the appointment of Curtin to a Cabinet office. A few days thereafter
when in Washington I called upon General Grant at his headquarters and delivered the letter, and after a very brief
conversation, rose to take my leave. He had opened the letter in the meantime, and as I reached the door he called
me back, saying that Judge Read’s letter strongly urged the appointment of Curtin to the Cabinet, and that he
desired to tell me frankly as a close friend of Curtin why he could not meet the wishes of the many friends of
Curtin by giving him a Cabinet portfolio. He spoke very highly of Curtin, and showed his appreciation of Curtin’s
position by nominating him as Minister to Russia at an early day after his inauguration, and against the protest of
Senator Cameron. In the course of the conversation I saw Grant’s crude theory of conducting a national
administration. He said that his Cabinet officers would be his official confidential family, and he desired to appoint
them entirely in accordance with his personal preferences. I said to him that it was certainly his right to have only
men in his Cabinet who were entirely agreeable to himself, but that it was very important for him to have the ablest
politicians of the country largely represented in it, to save his administration from the many political complications
which would otherwise confront him.
I saw that Grant was not a willing listener to any suggestions, although given in the most courteous manner, and
he answered with a somewhat liberal display of what some called “obstinacy” and others called “determination,”
as one of the leading attributes of his character. I then spoke more freely and frankly, and finally said to him that if
I were suddenly called to the command of the army, with little or no military experience, I would feel that my
greatest need was generals; and I added that it was in no measure disrespectful to him to say that, having been
called from the command of the army to the Presidency of the Republic, without experience in high civil duties,
his greatest need was statesmen. The advice was not grateful to Grant; on the contrary, he was obviously fretted, as
none of the many who sought favors at his hands had ventured to tell him the truth so plainly. When the
conversation ended he gave me a moderately cordial good-by, and I never again met him, excepting once at the
large banquet given by Mr. Childs on the evening after the opening of the Philadelphia Centennial in 1876, until
soon after he had retired from his eight years’ service in the Presidency, and never had any communication with
him.
I opposed his renomination, participated in the Liberal Republican Convention that nominated Greeley, had
charge of the Greeley campaign in Pennsylvania, and labored very earnestly for Grant’s defeat in 1872. On the day

that he retired from the Presidency I had an editorial in the Philadelphia Times, speaking of General Grant as
history would record his achievements, and of necessity highly complimentary to him. A few days thereafter I met
him with Mr. Childs at the Continental Hotel, and he came forward in a manner that was unusually demonstrative
for Grant, and was profuse in his thanks for the editorial referred to. He said that he specially valued it because it
came from one who had been among his severest critics during his Presidential term, and he ended by inviting me
to lunch with him at Mr. Drexel’s office that afternoon.
I willingly accepted the invitation and spent two hours with Grant, most of the time alone after Mr. Drexel and
Mr. Childs had left us. I was surprised to find him one of the most agreeable of conversationalists, and he
discussed politics generally and the Hayes-Tilden contest with a degree of frankness and intelligence that surprised
me. He said that he confidently expected the Electoral Commission to give the vote of Louisiana to Mr. Tilden, but
that as Chief Magistrate it was his duty only to maintain the law, and that when the law of the nation made the
Electoral Commission a final tribunal for the settlement of the dispute, he would have maintained that judgment
with all the power of the Government.
I was specially gratified at this interview to have a particular prejudice that I had cherished against Grant since
1864 entirely dissipated by a conversation into which I cautiously led him on the Lincoln-McClellan campaign of
1864. I have stated in another chapter that Mr. Lincoln hesitated in October, 1864, to send an order to General
Grant to furlough five thousand of his Pennsylvania soldiers home to vote for President, and sent it to Meade. I had
known how Lincoln had sustained Grant after the battle of Shiloh, when Grant had few friends and none outside of
Lincoln able to sustain him. When Lincoln hesitated to send the order to Grant, I spoke very freely and reminded
Lincoln how he had saved Grant, and wanted to know why he could not now trust the man who would have been
overwhelmed but for the generous and heroic offices of Lincoln. Lincoln finally answered that he had never
received or heard of any expression from General Grant expressing a preference for his election over General
McClellan. Lincoln certainly at that time doubted Grant’s attitude in that contest, and having been one of the many
who had urged Lincoln to remove Grant from his command after Shiloh, I could not fail to cherish some prejudice
against Grant as wanting in fidelity to Lincoln.
In our general discussion of politics I remarked that he had very studiously avoided all political expression
during the war, and that I had specially noted his silence during the campaign of 1864 between Lincoln and
McClellan. His answer was prompt and given evidently in the frankest manner, as he said substantially: “Of
course, I could not with propriety give any public expression in a political contest where one candidate had given
me the highest commission in the army and the other candidate had been my predecessor in command of the
army.” The answer was given in such simple earnestness that I never thereafter doubted Grant’s fidelity to Lincoln,
although Lincoln certainly was disappointed that Grant gave no expression during the campaign. On the night of
Lincoln’s election Grant sent him a very hearty telegram of congratulation.
President Grant drifted into a political control that ultimately made his administration intensely sectional and
factional, and during his first administration he was intolerant of criticism, and often openly disregarded
Republican sentiment in sustaining many of his favorites, who brought scandals upon his rule. On great questions,
however, Grant certainly was great. He conceived the idea of territorial expansion that has been so successfully
carried out by the present administration with the hearty approval of an overwhelming majority of the people. He
made an earnest movement for the annexation of San Domingo, and he gave exhaustive public and private efforts
to attain it. This policy was severely criticised by some of the leading members of the party, prominent among
whom were Sumner and Greeley, and the San Domingo scheme was ridiculed from one end of the country to the
other as a wild, visionary, political enterprise, designed to give place and fortune to administration favorites.
So bitter did the Republican national feud become that the anti-administration leaders decided to take the
initiative in opposing Grant’s re-election. At no time in the history of any administration was the political
machinery of the Government so complete and despotic as it was under Grant, although not in any degree
personally directed by himself, and it was well known that the opposition would have little voice in the regular
Republican convention, and that it was entirely powerless to prevent Grant being presented as the Republican
nominee.
The first national conventions of the year were held at Columbus, O., in February. The Labor Reformers were
first in the field, as their convention was held at Columbus on the 21st of February, with Edward M. Chamberlain,
of Massachusetts, as President. This convention was made up largely or wholly of men who believed in the
greenback policy, as it demanded an indefinite issue of greenbacks, which would be a legal tender for the payment
of all public and private debts. The following is the full text of its platform:

We hold that all political power is inherent in the people, and free government is founded on their authority and
established for their benefit; that all citizens are equal in political rights, entitled to the largest religious and
political liberty compatible with the good order of society, as also to the use and enjoyment of the fruits of their
labor and talents; and no man or set of men is entitled to exclusive separable endowments and privileges, or
immunities from the Government, but in consideration of public services; and any laws destructive of these
fundamental principles are without moral binding force, and should be repealed. And believing that all the evils
resulting from unjust legislation now affecting the industrial classes can be removed by the adoption of the
principles contained in the following declaration, therefore,
Resolved, That it is the duty of the Government to establish a just standard of distribution of capital and labor by
providing a purely national circulating medium, based on the faith and resources of the nation, issued directly to
the people without the intervention of any system of banking corporations; which money shall be legal tender in
the payment of all debts, public and private, and interchangeable at the option of the holder for Government bonds
bearing a rate of interest not to exceed 3.65 per cent., subject to future legislation by Congress.
2. That the national debt should be paid in good faith, according to the original contract, at the earliest option of
the Government, without mortgaging the property of the people or the future earnings of labor, to enrich a few
capitalists at home and abroad.
3. That justice demands that the burdens of Government should be so adjusted as to bear equally on all classes,
and that the exemption from taxation of Government bonds bearing extortionate rates of interest is a violation of
all just principles of revenue laws.
4. That the public lands of the United States belong to the people and should not be sold to individuals nor
granted to corporations, but should be held as a sacred trust for the benefit of the people, and should be granted to
landless settlers only, in amounts not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres of land.
5. That Congress should modify the tariff so as to admit free such articles of common use as we can neither
produce nor grow, and lay duties for revenue mainly upon articles of luxury and upon such articles of manufacture
as will, we having the raw materials in abundance, assist in further developing the resources of the country.
6. That the presence in our country of Chinese laborers, imported by capitalists in large numbers for servile use,
is an evil, entailing want and its attendant train of misery and crime on all classes of the American people, and
should be prohibited by legislation.
7. That we ask for the enactment of a law by which all mechanics and day-laborers employed by or on behalf of
the Government, whether directly or indirectly, through persons, firms, or corporations, contracting with the State,
shall conform to the reduced standard of eight hours a day, recently adopted by Congress for national employés,
and also for an amendment to the acts of incorporation for cities and towns, by which all laborers and mechanics
employed at their expense shall conform to the same number of hours.
8. That the enlightened spirit of the age demands the abolition of the system of contract labor in our prisons and
other reformatory institutions.
9. That the protection of life, liberty, and property are the three cardinal principles of government, and the first
two are more sacred than the latter; therefore money needed for prosecuting wars should, as it is required, be
assessed and collected from the wealth of the country, and not entailed as a burden upon posterity.
10. That it is the duty of the Government to exercise its power over railroads and telegraph corporations, that
they shall not in any case be privileged to exact such rates of freight, transportation, or charges, by whatever name,
as may bear unduly or unequally upon the producer or consumer.
11. That there should be such a reform in the civil service of the national Government as will remove it beyond
all partisan influence, and place it in the charge and under the direction of intelligent and competent business men.
12. That as both history and experience teach us that power ever seeks to perpetuate itself by every and all
means, and that its prolonged possession in the hands of one person is always dangerous to the interests of a free
people, and believing that the spirit of our organic laws and the stability and safety of our free institutions are best
obeyed on the one hand and secured on the other by a regular constitutional change in the chief of the country at
each election; therefore, we are in favor of limiting the occupancy of the Presidential chair to one term.
13. That we are in favor of granting general amnesty and restoring the Union at once on the basis of equality of
rights and privileges to all, the impartial administration of justice being the only true bond of union to bind the

