{"1": {"fulltext": "1900.\\nThe Presidential Problem\\nFROM THE STANDPOINT OF\\nPRACTICAL POLITICS,\\nTOGETHER WITH A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE\\nNATIONAL CONVENTIONS\\nREPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIES\\nFOR HALF A CENTURY.\\nThe within three articles by Louis G. Hoyt, Esq., Secretary of the N. H. Republican\\nState Committee, were written for the Exeter (N. H.) News-Letter, and are reprinted\\nto satisfy a demand that they be published in pamphlet form. As first published the\\narticle on the Presidential Problem appeared last.", "height": "3293", "width": "2051", "jp2-path": "1900presidential00hoyt_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "65699", "height": "3233", "width": "2045", "jp2-path": "1900presidential00hoyt_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "THE PRESIDENTIAL PROBLEM.\\nThe renominatiou of bothMcKinley and\\nBryan follows a precedent which has\\nhappened but three times in the history\\nof the country, where the same candi-\\ndates have met in two Presidential elec-\\ntions, and in each instance the victorious\\nparty in the first contest has been defeat-\\ned in the second.\\nIn 1824 and in 1828 JohnQuincy Adams\\nand Andrew Jackson were the opposing\\ncandidates of the two great parties.\\nAdams won in 1824 and Jackson in 1828.\\nIn 1836 and in 1840 Martin Van Buren\\nand William Henry Harrison were the op-\\nposing candidates. Van Buren won in\\n183G and Harrison in 1840.\\nIn 1888 and in 1892 Benjamin Harrison\\nand Grovcr Cleveland were opposed to\\neach other as the Republican and Demo-\\ncratic candidates. Harrison w^on in 1888\\nand Cleveland in 1892.\\nShould McKinley be elected this fall, it\\nwill be the only instance in our history\\nwhere a candidate for President has suc-\\ncessfully met the same opponent in two\\nnational contests.\\nPARTY MAXAGEMENT.\\nFew people realize the immense respon-\\nsibility which will devolve upon party\\nmanagement as represented by national\\nand state committees during the next\\nfew months.\\nApparently trivial matters happening\\nat a critical time in the closing hours of\\na campaign have defeated the ambition\\nof some of our greatest men, and changed\\nthe whole character of our national\\npolicy.\\nEvery word from now on publicly\\nspoken by Mr. McKinley or Mr. Bryan\\nwill be flashed as news items to -the four\\nquarters of the country and made the\\nsubject of general discussion. The oppo-\\nsition will seek to distort every sentiment\\nuttered by either into meanings never in-\\ntended, but such as will tend to give party\\nadvantage.\\nExperience has shown this danger to\\nbe so great that parties demand of candi-\\ndates that they place themselves entirely\\nin the hands of the party management,\\nand we have but two instances where\\nPresidential nominees have refused to be\\nthus subservient, and in each case the\\nparty has suffered defeat in consequence.\\nBlaine s mistakes.\\nThe most recent of these cases is that\\nof James G. Blaine, whose ability as a\\nmanager for others was superior perhaps\\nto that of any man of his day, but who\\nmade a lamentable failure as a manager\\nfor himself.\\nBlaine not only directed his national\\ncommittee to use the Cleveland scandal,\\nwhich proved such a mistake, but digni-\\nfied a similar scandal concerning himself\\nby instituting a libel suit against a news-\\npaper publisher. His permitting himself\\nto be entertained by Jay Gould during the\\ncanvass gave the opposition papers an\\nopportunity to point to this as evidence\\nthat he was under the influence of Wall\\nstreet, and his giving Dr. Burchard an\\nopportunity to address him in behalf of a\\ndelegation of ministers in the Fifth\\nAvenue Hotel in New York, while on his", "height": "3253", "width": "2025", "jp2-path": "1900presidential00hoyt_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "way home from his western tour on the\\neve of the election, without having Dr.\\nBurchard s address first submitted to him\\nfor inspection, were mistakes lie never\\nwould have allowed others to make, and\\nbut for which Blaine would have been\\nPresident. He lost New York by only\\n1200 votes, and Dr. Burchard s address\\nwherein he alleged that Blaine s fight\\nagainst the Democratic party was a fight\\nagainst Rum, Romanism and Rebellion\\nwas responsible for this result. Mr.\\nBlaine made no allusion to it in his reply.\\nAs a result the words were prominent in\\nscare headlines in all the Democratic\\npapers of the state the next morning, and\\nwere impressed so forcibly upon the\\nCatholics that Blaine lost a considerable\\npart of that voLe which otherwise would\\nhave gone to him, and by this trivial in-\\ncident was the life ambition of one of our\\ngreatest statesmen defeated.\\nA change of less than GOO votes in New\\nYork state would have changed the re-\\nsult in the nation.\\nTHE OLD PROBLEM.\\nThe adoption by the Democrats at Chi-\\ncago in 1896 of a platform favoring the\\nfree coinage of silver at a ratio of 16 to 1\\nplaced safely in the Republican column\\nConnecticut, New Jersey and New York,\\nwith a total of 52 electoral votes, states\\nwhich had before been doubtful. The re-\\nsult in these states had for some years\\nbeen the determining factor in our Presi-\\ndential elections.\\nWhile Indiana bears the unique distinc-\\ntion of being the only state which has\\ncast her electoral vote for the winning\\ncandidate in every Presidential election\\nsince 1856, New York s only exception\\nis when she voted for Seymour in 1868,\\nomitting iu both cases the Tilden-Hayes\\ncontest, where by counting in certain\\nSouthern states for Hayes which had\\ngiven Democratic majorities, he was\\ngiven a majority of one in the electoral\\ncollege. But unlike Indiana the vote of\\nNew York has determined the result in\\nthe nation in four recent elections.