Volume III Part 33 (2/2)
Seven ballots were taken, as follows:
Blaine 285 296 293 286 308 351 Bristow 113 114 121 126 111 21 Morton 124 120 113 108 85 Conkling 99 93 90 84 81 Hayes 61 64 67 68 113 384 Hartranft 58 63 68 71 50 Jewell 11 Wheeler 3 3 2 2 2 2
On the final ballot the following New York delegates voted for Blaine: William H. Robertson, Westchester; James W. Husted, Westchester; Jacob Worth, Kings; John H. Ketcham, Dutchess; Jacob W. Haysradt, Columbia; James M. Marvin, Saratoga; Stephen Sanford, Montgomery; Amos V.
Smiley, Lewis, and James C. Feeter, Herkimer.]
[Footnote 1492: John Russell Young, _Around the World with General Grant_, Vol. 2, p. 275.]
For Vice-President the convention turned to New York. Stewart L.
Woodford was the choice of the delegation. In presenting Conkling's name his oratorical power had won admiration, while delegates from Ohio, Indiana, and other Western States, where his voice had been heard in opposition to Greenbackism, did not forget his unselfish devotion, nor the brilliant rhetoric that clothed his unanswerable arguments. But the Blaine States manifested genuine enthusiasm for William A. Wheeler, a man of pure life, simple habits, ripe culture, and sincere and practical principles, who had won the esteem of all his a.s.sociates in Congress. To add to his charm he had a good presence and warm family affections. He possessed, too, a well-earned reputation for ability, having served with credit in the Legislature, in Congress, and as president of the const.i.tutional convention of 1866-7. Conkling thought him ”not very well known.”[1493] Nevertheless, he had been mentioned for President, and throughout the long and exciting contest two delegates from Ma.s.sachusetts kept his name before the convention. George F. h.o.a.r, afterward the distinguished Ma.s.sachusetts senator, became especially active in his behalf, and James Russell Lowell called him ”a very sensible man.”[1494] Outside delegations, therefore, without waiting for New York to act, quickly exhibited their partiality by putting him in nomination.[1495] Later, when the Empire State named Stewart L. Woodford, the situation became embarra.s.sing. Finally, as the Wheeler vote rapidly approached a majority, the Empire delegation, to escape being run over again, reluctantly withdrew its candidate.[1496] The roll call, thus abruptly discontinued, showed Wheeler far ahead of the aggregate vote of all compet.i.tors, and on motion his nomination was made unanimous.[1497]
[Footnote 1493: New York _Herald_, June 17, 1876.]
[Footnote 1494: h.o.a.r, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 244.]
[Footnote 1495: Wheeler's name was presented by Luke P. Poland of Vermont, and seconded by S.H. Russell of Texas, and Henry R. James of New York (Ogdensburg). Thomas C. Platt presented Woodford.
”Wheeler very much disliked Roscoe Conkling and all his ways. Conkling once said to him: 'If you will join us and act with us, there is nothing in the gift of the State of New York to which you may not reasonably aspire.' To which Wheeler replied: 'Mr. Conkling, there is nothing in the gift of the State which will compensate me for the forfeiture of my own self-respect.'”--h.o.a.r, _Autobiography_, Vol. 1, p. 243.]
[Footnote 1496: ”It was not to the credit of the New York delegation that Wheeler was obliged to look to other States for his presentation and support.”--Utica _Herald_, June 17.]
[Footnote 1497: With fifteen States and Territories to be called, the vote stood as follows: Wheeler, 366; all others, 245.]
The rank and file of the party, exhibiting no discouragement because of the outcome at Cincinnati, sought a strong candidate to head their State ticket.[1498] To those possessing the reform spirit William M.