States together and restore the government of the people.
14. That we demand the subjection of the military to the civil authorities, and the confinement of its operations
to national purposes alone.
15. That we deem it expedient for Congress to supervise the patent laws, so as to give labor more fully the
benefit of its own ideas and inventions.
16. That fitness, and not political or personal considerations, should be the only recommendation to public
office, either appointive or elective, and any and all laws looking to the establishment of this principle are heartily
approved.
Four ballots were had to nominate a candidate for President, resulting in the choice of David Davis, of Illinois.
The following table exhibits the ballots in detail:

First. Second. Third. Fourth.
John W. Geary, of Pennsylvania 60 — — —
Horace H. Day, of New York 59 21 59 3
David Davis, of Illinois 47 88 93 201
Wendell Phillips, of Massachusetts 13 76 12 —
J. M. Palmer, of Illinois 8 — — —
Joel Parker, of New Jersey 7 7 7 7
George W. Julian, of Indiana 6 1 5 —
B. Gratz Brown, of Missouri — — 14 —
Horace Greeley, of New York — — 11 —

Two ballots were had for Vice-President, as follows:

First. Second.
E. M. Chamberlain, Massachusetts 72 57
Joel Parker, New Jersey 70 112
Allanson M. West, Mississippi 18 —
Thomas Ewing, Ohio 31 22
W. G. Bryan, Tennessee 10 —

Davis and Parker were unanimously declared the candidates of the party for President and Vice-President.
Although Judge Davis had responded by telegraph to the notification of his nomination from the convention,
expressing his gratitude for the honor conferred, he did not definitely accept. Had Judge Davis been nominated by
the Liberal Republicans at Cincinnati in May, he would doubtless have remained as the candidate of the Labor
Reformers, but in June, when there was no possibility of him being a candidate of any other organization, Davis
and Parker both declined and retired from the contest. A small portion of the delegates were reconvened, and
Charles O’Conor, of New York, was nominated for President, without naming any candidate for Vice-President.
Thus, the Labor Reform organization was practically out of the battle of 1872.
A Prohibition National Convention was also held at Columbus on the 22d of February, with representatives from
nine States, and Samuel Chase, of Ohio, was made permanent president. An elaborate platform was adopted, but
the party does not seem to have been of sufficient importance to command the publication of its platform in full in