\\nIn 1876 New York state cast its vote\\nfor Tilden and would have elected Hayes,\\nwithout these Southern states. In 1880 it\\ncast its vote for Garfield, and its support\\nwould have elected Hancock. In 1884 it\\nvoted for Cleveland and would have elect-\\ned Blaine. In 1888 it voted for Harrison,\\nand its vote would have re-elected Cleve-\\nland.\\nTHE NEW PKOBLKM.\\nWith these three Eastern states against\\nthe Democrats a new pi oblem in practical\\npolitics was presented, of carrying the\\nthe country for Bryan without their aid.\\nIt was realized by all that the Chicago\\nplatform declared for principles which\\nhad a large following in the West, and\\nthat their declaration would create new\\npolitical conditions the exact efi ect of\\nwhich it was difficult to determine.\\nIndiana had for. some years been the\\nonly Western state that had been reckon-\\ned doubtful, although in 1892 Wisconsin,\\nfor the first time in its history, and Illi-\\nnois, for the first time since it voted for\\nBuchanan in 1856, went Democratic, and\\nOhio and Michigan divided their electoral\\nvotes.\\nIt was evident that the silver issue was\\ngoing to take some of these Western\\nstates which had heretofore been safely\\nRepublican and place them in the Demo-\\ncratic column, but as no contest had be-\\nfore been fought out on these lines it was\\nuncertain as to how great the changes\\nmight be, there being no precedents to\\nguide in forming an opinion.\\nMr. Bryan contended that on these\\nissues he would carry the doubtful state\\nof Indiana, and the Republican states of\\nKansas, Nebraska, Washington, Wyo-\\nming, Colorado, South Dakota, Montana,\\nNevada, California, Oregon, Iowa, Ohio\\nand Illinois. He lost Indiana, but he\\ncarried the first eight of these Republi-\\ncan states, got one vote in California,", "height": "3233", "width": "2085", "jp2-path": "1900presidential00hoyt_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "but failed to carry either of tiie last four\\nstates, which was fatal to his election.\\nThe eight that he carried took from the\\nRepublicans 39 votes, which, with the\\none he got in California, gave him 40, or\\n4 more than the vote of New York state,\\nbut in doing this he had lost Delaware,\\nMaryland and Kentucky, three Democratic\\nstates which gave McKinley 23 votes;\\nso from the 40 votes he gained in the\\nWest he had to sacrifice 23 votes in the\\nSouth, which left him a net gain of only\\n17 votes.\\nTHE LESSON OF THE RETURNS.\\nAn examination of the returns for 1896\\nshows that some of the states which\\nwent for Bryan and McKinley were so\\nclose that they must be placed as doubt-\\nful in the present contest.\\nStates which have given the prevailing\\nparty a vote of 52 per cent., or less, of\\nthe lohole vote cast have always been con-\\nsidered so close as to be doubtful for\\nfuture results.\\nThe last election showed the following\\nto be such states, in some cases the\\nstates being carried by a plurality merely.\\nDOUBTFtTL MCKINLEY STATES.\\nElectoral Votes.\\nIndiana, 15 50.81 per cent.\\nCalifornia, 8 49 29\\nKentucky, 12 48.93\\nOregon, 4 50.01\\nFour states with 39 electoral votes.\\nDOUBTPUL BRYAN STATES.\\nElectoral Votes.\\nKansas, 10 51.05 per cent.\\nNebraska. 8 51.93\\nSo.Dakota, 4 49.09\\nWyoming, 3 51.06\\nFour states with 25 electoral votes.\\nTo which should be added one vote\\nfrom California and one from Kentucky,\\nwhich went for Bryan, making a total of\\n27 doubtful Bryan votes and 39 doubtful\\nMcKinley votes.\\nThe Democratic proposition will be to\\nhold the doubtful Bryan states and carry\\nthe doubtful McKinley states, in which\\nevent the vote will stand as follows\\nMcKinley s electoral vote. 1896 271\\nBryan s 1\\nMcKinley s majority in 1896 95\\nDeducting the above 39 doubtful Mc-\\nKinley votes from the McKinley column\\nand adding to the Bryan column gives\\nthis result\\nMcKinley s electoral vote, 1900 232\\nBryan s 1^\\nMcKinley s majority 17\\nIt thus appears that if the Democrats\\nsucceed in holding all of their own and\\ncarrying all of the Republican states held\\nin 1896 by a vote of 52 per cent., or less,\\nof the lohole vote cast^ McKinley will then\\nhave 17 more votes than Bryan, and, of\\nthe doubtful Bryan states, Kansas in the\\nlast election gave a Republican plurality\\nof 15,000 for governor and Wyoming a\\nRepublican plurality of 1,394, showing a\\nRepublican tendency, to say the least,\\nwhile Oregon has just given an increased\\nRepublican majority.\\nA TOUGH PROBLEM.\\nIt must be borne in mind that the above\\ncomputation gives the Democrats every\\nstate in the Union in which the Republi-\\ncan vote in 1896 did not exceed 52 per\\ncent, of the tohole vote cast for all candi-\\ndates, and not 52 per cent, of the com-\\nbined Republican and Democratic votes.\\nThis makes, as the mathematicians say,\\na tough problem for the Democratic\\nmanagers to successfully solve, but if\\nthey succeed in it they will still have a\\nmajority against them of 17 votes. They\\ncan overcome this only by taking nine\\nmore votes from McKinley states and add-\\ning to their own, which will, of course,\\nmake a difference of 18 votes.\\nThe Republican states in which the\\nMcKinley vote in 1896 was lowest, aside\\nI from those appearing in the above list of\\ndoubtful McKinley states, are as follows,", "height": "3228", "width": "2035", "jp2-path": "1900presidential00hoyt_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "6\\nthe percentajje beiug that of the Republi-\\ncan vote to the lohole vote cast\\nElectoral\\nvotes.\\nOhio, 23 52.11 per cent.\\nWest Virginia, 4 52.42\\nDelaware, 3 53.41\\nMichigan, 14 53.92\\nMaryland, 8 54.60\\nIllinois, 24 5.5.66\\nTo these states Bryan will have to look\\nfor these additional nine votes.\\nThe meaning of the above percentages\\nand the difficulty the Democrats will have\\nin overcoming them can be better under-\\nstood when it is said that it would mean\\nthe wiping out of a plurality for Mc-\\nKinley over Bryan of 47,000 in Ohio, 11,-\\n500 in West Virginia, 3300 in Delaware,\\n56,000 in Michigan, 32,000 in Maryland,\\n143,000 in Illinois.