Volume III Part 33 (1/2)
He also admitted reform to be the princ.i.p.al issue, thanked Tilden for the little he had accomplished, severely castigated Bigelow for accepting place on the ca.n.a.l commission as a Republican and on the State ticket as a Democrat, and drew attention to Kelly as a bad man and to the extravagance of Democratic rule in New York City.
Throughout it all his treatment was characteristically bold, brilliant, and aggressive. ”The bright blade of his eloquence with its keen satiric edge flashed defiantly before the eyes of the applauding audience,”[1485] and every period exhibited his profound sense of the duty of maintaining the ascendency of a party which to him promised best for the public.
[Footnote 1485: The _Nation_, October 28.]
With wisdom and sound argument Conkling had opposed inflation, and after the pa.s.sage of the bill on April 14, 1874, he had encouraged the President's veto. He had likewise advocated with no less fervour and sagacity the resumption of specie payment, which became a law on January 14, 1875. This service justly ent.i.tled him to the highest praise. Nevertheless, in his speech at Albany he failed to show that Republican success in 1875 would not mean a continuation of those things which helped a Republican defeat in 1874. Hostility to a third term and sympathy with a generous Southern policy were the conspicuous features of the Saratoga platform, and upon these issues he maintained a notable silence. His address was rather an appeal to the past--not an inspiring a.s.surance for the future, seeking pure administration. Of his personal honesty no one entertained a doubt, but for party ends he had failed to use his opportunities in exposing and correcting abuses.
To him the country under Republican rule, whatever its shortcomings, was in the safest hands, and he exhibited no sympathy with those whose great love for their party made them long to have it stand for civic righteousness, regardless of whom it might destroy.
As the campaign grew older Republicans cherished the hope of victory.
The break between Kelly and Morrissey had led to the formation of the Irving Hall Democracy. In this organisation all anti-Tammany elements found a home, and to test its strength Morrissey declared himself a candidate for the Senate in the fourth or old Tweed district, which usually recorded eleven thousand majority for Tammany. The Republicans promptly endorsed the nomination. This challenge had turned the whole city into turmoil. Morrissey's audacity in selecting the invincible stronghold of Tammany for his field of battle, throwing the glamour of a gloveless ring-contest over the struggle, brought into life all the concomitants of such a bout. Kelly, leaving his uptown home, personally led the Tammany forces, and on election day the paralytic, the maimed, and men feeble from sickness were brought to the polls.
Nevertheless, when the votes were counted Morrissey proved the winner.
Indeed, to the chagrin of Kelly and the alarm of the Democrats, Tammany candidates had fallen in every part of the city, their overthrow encouraging the belief that the State had been carried by the Republicans. Subsequently, when Bigelow's plurality of nearly fifteen thousand was established, it made defeat doubly disheartening.[1486] It put Tilden on a pinnacle. It left Conkling on the ground.
[Footnote 1486: Bigelow, 390,211; Seward, 375,401. Robinson, 389,699; Spinner, 376,150. Legislature: Senate: 20 Republicans, 12 Democrats.
a.s.sembly: 71 Republicans, 57 Democrats. Morrissey's majority, 3,377.
Dusenberre, Prohibitionist, total vote, 11,103.--Appleton's _Cyclopaedia_, 1875, p. 564.
Bigelow's majority in New York City was 17,013.--New York _World_, November 7, 1875.]
CHAPTER XXVI
DEFEAT OF THE REPUBLICAN MACHINE
1876
Much discussion of Conkling's candidacy for President followed the defeat of his party in 1875. The Union League Club, a body of earnest Republicans and generous campaign givers, declared for pure government and a reforming Executive. Several county conventions voiced a protest against pledged delegations, and _Harper's Weekly_, in order to divide Republicans more sharply into Conkling and anti-Conkling advocates, suggested, in a series of aggressive editorials, that a reform Democrat might be preferable to a Republican who represented the low tone of political honour and morality which exposed itself in official life. On the a.s.sembling of the State convention (March 22) to select delegates to Cincinnati, Curtis opened the way wider for a determined struggle. ”The unceasing disposition of the officers and agents of the Administration to prost.i.tute the party organisations relentlessly and at all costs to personal ends,” he said, ”has everywhere aroused the apprehension of the friends of free government, and has startled and alarmed the honest ma.s.ses of the Republican party.”[1487] This shot fired across the bow of the organisation brought its head into the wind.