the newspapers, and it is lost to history, as I have not been able to find it. James Black, of Pennsylvania, was
nominated for President, and John Russell, of Michigan, for Vice-President by a unanimous vote, after having been
presented by a committee on nominations.
The Liberal Republican National Convention met at Cincinnati on the 1st of May. The organized Republican
opposition to Grant had its origin in the State contest in Missouri, where the Democrats and the Liberals united to
efface a most proscriptive Constitution and laws, denying all rights of citizenship to those who had been engaged
in rebellion. A number of meetings were held in the Western cities to organize the Liberal Republican party, and it
was a mass-meeting of the Liberals of Missouri in Jefferson City, in January, 1872, that first decided to call a
national convention of Liberal Republicans, and fixed Cincinnati and the 1st of May as the place and time for it to
assemble.
It seemed evident to all who had intelligently and dispassionately observed the political situation that the
majority of the people of the country would vote against the re-election of Grant if they could be heartily united,
but the elements were strangely incongruous, as Greeley, Sumner, Trumbull, and many others of the Liberal
leaders had been among the most earnest champions of radical Republicanism, and had antagonized the
Democratic party so fiercely and persistently as to make unity between them apparently impossible. It was only the
utterly helpless condition of the Democrats that made them entertain the question of fusing with the Liberals by
taking their ticket and platform.
Strange as it may seem, Mr. Vallandigham, one of the most aggressive of all the Northern “Copperheads” during
the war, and who had been arrested by Burnside and banished into the Southern lines, was one of the first of the
leading Democrats to propose a union of all the elements opposed to Grant and unite in fully accepting the results
of the war, the reconstruction policy, and the amendments to the Constitution. I attended this convention as a
delegate and acted as chairman of the delegation. Of the prominent men named for the nomination, I greatly
preferred David Davis, the executor of Abraham Lincoln, and a man so conservative and liberal in his political
views and so thoroughly identified with the substantial interests of the country that he would have provoked no
antagonism whatever from the financial and business interests of the nation, but Horace Greeley was his
competitor for the place, and there was no man in the country for whom I cherished stronger affection. I had
known Greeley for many years.
When the Liberal agitation began, the prominent candidates discussed were Horace Greeley, Charles Francis
Adams, David Davis, and B. Gratz Brown, of Missouri. Greeley became intensely interested in his own
nomination. He felt that he had devoted his life to the best efforts for his country, and especially for the lowly. He
was the foremost of all in the great battle for the overthrow of slavery, and he craved the recognition of his work
by an election to the Presidency. Before the convention met he made an appointment to meet me at the Colonnade
Hotel in Philadelphia. He felt that he could speak with entire freedom to me, and he opened his heart to the full
extent of saying how much he desired the nomination and what it meant to him.
Could I have made him President, I would gladly have done so, but I knew that he could not be elected, and told
him so with frankness that he appreciated. He yielded to my judgment as to his availability, and accepted the
suggestion that had then been made generally by the more conservative of the Liberal Republicans that David
Davis would be the only candidate who could certainly defeat Grant. He was conservative, able, and clear-headed,
and the business interests of the country would have had entire confidence in him. In answer to my statement that
the Democrats certainly could not be united in Greeley’s favor, and without which an election could not be
accomplished, he said: “Well, if they won’t take me head foremost, they might take me boots foremost,” meaning
for Vice-President. I said I did not doubt that his nomination for the second place could be accomplished with
every prospect of success at the election. We parted with the distinct understanding that his friends should move
unitedly to nominate David Davis for President and Greeley for Vice-President.
When we reached Cincinnati a conference of the leading friends of Davis and Greeley was held the night before
the convention met, Senator Fenton being present as the leader of the Greeley forces. Leonard Swett, the
immediate representative of Davis, was present, along with John D. Defrees, of Indiana, and a number of others.
The plan of operation was agreed upon, and when we adjourned to enjoy a late supper we regarded it as settled that
Davis and Greeley would be nominated on the next day.
About midnight it was whispered that General Frank P. Blair, as the representative of B. Gratz Brown, of
Missouri, and others had held a secret conference to unite the Greeley and Brown forces to make Greeley the
candidate for President and Brown second on the ticket. We soon discovered that the movement had been
thoroughly organized, and many Greeley men who were much more zealous than discreet at once accepted the new

situation, and forced even Fenton to fall back to the support of Greeley. Fenton was one of Greeley’s most sincere
and devoted friends, and it was with great reluctance that he joined in the effort to nominate Greeley when he felt
that it could result only in crucifying him. The withdrawal of the Greeley men from the Davis-Greeley
combination left Davis a hopeless candidate, as the convention was largely radical and little inclined to consider
questions of expediency.
The Liberal Republican National Convention was simply a huge mass-meeting, with nearly all of the States of
the Union represented, and it was boiling over with go-as-you-please independence in politics. Stanley Matthews,
afterward made Supreme Judge, was temporary president, and although he denounced the Grant administration in
his opening speech as a monument of corruption, he soon thereafter bolted Greeley and supported Grant. Carl
Schurz was made permanent president. The contest for President was evidently narrowed down to Adams and
Greeley. I voted on every ballot for Adams, with whom I had little sympathy, and three-fourths of the Pennsylvania
delegation voted with me. On the 6th ballot Greeley was nominated by changes of votes after the ballot had been
announced, but I did not change the vote of Pennsylvania until he had received a majority of the votes of the
convention. The following are the ballots for President:

First. Second. Third. Fourth. Fifth. Sixth.
Charles Francis Adams, Mass. 203 243 264 279 258 324
Horace Greeley, New York 147 245 258 251 309 332
Lyman Trumbull, Illinois 110 148 156 141 81 19
B. Gratz Brown, Missouri 95 2 2 2 2 —
David Davis, Illinois 92¹⁄₂ 75 41 51 30 6
Andrew G. Curtin, Pennsylvania 62 — — — — —
Salmon P. Chase, Ohio 2¹⁄₂ 1 — — 24 32

Mr. Greeley’s nomination was made unanimous, and the convention proceeded to ballot for Vice-President as
follows:

First. Second.
B. Gratz Brown, Missouri 237 435
Lyman Trumbull, Illinois 158 175
George W. Julian, Indiana 134¹⁄₂ —
Gilbert C. Walker, Virginia 84¹⁄₂ 75
Cassius M. Clay, Kentucky 34 —
Jacob D. Cox, Ohio 25 —
John M. Scoville, New Jersey 12 —
Thomas W. Tipton, Nebraska 8 3
John M. Palmer, Illinois — 8

The following platform was unanimously adopted:
The administration now in power has rendered itself guilty of wanton disregard of the laws of the land, and of
usurping powers not granted by the Constitution; it has acted as if the laws had binding force only for those who
were governed, and not for those who govern. It has thus struck a blow at the fundamental principles of
constitutional government and the liberties of the citizen.

The President of the United States has openly used the powers and opportunities of his high office for the
promotion of personal ends.
He has kept notoriously corrupt and unworthy men in places of power and responsibility, to the detriment of the
public interest.
He has used the public service of the Government as a machinery of corruption and personal influence, and has
interfered with tyrannical arrogance in the political affairs of States and municipalities.
He has rewarded with influential and lucrative offices men who had acquired his favor by valuable presents,
thus stimulating the demoralization of our political life by his conspicuous example.
He has shown himself deplorably unequal to the task imposed upon him by the necessities of the country, and
culpably careless of the responsibilities of his high office.
The partisans of the administration, assuming to be the Republican party and controlling its organization, have
attempted to justify such wrongs and palliate such abuses to the end of maintaining partisan ascendancy.
They have stood in the way of necessary investigations and indispensable reforms, pretending that no serious
fault could be found with the present administration of public affairs, thus seeking to blind the eyes of the people.
They have kept alive the passions and resentments of the late civil war, to use them for their own advantage;
they have resorted to arbitrary measures in direct conflict with the organic law, instead of appealing to the better
instincts and latent patriotism of the Southern people by restoring to them those rights the enjoyment of which is
indispensable to a successful administration of their local affairs, and would tend to revive a patriotic and hopeful
national feeling.
They have degraded themselves and the name of their party, once justly entitled to the confidence of the nation,
by a base sycophancy to the dispenser of executive power and patronage, unworthy of republican freemen; they
have sought to silence the voice of just criticism, and stifle the moral sense of the people, and to subjugate public
opinion by tyrannical party discipline.
They are striving to maintain themselves in authority for selfish ends by an unscrupulous use of the power
which rightfully belongs to the people, and should be employed only in the service of the country.
Believing that an organization thus led and controlled can no longer be of service to the best interests of the
Republic, we have resolved to make an independent appeal to the sober judgment, conscience, and patriotism of
the American people.
We, the Liberal Republicans of the United States, in national convention assembled at Cincinnati; proclaim the
following principles as essential to just government:
1. We recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government, in its dealings
with the people, to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious
or political.
2. We pledge ourselves to maintain the union of these States, emancipation and enfranchisement, and to oppose
any reopening of the questions settled by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments of the
Constitution.
3. We demand the immediate and absolute removal of all disabilities imposed on account of the Rebellion,
which was finally subdued seven years ago, believing that universal amnesty will result in complete pacification in
all sections of the country.
4. Local self-government, with impartial suffrage, will guard the rights of all citizens more securely than any
centralized power. The public welfare requires the supremacy of the civil over the military authority, and the
freedom of the person under the protection of the habeas corpus. We demand for the individual the largest liberty
consistent with public order, for the State self-government, and for the nation a return to the methods of peace and
the constitutional limitations of power.
5. The civil service of the Government has become a mere instrument of partisan tyranny and personal ambition,
and an object of selfish greed. It is a scandal and reproach upon free institutions, and breeds a demoralization
dangerous to the perpetuity of republican government. We therefore regard a thorough reform of the civil service
as one of the most pressing necessities of the hour; that honesty, capacity and fidelity constitute the only valid
claims to public employment; that the offices of the Government cease to be a matter of arbitrary favoritism and