\\nThese are the problems with which the\\nNational and State Committees of the\\ntwo great parties will have to deal during\\nthe next few months. The partisans of\\neach candidate in their zeal for tlie cause\\nthey espouse will, between now and elec-\\ntion, daily elect their respective idols in\\nclub rooms and country stores and on the\\nstreet corners, the sporting man will\\ndemonstrate the sincerity of his opinions\\nby wagers regulated only by the size of\\nhis pocket book, the Standard Oil Com-\\npany will sell its petroleum to illuminate\\nthe anti-trust transparencies of both par-\\nties, and the gunpowder combine will\\nrun its works night and day to enable the\\npoliticians to keep up the courage of their\\nconstituents with Hreworks and noise.\\nBut the committees who have assumed\\nthe grave responsibilities of the cam-\\npaign will not be misled by all this out-\\nward demonstration of patriotism and\\nparty loyalty. Their eyes will be fixed on\\nthe figures as they appear in the contests\\nof the past, and the election of our next\\nPresident will largely depend on the wis-\\ndom of their interpretation.\\nLouis G. Huyt.\\nKingston, N. H., July 5, 1900.", "height": "3233", "width": "2045", "jp2-path": "1900presidential00hoyt_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "REPUBLICAN CONVENTIONS.\\nThat sentiment of liberty which im-\\npelled the colonists of 1776 to rebel against\\nthe mother country had, from time to time\\nduring the first half of the pi-esent cen-\\ntury, manifested itself in its sympathy\\nwith the colored population of the South,\\nand while the desire for the abolition of\\nslavery on the one hand and its retention\\non the other had in 185G not shown itself\\nin the open rebellion of any of the states,\\nyet on many occasions it had been threat-\\nened, and was such a bone of contention\\nin congress and with the people that it\\nnot only formed a menace to the nation\\nbut a serious drawback to our prosperity\\nas a people. The anti-slavery sentiment\\nof the North was so strong at this time\\nthat it only required a spark to ignite it\\ninto a flame of indignation which would\\nseriously threaten the continued ascend-\\nency of the Democratic party, which had\\nbeen in power continuously since 1800,\\nwith the exception of the temporary\\nWhig triumphs of 1840 and 1848.\\nThis spark was furnished by the pas-\\nsage in 1854 of a bill providing for the\\norganization of two new territories north\\nof latitude 36.30, under the names of\\nKansas and Nebraska, and permitting\\nslavery therein if the people desired it.\\nThis bill looked toward the extension of\\nslavery, repealing the Missouri Comprom-\\nise of 1820, which expressly prohibited\\nslavery north of 36.30, and aroused the\\nmost intense indignation throughout the\\nNorth.\\nTHE FIRST REPUBUCAN CONVENTIOX.\\nThis feeling was so strong in 1856 that\\nit was apparent it would become a lead-\\ning issue in the campaign, although\\nneither of the then dominant parties had\\nthe courage to accept the issue in their\\nplatforms. The Democrats nominated\\nBuchanan, and the American or Know\\nNothing party, whose principle of faith\\nwas that Americans must rule America,\\nnominated Millard Fillmore.\\nIn the convention which nominated\\nFillmore an eftbrt was made for the\\nadoption of an anti-slavery platform, but\\nthe majority of the convention voting\\nagainst it a large body of delegates seced-\\ned and nominated John C. Fremont, thus\\ngiving birth to the Kepublican party,\\nwhich four years later came into power\\nand which has practically ruled the coun-\\ntry ever since.\\nTHE LINCOLN CONVENTION OF 1860.\\nIn the election of 1856 the pivotal states\\nwere Pennsylvania and Indiana and the\\nefforts of all parties were made to carry\\nthese two states, but the opposition to\\nBuchanan was divided between Fillmore\\nand Fremont, which assured Buchanan s\\nsuccess, but the returns showed that he\\nhad carried his own state of Pennsylvania\\nby a majority of only 1025 votes and Indi-\\nana by a majority of only 1909. Fremont s\\nimmense vote in these states and through-\\nout the North, which greatly exceeded\\nFillmore s, showed that anti-slavery was\\nto be the chief issue between the con-\\ntending parties of the future.\\nThese figures demonstrated that when\\nthe leaders of the llepublican party met\\nin Chicago in 1860 to nominate a Presi-\\ndential candidate their mission was not", "height": "3228", "width": "2035", "jp2-path": "1900presidential00hoyt_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "8\\nso much one of sentiment as of practical\\npolitics.\\nVolumes of romance have been written\\nas to the success of Lincoln in that con-\\nvention, and his defeat of Seward has\\nbeen generally attributed to an admiration\\nfor the ability Lincoln showed in his de-\\nbates with Douglass, but the returns in\\nthe Fremont campaign made it manifest\\nthat the national contest then pending\\nwas to be decided by the votes of Penn-\\nsylvania and Indiana, and to the desire to\\nnominate a candidate who could best\\nunite the opposition to the Democrats in\\nthose states was due Seward s defeat in\\nthe convention.