convention for its kind remembrance. A curious chapter on Chase developed Thursday, July 9th, the last day of the convention. On that morning Samuel J. Tilden called a meeting of the New York delegation.1 Horatio Seymour was present and strongly advocated turning the support of New York from Hendricks to Chase. In this he was bitterly opposed by State Senator Murphy, of Brooklyn, who defied Seymour to name any States that Chase would carry. Seymour stated that he had consulted with various of the western and central delegations of the State before making his appeal for Chase. Murphy was forced to dodge the question when Seymour asked if his home city, Brooklyn, would not support Chase. The four district delegates from Brooklyn stood for Chase. General John A. Green, of Onondaga, also opposed Chase, but Seymour discounted his opposition by showing that Onondaga never gave a Democratic majority. On the vote Senator Murphy and General Green, aided by Albany Democrats, were able to poll 27 votes for Hendricks; but Seymour, aided by Peter B. Sweeny and the solid New York City delegation, except John Morrissey, who favored Pendleton, went for Chase, giving him 36 votes. It was thus agreed that the name of Chase should be placed before the convention that morning at the earliest possible moment. Precisely why this was not done, does not appear. The failure to present Chase's name may possibly be accounted for by the violent opposition with which it was received by General McCook, of the Ohio delegation when sounded on the matter. A minority of the Ohio delegation, including Vallandigham, however, agreed to stand by Chase, as did a considerable number of the Pennsylvania delegates. It would seem that this antici

1 1 New York Herald, July 10, 1868. Cf. New York Evening Post, July 9, 1868; Cf. New York Times, July 9, 1868.

pated move in favor of Chase on the part of New York had a direct bearing on the action of Ohio in attempting to stampede the convention for Horatio Seymour. We are led to believe there was constant double dealing on the part of the New York delegation. Certainly that was the distinct opinion which prevailed among the Southern and Western delegates.1

The New York Herald was inconsolable over its failure to nominate Chase. It continued to think that the majority of the independent thinking men favored Chase and that the nomination of Seymour was the result of trickery at the hands of Tammany and the Albany Regency. The nomination of Seymour gave Grant the election ipso facto." Although there had been a strong movement on foot to obliterate the old party lines and combine the several conservative elements against Radical misrule, the nomination of Seymour, thought the Herald, resolved the contest into a choice between those who had stood for Union and those who had supported disunion.*

The World cordially indorsed the financial part of the Democratic platform as it did the portion relating to negro suffrage and Radical Reconstruction. But it called the tariff plank of the platform a muddle. It failed to see under the wording of the platform-" a tariff for revenue upon foreign imports and such equal taxation under the internal revenue laws as will afford incidental protection to domestic manufactures"-how internal taxes were to protect without discriminating. Regarding the nomination of Sey

1 New York Times, July 9, 1868; New York Evening Post, July 9, 1868; New York Sun, July 10, 1868. The Sun spoke of Pendleton's being crowded from the field as illustrative of a "system of tactics that has hardly a parallel in the annals of party warfare."

New York Herald, July 10, 1868.

Ibid., July 11, 1868.

5 New York World, July 8, 1868.

Ibid.

mour and Blair, the World waxed enthusiastic. First, Seymour was the greatest statesman of the Democratic party; secondly, he had a strong grasp on the questions which related to the strengthening of the national finances; and lastly, he had always been such a thorough and consistent Democrat, and his party popularity and influence were so great, that he alone possessed the requisite moral weight to adapt Democracy to the altered condition of the country.1

Assuming for the moment that Seymour had been elected in 1868, the logic which the World used in explaining its opposition to Chase appears sound. Had the Chief Justice been elected he would have been regarded as a renegade by the Senate, and the Democrats would have distrusted him as a Radical. Had he dared to make the necessary concessions to the Radicals, the party which had elected him would have thought him false to his principles. Seymour, even though he had advocated the nomination of Chase, had been such a staunch unswerving Democrat that any concession he might make would be accepted by his followers as a necessity, rather than an evidence of partiality or a sign of falsity.

2

But Charles Dana could not see the force of this logic. On July 1st, Chase had issued his final declaration of principles which embodied States rights, suffrage to all citizens regardless of race, all disabilities to be removed from the South, and sound money. Pointing to this platform and to the character of Chase, Dana felt obliged to confess that the doctrine and the man were "considerably in advance of the old-fogy Democracy of the present day.' To Dana, Chase appeared as "a great, progressive states

1 New York Herald, July 10, 1868. 'New York World, July 10, 1868.

994

'New York Sun, July 7, 1868. See platform.

4 Ibid.

man" who had been rejected by the Tammany Hall convention because of his Radical associations. The vast accession of strength which Chase would have brought from the Radical party, would be realized by the Democrats too late.1

The Pendletonites attempted to cover up their chagrin after the nomination of Seymour by making public a letter written on June 25, 1868, by Mr. Pendleton to Washington McLean, proprietor of the Cincinnati Enquirer, prior to the latter's departure for the convention. In this letter Mr. Pendleton professed to feel that Seymour was the foremost man in the Democracy. "I would rather trust him than myself with the delicate duties of the next four years . . . Make him feel . . . that I am ready-anxious to give up the nomination to anybody who can get one single vote more than myself." This letter may have been written for the exact purpose which it served; a more charitable view, such as the World took, makes the letter an honor to Pendleton. But as the game of politics is played, one must beware of political letters, even under the guise of personal correspondence. How convenient it is to have every possible avenue guarded by a letter which is calculated to serve a definite contingency.

Seymour "is the fair representative of the average sentiments of the Democracy upon all the leading issues of the canvass," was the best the Sun had to offer, although it admitted his distinguished position in the party and his popularity east of the Alleghenies. General Blair was characterized as a man of fair talents and great force of

1 New York Sun, July 7, 1868.

New York Herald, July 10, 1868.
New York World, July 10, 1868.
New York Sun, July 10, 1868.

character, who in his recent letter had placed himself on higher grounds than the Democratic platform,' but “in politics unsound, extreme and violent "."

2

This was the attitude the Evening Post assumed on Blair, while it considered Seymour the creature of advisers, for the most part bad advisers. The Democratte platform set the two parties in fair open opposition upon the principal questions before the country, i. e., the question of Reconstruction and the question of the payment of the debt.* The Evening Post saw in the financial plank of the Democratic platform, repudiation, which was calculated to carry the supporters of Pendleton and in addition win over the Butler faction of the Radical party which was out of accord with Grant and Radical principles."

There was no ambiguity in the succinct sentences of the Democratic platform on the financial question, thought the Times; the principles were those of which Pendleton was the exponent. While the Times advocated no candidate for the Democrats at any time, it was obvious that it thought Chase would make the strongest run against Grant. After matching Seymour's war record with that of Grant and pointing to Blair's revolutionary letter, the Times concluded that the candidates and ticket inspired no apprehension of success. The attitude of the Tribune on the Democratic candidates and platform was similar to that of the Times, though naturally sharper. Horace outdid himself

1 New York Sun, July 10, 1868.

'Ibid., July II, 1868.

'New York Evening Post, July 11, 1868.

'New York Evening Post, July 10, 11, 1868.

* See New York Sun, July 8, 1868, for a comparison of the Dem. and Rad. Nat. platforms.

New York Times, July 10, 1868.