Evarts appealed as a representative leader. He had indicated no desire to hold public office. Indeed, it may be said that he always seemed disinterested in political conditions so far as they affected him personally. Although his friends thought the old supporters of Seward, if not Seward himself, had failed to sustain him for the United States Senate in 1861 as faithfully as he would have supported the Secretary of State under like conditions, there is no evidence that he ever found fault. When in Hayes' Cabinet and afterwards in the Senate (1885-91), he did not take or attempt to take, either in the counsels of his party or of his colleagues, the leaders.h.i.+p for which he was admirably fitted. It is doubtful, in fact, if he ever realised the strong hold he had upon the respect and admiration of the country. But the people knew that his high personal character, his delightful oratory, his unfailing wit and good-nature, and his great prestige as a famous lawyer of almost unexampled success commended him as an ideal candidate. Conspicuously among those urging his candidacy for governor in 1876 appeared a body of influential leaders from the Union League and Reform clubs of the metropolis, calling themselves Independents.
The Liberals, too, added voice to this sentiment.[1499]
[Footnote 1498: The Republican State convention met at Saratoga on August 23.]
[Footnote 1499: Although many prominent Republicans who voted for Greeley in 1872 had previously renewed their allegiance, the Liberals as an organisation did not formally coalesce with the Republican party until August 23, 1876. On that day about 200 delegates, headed by John Cochrane and Benjamin F. Manierre, met in convention at Saratoga, and after accepting Hayes and Wheeler as the exponents of their reform principles, were invited amidst loud applause to seats in the Republican State convention.]
If the candidate could not be Evarts, the same elements evidenced a disposition to support Edwin D. Morgan, who had shown of late a disturbing independence of the machine. Of the other aspirants William H. Robertson presented his usual strength in the Hudson River counties.
Alonzo B. Cornell was the candidate of the organisation. Evarts had ill.u.s.trated his independence in accepting office under President Johnson, in criticising the Grant administration, and in protesting against the Louisiana incident. Robertson, in voting for Blaine, had likewise gone to the outer edge of disloyalty. Nor did Morgan's att.i.tude at Cincinnati commend him. His ambition, which centred in the vice-presidency, left the impression that he had cared more for himself than for Conkling. Under these circ.u.mstances the Senator naturally turned to Cornell, an efficient lieutenant, who, having encountered heavy seas and a head wind, hoisted the signal of distress and waited for Conkling's coming. The Senator, however, did not appear. His rooms were engaged, his name was added to the hotel register, and Cornell's expectant friends declared that he would again capture the convention with his oratory; but Conkling, knowing that in political conventions the power of oratory depended largely upon pledged delegations, prudently stayed away. Besides, he was not a delegate, his partisans in Oneida having been put to rout. This forced the withdrawal of Cornell, whose delegates, drifting to Morgan as the lesser of two evils, nominated him on the first ballot.[1500] Evarts was too great a man to be lifted into national prominence.
[Footnote 1500: Whole number of votes cast, 410. Necessary to a choice, 206. Morgan received 242; Evarts, 126; Robertson, 24; Martin, 1; Townsend, 18.]
For lieutenant-governor, Sherman S. Rogers of Erie and Theodore M.
Pomeroy of Cayuga entered the lists. Encouraged by the folly of a few rash friends, Cornell also allowed his name to be presented, ”since he had been grievously wronged,” said his eulogist, ”in the dishonest count of 1868.”[1501] Cornell had adroitly extricated himself from humiliating defeat in the morning by a timely withdrawal, but not until George William Curtis declared his nomination ”the most dangerous that could be made,” and William B. Woodin of Cayuga had stigmatised him, did he fully appreciate his unpopularity as the representative of machine methods. Woodin's attack upon Cornell undoubtedly weakened Pomeroy. It possessed the delectable acidity, so reckless in spirit, but so delightful in form, that always made the distinguished State senator's remarks attractive and diverting.
Although whatever weakened Pomeroy naturally strengthened Rogers, it added greatly to the latter's influence that he represented the home of William Dorsheimer, whom the Democrats would renominate, and in the end the Buffalonian won by a handsome majority.[1502]
[Footnote 1501: New York _Tribune_, August 24.]
[Footnote 1502: The ballot resulted: Rogers, 240; Pomeroy, 178.
Necessary to a choice, 210.
<script>