\\nWilliam H. Seward in 1860 held a posi-\\ntion as a leader in the Republican party\\nanalogous to that of James G. Blaine\\nlater, but unlilie Blaine he had few per-\\nsonal enemies. Seward went into the\\nconvention with a large majority of the\\ndelegates favorable to his nomination,\\nbut the argument was advanced that both\\nPennsylvania and Indiana had their state\\nelections in October, and it was absolute-\\nly necessary to win the October elections\\nin order to carry these states in Novem-\\nber, and in each of them it was essential\\nto secure the support of the large Know\\nNothing vote of these states, in order to\\ncarry them for the Republicans. Seward\\ncould not command this support, because\\nhe had advocated a division of school\\nfunds in New Yorli state between Catli-\\nolics and Protestants, and the Know\\nNothings were hostile to anyone who had\\na friendly feeling for Catholics, The 78\\ndelegates from Pennsylvania and Indiana\\nopposed Seward s nomination for this\\nreason, and were united on Lincoln. As\\na result of this opposition Seward led\\nLincoln by only 71 votes on the first\\nballot, three votes on the second, and was\\ndefeated by Lincoln s nomination on the\\nthird.\\nIn the election, of the states which voted\\nfor Buchanan in 1856 Lincoln carried\\nPennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois. Califor-\\nnia and four votes in New Jersey, secur-\\ning a majority of 57 votes in the electoral\\ncollege.\\nThus came into power a nevv party,\\nwhich was destined for greater achieve-\\nments than have heretofore been accom-\\nplished by any political organization in\\nthe history of either republics or em-\\npires.\\nLINCOLN S RENOMINATION IN 186 1.\\nIt would hardly be expected that any\\nprominent Republican would allow his\\nname to be used in opposition to Lin-\\ncoln s renomination, yet his opponents in\\nthe party were so numerous that they\\nheld a mass convention at Cleveland in\\n1864, and nominated John C. Fremont\\nfor President. The regular Republican\\nconvention renominated Lincoln by ac-\\nclamation, and he carried every state in\\nthe Union, except New Jersey, Delaware\\nand Kentucliy, the Southern states not\\nvoting. At the time of his nomination,\\nhowever, Lincoln had grave doubts of\\nhis re-election, and was so skeptical of\\nthe result of the October election in\\nPennsylvania that he furloughed ten\\nthousand Pennsylvania soldiers to return\\nhome, to vote as they fought.\\nGRANT NOMINATED IN 1868.\\nThe position of General Grant as a pol-\\nitician in 1868 was somewhat like that of\\nAdmiral Dewey in 1900 While Grant,\\nlike Dewey, had been given his opportu-\\nnities for acquiring distinction by a Re-\\npublican admiuistration in carrying out\\nRepublican policies, with which he was in\\nentire sympathy, he had never voted any-\\nthing but a Democratic ticket, and cast\\nhis first Republican ballot during his sec-\\nond term as pi esident.\\nThe Democrats realized the demoral-\\nization in which the war had left them\\nand they early began a movement to nom-\\ninate Grant as their candidate, which\\nlikely would have been successful had it\\nnot been for the bitter fight the Republi-\\ncans were making against Johnson, who", "height": "3233", "width": "2045", "jp2-path": "1900presidential00hoyt_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "then had Democratic support, and against\\nwhom Grant entertained feelings of in-\\ntense hatred. While Grant was averse\\nto leaving his life position in the army,\\nhe tinally consented to accept the Repub-\\nlican nomination, which was given him\\nby acclamation, his majority over Sey-\\nmour in the electoral college being 134\\nvotes, but Seymour carried both New\\nYork and New Jersey.\\ngrant s renomination in 1872.\\nGrant s administration had been par-\\nticularly factional, many of his army\\nfriends in whom he had placed his con-\\ntidence had proven unworthy of it, and\\nhe was severely criticised, but the Re-\\npublican opposition to him went into the\\nLiberal Republican organization which\\nnominated Greeley, so that w^hen the Re-\\npublican convention met in Philadelphia\\nit was harmonious, and Grant was nom-\\ninated by acclamation, and in the elec-\\ntion he defeated the different tickets op-\\nposed to him by the overwhelmingnnajor-\\nity of 223 votes in the electoral college.\\nBLAINE S AMBITION.\\nA sad fatality seemed to follow the\\npresidential ambition of James G. Blaine,\\nwhich in many respects resembled that of\\nHenry Clay, each of whom had more de-\\nvoted admirers than any two men in our\\nhistory. Clay was twice defeated for\\nnomination in years when his party tri-\\numphed in the election, and was nom-\\ninated in 1844 only to be defeated by\\nPolk. Blaine was likewise defeated for\\nnomination in the conventions of 1876\\nand 1880, when the Republicans carried\\nthe elections, and was nominated in 1884\\nonly to be defeated by Cleveland. While\\nthe chief ambition of his life was to be\\npresident, he had always said he never ex-\\npected to attain it, but it was owing sole-\\nly to the mistake of managing his own\\ncampaign, to which I shall refer in an-\\nother article, that he suffered defeat in\\nthe election.\\nTHE BLAINE HAYES CONTEST OF 1876.\\nBlaine entered the convention of 1876\\nwith a majority of the delegates favor-\\nable to him, but ihe delegates from Penn-\\nsylvania, which was strongly Blaine in sen-\\ntiment, were held by instructions to vote\\nfor Governor Hartranft of that state,\\nand there were other complications\\nwhich prevented his having a majority\\non any one ballot, although a majority of\\nthe delegates had during the seven ballots\\nwhich resulted in the nomination of\\nHayes actually voted for him. The\\nseventh ballot gave Hayes 384 to 351 for\\nBlaine and 21 for Bristow.\\nTHE BLAINE-GARFIELD CONTEST OF 1880.\\nThe most celebrated convention in the\\nannals of either party was the Republi-\\ncan convention of 1880, where Grant s\\nmemorable 306 delegates, led by Roscoe\\nConkling, Blaine s bitterest foe, stood by\\nhim through 36 ballots, and Blaine s 280\\ndelegates through 35.\\nJames A. Garfield was at the head of\\nthe Ohio delegation which was instructed\\nfor Senator Sherman, and his speech\\nnominating Sherman attracted such fa-\\nvorable attention that he was looked\\nupon as a possible dark horse in case of\\na dead-lock between Grant and Blaine,\\nbut it was not until the 34th ballot that\\nhe had as many as 17 votes, which was\\nincreased to 50 on the 35th and on the\\n36th he received the support of Blaine\\nand was nominated.