[Footnote 1487: New York _Tribune_, March 23, 1876.]
The Conkling managers had secured a majority of the delegates, whose desire to advertise an undivided sentiment for the Senator in New York manifested itself by a willingness to yield in the interest of harmony. Finally, their resolution to instruct the delegation to vote as a unit took the more modest form of simply presenting ”Roscoe Conkling as our choice for the nomination of President.” Curtis, refusing his a.s.sent, moved a subst.i.tute that left the selection of a candidate to the patriotic wisdom of the National convention ”in full confidence that it will present the name of some tried and true Republican whose character and career are the pledge of a pure, economical, and vigorous administration of the government.” This was an issue--not a compromise. It practically put Conkling out of the race, and after its presentation nothing remained to be done except to call the roll. At its completion the startling discovery was made that of the 432 delegates present only 363 had answered, and that of these 113 had boldly stood with Curtis. Equally impressive, too, was the silence of the 69 who refrained from voting. Thus it appeared that, after the whole office-holding power had worked for weeks to secure delegates, only 33 more than a majority favoured even the presentation of Conkling's name. It was recalled by way of contrast that in 1860, Seward, without an office at his command, had led the united Republican enthusiasm of the State.
Following the example of Seward's supporters at Chicago, the friends of Conkling at Cincinnati occupied an entire hotel, distributed with lavishness the handsome State badge of blue, entertained their visitors with a great orchestra, paraded in light silk hats, and swung across the street an immense banner predicting that ”Roscoe Conkling's nomination a.s.sures the thirty-five electoral votes of New York.” These headquarters were in marked contrast to the modest rooms of other States having favourite sons. No Blaine flag appeared, and only an oil portrait of Hayes adorned the Ohio parlours. A Philadelphia delegate, after surveying the Grand Hotel and the marchers, ironically remarked that ”it was a mystery to him where the Custom-house got bail for all those fellows.”[1488]
[Footnote 1488: New York _Tribune_, June 15, 1876.]
The appearance of Edwin D. Morgan, who called the convention to order, evoked long-continued applause. It recalled two decades of stirring national life since he had performed a like duty in 1856. Theodore M.
Pomeroy's selection as temporary chairman likewise honoured New York, and his address, although read from ma.n.u.script, added to his fame as an orator. In seconding the nomination of Bristow, George William Curtis, speaking ”for that vast body of Republicans in New York who have seen that reform is possible within the Republican party,” won his way to the convention's heart as quickly as he did in 1860, although each person present avowed, after Robert G. Ingersoll had spoken, that for the first time he understood the possible compa.s.s of human eloquence.[1489]
[Footnote 1489: _Official Proceedings of National Republican Conventions_, p. 292.]
Until the deciding ballot New York's part in the convention proved perfunctory. Beyond the sound of its music and the tread of its marchers neither applause nor good will encouraged its candidate.
Reformers regarded Conkling as the ant.i.thesis of Bristow, supporters of Morton jealously scowled at his rivalry, and the friends of Blaine resented his att.i.tude toward their favourite. Only Hayes's little band of expectant backers, hoping eventually to capture the New York delegation, gracefully accorded him generous recognition.[1490]
Conkling's support, beginning with ninety-nine votes, gradually fell off to eighty-one, when the delegation, without formally withdrawing his name, dropped him with not a word and divided between Blaine and Hayes, giving the former nine votes and the latter sixty-one.[1491] In fact, Morton and Conkling, the two political legatees of Grant, fared about alike, their strength in the North outside their respective States aggregating only six votes. The President, believing a ”dark horse” inevitable, wrote a letter favouring Hamilton Fish.[1492]
[Footnote 1490: New York _Commercial Advertiser_, September 28, 1877.]
[Footnote 1491: Conkling's votes came from the following States: California, 1; Florida, 3; Georgia, 8; Michigan, 1; Mississippi, 1; Missouri, 1; Nevada, 2; New York, 69; North Carolina, 7; Texas, 3; Virginia, 3. Total, 99. George William Curtis refused to vote for Conkling.