\\nTHE BLAINE- ARTHUR CONTEST OF 1884.\\nThe friends of Blaine had made such a\\nstubborn contest In two conventions and\\nhe had yielded to defeat with so much\\ngrace that the sentiment in favor of his\\nnomination in 1884 was so strong as to\\nmake it certain that it was within his\\nreach. He had been defamed in his pre-\\nvious contests without limit, and with\\nthe Grant-Conkling influence against him\\nhe had little heart to receive a nomina-\\ntion and enter a contest where he would", "height": "3293", "width": "1985", "jp2-path": "1900presidential00hoyt_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "10\\nhave to meet not only the abuse of his\\nDemocratic opponents, but the vindic-\\ntiveness of the hostile forces within his\\nown party. He, however, allowed his\\nname to go before the convention, and\\non the fourth ballot received o-ll votes to\\n207 for Chester A. Arthur.\\nThe vote of New York state defeated\\nhim at the polls, and that state was so\\nclose that a change of less thau 600 votes\\nout of a total of 1,167,000 would have\\ngiven him the state.\\nTHE SHERMAN-HARRISON CONTEST OF\\n1888.\\nThe Republican convention of 1888 had\\nfor its leading candidate John Sherman,\\nof Ohio, for whom Pennsylvania had in-\\nstructed its delegates, and on the first\\nballot he had 221) votes, the next highest\\ncandidate being Judge Greshara, of Indi-\\nana, with 111 votes, the others being dis-\\ntributed among ten other candidates.\\nSherman reached his highest vote on the\\nsecond ballot, and it soon became appar-\\nent that he could not be nominated. Ben-\\njamin Harrison steadily increased his 21\\nvotes on the first ballot until he led Sher-\\nman on the seventh and was nominated\\non the eighth, receiving one-half of Sher-\\nman s strength. New York s delegation\\nsteadily supported Depevv.\\nHARRISON RE-NOMINATED IN 1892.\\nThe party was practically united in\\nfavor of Harrison s re-nomination in 1892,\\nwhich took place in the convention on\\nthe first ballot. He had aroused many\\nantagonisms in the party during his ad-\\nministration, and had utterly failed to\\nrecognize the work of the leaders who\\nhad made his election possible. Blaine,\\nit will be remembered, created surprise\\nthroughout the country by suddenly\\nresigning as secretary of state just before\\nthe assembling of the convention, and\\nstarting for Europe. The opposition to\\nHarrison showed itself in the convention\\nin the 192 votes cast for Blaine and 192\\nfor McKinley.\\nHarrison was badly beaten at the polls,\\nCleveland carrying New York, Connecti-\\ncut, New Jersey and California, and the\\nstrong Republican states of Illinois and\\nWisconsin, and receiving five votes from\\nMichigan.\\nMC KINLEY NOMINATED IN 1896.\\nThe year 189G found our industrial con-\\nditions severely depressed and the cheap\\nmoney heresy gaining headway with the\\nrank and file of both parties in the West\\nand South. The demand for some sort\\nof relief from existing conditions seemed\\nto center on the more liberal use of silver\\nas money, so that each party was forced\\nto yield to the sentiment, the Democrats\\ndeclaring for the free coinage of silver\\nat a ratio of 16 to 1, without regard to\\nthe attitude of other nations, and the\\nRepublicans expressing opposition to\\nfree coinage, except by international\\nagreement, which we pledge ourselves to\\nsupport.\\nThis attitude of the Republicans on the\\nfinancial issue caused the withdrawal of\\n3-1 delegates from the western states,\\nafter which the convention nominated\\nMcKinley by an overwhelming majority\\nover Reed.\\nNEW PROBLEMS.\\nThe attitude of the Democrats on the\\nsilver question while strengthening the\\nRepublicans in the East weakened them\\nin the West, and created problems in\\npractical politics entirely new in the\\njiistory of our parties, which I shall take\\noccasion to discuss in another article,\\nafter the platforms are made up at Phil-\\nadelphia and Kansas City.\\nLouis G. Hoyt.\\nKingston, N. H., June 4, 1900.", "height": "3233", "width": "2045", "jp2-path": "1900presidential00hoyt_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "DEMOCRATIC CONVENTIONS.\\nTo give a history of tlie conventions of\\nthe Democratic party would necessitate\\ngoing bacii to the Congressional caucus\\nwhich nominated Jeflerson in 1804.\\nPrior to this tlie constitution provided\\nthat the Presidential electors should\\nmeet and eacli vote for two candidates\\nfor President, and the candidate receiv-\\ning the largest number of votes for\\nPresident, if a majority, should be Presi-\\ndent, and the second largest vote for\\nPresident should be Vice President, but\\nin 1800 Thomas Jefferson and Aaron\\nBurr, both of the same party, received\\nthe same number of electoral votes for\\nPi esident, whereby the election went into\\nthe House, each state being entitled to\\ncast one vote and that to be determined\\nby a majority of the delegation, a major-\\nity of the states being required to elect.\\nFor 35 ballots Jefferson received the\\nvotes of eight states and Burr of six,\\ntwo states being tied in their delegations\\nand so unable to vote. This made nine\\nstates necessary for a choice, and it was\\nnot until the 36th ballot that Jefferson\\nwas elected by the vote of Vermont,\\nwhich broke the tie in its delegation by\\none of its delegates refusing to vote.\\nThis complication brought about an\\namendment to the constitution which\\ntook effect in 1804, whereby the electors\\nwere to vote for one candidate for Presi-\\ndent and one for Vice President.\\nAt this time most of the electors were\\nchosen by the legislatures of the several\\nstates, instead of by popular vote, and\\nwere supposed to use their individual\\njudgment in voting for President, with-\\nout any prior understanding or pledges,\\nsuch as are implied in nominating con-\\nventions, but the experience of parties up\\nto this time showed the necessity of a\\nuniform understanding relative to the\\ncandidates to be voted for by the electors,\\nbefore the latter were chosen.\\nAfter this, and for many years, the\\nPresidential nominations were made by\\nmembers of congress in a congression-\\nal caucus, and it was not until 1830 that\\na political national convention was held\\nin this country, brought about by the\\ndeath of AVilliam Morgan, who, it was\\nclaimed, was murdered by the Masons\\nfor revealing the secrets of the order,\\nand originating the anti-Masonic party,\\nwhich attained much power.\\nThis precedent was followed in 1831\\nby the National Republicans, who nomi-\\nnated Clay, and by the present Demo-\\ncratic party, in 1832, which was called to\\nnominate a candidate for Vice President\\nonly, Jackson s claim to selection as\\nPresident being conceded. At this con-\\nvention the Democrats adopted a rule\\nwhich required a two-thirds vote to\\nnominate, and which has been the rule of\\nevery Democratic convention since.\\nFrom Jefferson s time until ISGO the\\nDemocratic party ruled the country,\\nbeing disturbed only by the temporary\\nWhig triumphs of Harrison over Van\\nBuren in 1840 and of Taylor over Lewis\\nCass in 1848, neither of which changed\\nthe general policy of the country in any\\nmaterial respect.\\nIt being my intention only to refer to\\nthe Democratic conventions which have\\ntaken place since that party first met its\\npresent adversary in 1856, I will pass\\nalong to that time, except to refer to the\\nconvention of 1852 which conferred its\\ndistinguished honor upon a citizen of\\nNew Hampshire.\\nMEW IIAMrSIlIUK IIONOKED IX 1852.\\nWhen the Democratic convention met", "height": "3293", "width": "1985", "jp2-path": "1900presidential00hoyt_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "12\\nat Baltimore in 1852 the Whig party was\\ndemoralized by the different views of its\\nleaders on the question ot restricting\\nslavery in its territory recently acquired\\nthrough the annexation of Texas. Pres-\\nident Taylor began with one policy,\\nwhich was soon changed by his death\\nand the substitution of another by the\\nelevation to the presidency of Vice Presi-\\ndent Fillmore.\\nWebster had cast his lot with Clay and\\nthe pro-slavery wing of the party, result-\\ning in the passage of the Clay Comprom-\\nise, which declared against the abolition\\nof slavery in the District of Columbia\\nand in favor of the admission of Utah\\nand New Mexico as Territories without\\nrestrictions as to slavery. This meas-\\nure greatly weakened the Whigs, but\\nwas so acceptable to the Democrats of\\nthe North as to thoroughly unite that\\nparty.\\nWhile the Democratic convention of\\nthis year was free from any bitterness of\\nfeeling, it tools 49 ballots to nominate.\\nOut of the 2S8 votes in the convention\\nCass started with 116, which he practi-\\ncally maintained up to the 45th ballot.\\nBuchanan started with !)3, and could do\\nno more than hold his own. Douglass\\nstarted with 20, and reached 92 on the\\n30th ballot. There was no decisive\\nchange until the 35th ballot, when Vir-\\nginia, whose influence was then potential\\nin Democratic circles, cast a solid vote\\nfor Franklin Pierce, whose name had not\\nbefore been mentioned. Pierce doubled\\nthis vote on the next ballot, and remained\\npractically stationary until the 49th,\\nwhen he received substantially the unan-\\nimous vote of the convention.\\nPierce s majority over Gen. Scott in\\nthe electoral college was overwhelming,\\nScott carrying only Vermont, Massachu-\\nsetts, Tennessee and Kentucky. His\\ngreat victory over the Whigs, who car-\\nried all the larger states of the Union in\\nthe preceding election, except Ohio, has\\nbeen urged on many occasions since as\\nan argument in favor of the nomination\\nof a dark horse.\\nPierce was a gentleman of the old\\nschool, and a very good school it was,\\ntoo. I remember passing him while he\\nwas driving with his wife when I, as a\\nboy, was driving with another boy in one\\nof Hampton s famous dingle carts, and\\nto our astonishment he saluted us with\\nthat genial smile for which he was noted,\\nand with as much consideration as he\\nwould give a personal acquaintance. I\\nspeak of the incident because he was\\nNew Hampshire born and bred.\\nTHK PIEKCE-BUCHANAN CONTEST OF 1856.\\nPierce s administration had stirred up\\nmuch sectional strife by his reopening the\\nslavery issue in adopting as a Democratic\\nmeasure the bill allowing the people of\\nKansas and Nebraska to decide the ques-\\ntion of slavery for themselves, contrary\\nto the provisions of the Missouri Com-\\npromise of 1820. He was a candidate for\\nre-election in the convention of 1856, and\\nreceived 122 votes to 133 for Buchanan.\\nHis vote, however, gradually fell, and\\nBuchanan s gradually rose, until the\\nlatter was nominated on the 17th ballot,\\nand he was the last of the Democratic\\npresidents for many years. The party\\nbecame hopelessly crushed under the\\nweight of slavery, not to rise until twenty\\nyears after the latter had been abolished\\nby the hand of Lincoln.\\nTHE DEMOCRATIC SPLIT OF 1860.\\nThe Democratic convention of 1860 met\\nat Charleston, April 23d, under most un-\\nauspicious circumstances, with the party\\nhopelessly divided in its slavery views,\\nand its delegates opposed to each other\\nin bitter rivalry for the enforcement of\\ntheir several ideas in the party platform.\\nThe committee on platform made ma-\\njority and minority reports. Gen. B. F.\\nButler making a report of his own, and\\nSenator Bayard still another. All the\\nplatforms were finally recommitted to the\\ncommittee, which afterwards made two", "height": "3233", "width": "2045", "jp2-path": "1900presidential00hoyt_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "13\\nreports. Finally the minority report, be-\\ning the Douglass platform, was adopted,\\nwhereupon the Alabama, Mississippi,\\nFlorida, Texas, Louisiana and South\\nCarolina delegations withdrew, including\\nSenator Bayard, of Delaware.\\nThe attendance being so largely de-\\ncreased, a rule was adopted that two-\\nthirds of a full convention, being 202\\nvotes, should be necessary tor a choice,\\nand the convention proceeded to ballot.\\nOnly 252 delegates were present, and of\\nthese, Stephen A. Douglass had 145 votes\\non the first ballot, and maintained this\\nnumber for 57 ballots, being unable to\\nobtain two-thirds of the vote of a full\\nconvention. The convention thereupon\\nvoted to adjourn to Baltimore, June 18th.\\nThe Baltimore meeting soon got into a\\nwrangle over the admission of delegates,\\nwhich resulted in the retirement of Vir-\\nginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Cali-\\nfornia, Delaware, and a part of Maryland\\nand Kentucky, and finally of their chair-\\nman, Caleb Cushing. What there was\\nleft finally nominated Douglass, but the\\ndelegates present not numbering two-\\nthirds of the full convention they had to\\ndecide that as Douglass had two-thirds\\nof all of those present he was the party\\nnominee.\\nThe seceders from this Baltimore con-\\nvention immediately organized a conven-\\ntion of their own and took in the seced-\\ners from the Charleston convention of\\nApril 23d. Caleb Cushing was made\\nchairman, and John C. Breckenridge hav-\\ning all the votes cast was declared the\\nDemocratic candidate for President.\\nIn the election, while Douglass received\\nonly 12 electoral votes to 72 for Brecken-\\nridge, he received 1,375,157 popular votes\\nto 847,953 for Breckenridge.\\nMC clellan s chances in 1864.\\nStrange as it may seem at this distance\\nof time, there was a strong feeling in 1864\\nthat Lincoln could not be re-elected.\\nMany of the strongest Republican leaders\\nshared this feeling, including Chase,\\nWade, Greeley, Thaddeus Stevens and\\neven Lincoln himself. The country was\\nterribly weary of the war, and when the\\nDemocratic convention met at Chicago\\non August 29 the end was not in sight.\\nGeneral McClellan was the popular idol\\nof the Democrats, and it was thought he\\nhad not been given a fair chance. He was\\nthen in retirement, having been removed\\nfrom the army of the Potomac in 1862.\\nHe was accepted as the nominee of the\\nconvention on the first ballot, and could\\nthe election have taken place on the day\\nof his nomination his chances for success\\nwould have been good, but the delegates\\nhad scarcely got home before the country\\nwas ringing with cheers for the success-\\nful arrival of Sherman at Atlanta, -break-\\ning the backbone of the Confederacy,\\nand giving sunshine to us of the North,\\nwho had been for so long waiting\\nfor the dawn of peace. As a result of\\nthese changed conditions he was over-\\nwhelmingly defeated.\\nTHE SEYMOUR CONVENTION OF 1868.\\nIn 1868 there was a large liberal Re-\\npublican sentiment in the Democratic\\nparty favorable to the nomination of\\nChief Justice Chase, owing to the way\\nChase presided over the Johnson im-\\npeachment trial, and in the resolutions\\nof their convention they declared that\\nPresident Johnson is entitled to the\\ngratitude of the whole American people.\\nEarly in the year there was also a move-\\nment by the Democrats to nominate Gen-\\neral Grant, who had never voted anything\\nbut a Democratic ticket. Samuel J. Tilden\\nsucceeded in stopping both of these move-\\nments. The convention met on July 4,\\nHoratio Seymour presiding. The lead-\\ning candidates were George H. Pen-\\ndleton, General Hancock and Thomas A.\\nHendricks. Finally on the 22d ballot, the\\nconvention being unable to unite on any\\nof these, a break was made for Seymour\\nand he was nominated.\\nV", "height": "3293", "width": "1985", "jp2-path": "1900presidential00hoyt_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "14\\nTHE GREELEY CAMPAIGN OF 1872.\\nNo administration since Jackson s was\\nso despotic as Grant s, and he alienated\\nfrom tlie party many of its ablest leaders.\\nThere never was a time when so many\\nstrong men identified themselves with an\\nopen revolt from any party as in 1872.\\nThe leaders called a convention of Lib-\\neral Republicans to meet in Cincinnati in\\nMay. Charles Francis Adams, Horace\\nGreeley and Lyman Trumbull were the\\nleading candidates before this convention,\\nwhich nominated Greeley on the sixth\\nballot by a slight lead over Adams. The\\nDemocrats held their convention in July,\\nadopted the Liberal Republican platform\\nand nominated Greeley on the first ballot.\\nThe character of Greeley s support loolied\\nlilce his success, but the people were not\\nwith him, and Grant s victory at the polls\\nwas overwhelming. The Democratic op-\\nposition to Greeley found expression in\\nthe nomination of Charles O Conor at\\nLouisville in September.\\nTHE TILDEN CONVENTION OF 187G.\\nOf the political organizers of the coun-\\ntry Samuel J. Tilden never had a superior.\\nHe was quiet, adroit and sagacious, and a\\nman of large fortune, who had acquired\\na national reputation through his cour-\\nageous eftbrts to bring the Tweed ring to\\njustice. When the Democratic conven-\\ntion met at St. Louis in June it was\\napparent that he was to be the party\\nnominee, but he was bitterly opposed by\\nTammany and they openly avowed he\\ncould never carry New York state, which\\nwould be essential for his election.\\nThomas A. Hendricks was his principal\\nopponent, but Tilden was so far in the\\nlead on the first ballot that he was nom-\\ninated on the second, and Hendricks was\\ntaken for vice president.\\nThis ticket carried all the doubtful\\nstates of the North and West, but was\\ndefeated by the vote of three southern\\nstates which had Democratic majorities\\non the face of the returns.\\nHANCOCK NOMINATED IN 1880.\\nThe Democratic convention of 1880\\nmet at Cincinnati, and the Democrats\\nbased great hopes for their success in the\\nelection in the factional quarrels between\\nthe Grant and Blaine forces in the Re-\\npublican convention of three weeks be-\\nfore. This was Grant s third terra con-\\ntest where he held his 30G delegates\\nthrough 36 ballots, and his friends had\\nrefused to be reconciled to his defeat.\\nTilden s name was being urged until the\\nsecond day of the Democratic convention,\\nwhen he withdrew, owing to the violent\\nopposition of Tammany, who openly\\nthreatened a bolt. The three leading\\ncandidates were General Hancock, Sena-\\ntor Bayard and Samuel J. Randall, Han-\\ncock being nominated on the second bal-\\nlot.\\nCLEVELAND S FIRST CONTEST IN 1884.\\nIt fell to the lot of the Democratic\\nconvention in 1884 to nominate the first\\nsuccessful candidate it had had for over\\na quarter of a century. The political\\nmistakes of Garfield s short administra-\\ntion had so impressed themselves on the\\nparty that President Arthur s more dip-\\nlomatic course was unable to entirely re-\\nmove their injurious efi ect on Republican\\nharmony.\\nThe attention of the cation had been\\ncalled to the able administration of\\nGrover Cleveland as Governor of New\\nYork by the immense vote he had re-\\nceived for that oflice, and his Independ-\\nence had made a profound impression\\nupon the mugwump vote. When the\\nDemocratic convention met in 1884 the\\ndelegates were aware that New York\\nwould be the pivotal state in the election,\\nand although he was earnestly opposed\\nby Tammany, under the unit rule Cleve-\\nland received the solid vote of the New\\nYork delegation, and was nominated on\\nthe second ballot. Bayard, Hendricks\\nand Randall were his chief but not for-\\nmidable opponents.", "height": "3233", "width": "2045", "jp2-path": "1900presidential00hoyt_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "15\\nCLEVELAND S RENOMINATION IN 1888.\\nThe Democratic convention of 1888\\nmet at St. Louis June 5 and re-nominated\\nCleveland without a dissenting voice,\\nbut he was defeated at the polls.\\nCLEVELAND S GREAT CONTEST OF 1892.\\nThe Democratic convention of 1892\\nwas one of the most remarkable in the\\nhistory of political parties in that Cleve-\\nland, its nominee, was a resident of New\\nYork state, New York was recognized as\\nthe pivotal state in the election, and the\\nNew York delegation was solid against\\nhis nomination.\\nThe convention proceedings were ac-\\nrimonious to an unusual degree. Cleve-\\nland s forces were led by William C\\nWhitney, and his opponents by that\\nmatchless orator, Bourke Cochran. On\\nthe first ballot he received 10 more than\\nthe necessary two-thirds I equired to\\nnominate, his chief opponents beiug Sen-\\nator Hill and Governor Boies, of Iowa.\\nAfter the nomination it was generally\\nconceded by all parties that he would\\nmeet defeat at the polls, but although the\\npoliticians were against him the people\\nwere with him, and he carried New York\\nand all the doubtful states, and the Re-\\npublican states of Illinois and Wisconsin,\\nand received a part of the vote of Cali-\\nfornia, North Dakota, Michigan and\\nOhio.\\nBRYAN AT CHICAGO IN 189G.\\nWhen the Democratic convention met\\nat Chicago in 1896 the country was in\\na condition of great unrest owing to the\\nexisting industrial depression, and there\\nwas a persistent determination on the\\npart of a large portion of the voters in\\nthe West to attribute all our ills to the\\nrestricted use of silver in our monetary\\nsystem.\\nThe national committee was in the con-\\ntrol of the sound money men of the party\\nand named Senator Hill for chairman, but\\nthe Silverites were so suspicious of the\\nintentions of the sound money men that\\nhey bitterly opposed his choice and\\ncarried the fight into the convention,\\nwhere he was defeated by a vote of 556\\nto 349. The committee on credentials\\ndecided all contests in favor of the free-\\nsilver delegates, after which a protracted\\ndebate was had over the platform, dur-\\ning which Governor Russell, of Massa-\\nchusetts made an eloquent and what\\nturned out to be the last speech of his\\nlife in favor of moderation, and William\\nJ. Bryan, who headed the contested Ne-\\nbraska delegation, which had been let in,\\nmade his famous crown of thorns\\nspeech in favor of free silver, after which\\nthe sound money plank of the minority\\nwas rejected by a vote of 626 to 303.\\nThe convention also refused to endorse\\nthe Cleveland administration.\\nThis result so enraged the sound money\\nDemocrats that 178 of them refused to\\nvote for a candidate for President, and\\nmany returned to their homes with the\\nfixed purpose to repudiate the whole\\nthing by supporting the sound money\\ncandidate of the Republicans, among\\nthem being Frank Jones and Irving W.\\nDrew, of New Hampshire.\\nOn the first ballot Bland, of Missouri,\\nled with 235 votes, Bryan being next\\nwith 119, the balance being divided\\namong ten candidates. On the second\\nand third ballots Bland continued\\nto lead Bryan, both gaining, and\\non the fourth Bryan had 280 votes\\nto Bland s 241. On the fifth Bryan only\\nlacked 12 votes of the necessary two-\\nthirds, but before the vote was declared\\nenough delegates changed their votes to\\ngive him the nomination.\\nIn the election the East went solid\\nagainst Bryan, but he made great gains\\nin the West, carrying many states that\\nhad before been loyal to the Republicans.\\nShould Bryan be nominated at Kansas\\nCity, as he is certain to be, the prece-\\ndents favor his election, but of this I shall\\nspeak in my next article.\\nLouis G. Hoyt,\\nKingston, N. H., June 15, 1900.\\ni", "height": "3293", "width": "1985", "jp2-path": "1900presidential00hoyt_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "011 695 594 5\\n1\\nV", "height": "3303", "width": "2105", "jp2-path": "1900presidential00hoyt_0016.jp2"}}