DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION FOR THE NOMINATION OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.
The Convention met--a motley assemblage, called democratic--many
self-appointed, or appointed upon management or solicitation--many
alternative substitutes--many members of Congress, in violation of
the principle which condemned the Congress presidential caucuses
in 1824--some nullifiers; and an immense outside concourse. Texas
land and scrip speculators were largely in it, and more largely on
the outside. A considerable number were in favor of no particular
candidate, but in pursuit of office for themselves--inflexible
against any one from whom they thought they would not get it,
and ready to go for any one from whom they thought they could.
Almost all were under instructions for Mr. Van Buren, and could
not have been appointed where such instructions were given, except
in the belief that they would be obeyed. The business of undoing
instructions had been attended with but poor success--in no instance
having been done by the instructing body, or its equivalent. Two
hundred and sixty-six delegates were present--South Carolina
absent; and it was immediately seen that after all the packing and
intriguing, the majority was still for Mr. Van Buren. It was seen
that he would be nominated on the first ballot, if the majority
was to govern. To prevent that, a movement was necessary, and was
made. In the morning of the first day, before the verification
of the authority of the delegates--before organization--before
prayers--and with only a temporary chairman--a motion was made to
adopt the two-thirds rule, that is to say, the rule which required
a concurrence of two-thirds to effect a nomination. That rule had
been used in the two previous nominating conventions--not to thwart
a majority, but to strengthen it; the argument being that the result
would be the same, the convention being nearly unanimous; that
the two-thirds would be cumulative, and give more weight to the
nomination. The precedent was claimed, though the reason had failed;
and the effect might now be to defeat the majority instead of adding
to its voice.
Men of reflection and foresight objected to this rule when
previously used, as being in violation of a fundamental
principle--opening the door for the minority to rule--encouraging
intrigue and combination--and leading to corrupt practices
whenever there should be a design to defeat the popular will.
These objections were urged in 1832 and in 1836, and answered by
the reply that the rule was only adopted by each convention for
itself, and made no odds in the result: and now they were answered
with "precedents." A strenuous contest took place over the adoption
of this rule--all seeing that the fate of the nomination depended
upon it. Mr. Romulus M. Saunders of North Carolina, was its mover.
Messrs. Robert J. Walker, and Hopkins of Virginia, its most active
supporters: and precedent the stress of their argument. Messrs.
Morton of Massachusetts, Clifford of Maine, Dickinson and Butler of
New York, Medary of Ohio, and Alexander Kayser of Missouri, were
its principal opponents: their arguments were those of principle,
and the inapplicability of precedents founded on cases where the
two-thirds vote did not defeat, but strengthened the majority. Mr.
Morton of Massachusetts, spoke the democratic sentiment when he said:
"He was in the habit of advancing his opinions in strong and
plain language, and he hoped that no exception would be taken to
any thing that he might say. He thought the majority principle
was the true one of the democratic party. The views which had
been advanced on the other side of the question were mainly
based upon precedent. He did not think that they properly
applied here. We were in danger of relying too much upon
precedent--let us go upon principle. He had endeavored, when
at school, to understand the true principles of republicanism.
He well recollected the nominations of Jefferson and others,
and the majority principle had always ruled. In fact it was
recognized in all the different ramifications of society. The
State, county and township conventions were all governed by this
rule."
Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, of New York, enforced the majority principle
as the one which lay at the foundation of our government--which
prevailed at the adoption of every clause in the Declaration of
Independence--every clause in the constitution--all the legislation,
and all the elections, both State and federal; and he totally
denied the applicability of the precedents cited. He then went on
to expose the tricks of a caucus within a caucus--a sub and secret
caucus--plotting and combining to betray their instructions through
the instrumentality and under the cover of the two-thirds rule. Thus:
"He made allusion to certain caucusing and contriving, by which
it was hoped to avert the well-ascertained disposition of the
majority of the democracy. He had been appointed a delegate
to the convention, and accepted his credentials, as did his
colleagues, with instructions to support and do all in their
power to secure the nomination of a certain person (V.B.). By
consenting to the adoption of the two-thirds rule, he, with
them, would prove unfaithful to their trust and their honor. He
knew well that in voting by simple majority, the friend he was
pledged to support would receive ten to fifteen majority, and,
consequently, the nomination. If two-thirds should be required
to make a choice, that friend must inevitably be defeated, and
that defeat caused by the action of States which could not be
claimed as democratic."
This last remark of Mr. Butler should sink deep into the mind of
every friend to the elective system. These conventions admitted
delegations from anti-democratic States--States which could not
give a democratic vote in the election, and yet could control
the nomination. This is one of the most unfair features in the
convention system.
The rule was adopted, and by the help of delegates instructed to
vote for Mr. Van Buren, and who took that method of betraying their
trust while affecting to fulfil it. The body then organized and the
balloting commenced, all the States present except South Carolina,
who stood off, although she had come into it at the preceding
convention, and cast her vote for Mr. Van Buren. Two hundred and
sixty-six electoral votes were represented, of which 134 would be
the majority, and 177 the two-thirds. Mr. Van Buren received 151 on
the first ballot, gradually decreasing at each successive vote until
the seventh, when it stood at 99; probably about the true number
that remained faithful to their constituents and their pledges.
Of those who fell off it was seen that they chiefly consisted of
those professing friends who had supported the two-thirds rule, and
who now got an excuse for their intended desertion and premeditated
violation of instructions in being able to allege the impossibility
of electing the man to whom they were pledged.
At this stage of the voting, a member from Ohio (Mr. Miller) moved
a resolve, _that Mr. Van Buren, having received a majority of the
votes on the first ballot, was duly nominated, and should be so
declared_. This motion was an unexpected step, and put delegates
under the necessity of voting direct on the majority principle,
which lies at the foundation of all popular elections, and at the
foundation of the presidential election itself, as prescribed by
the constitution. That instrument only requires a majority of the
electoral votes to make an election of President; this intriguing
rule requires him to get two-thirds before he is competent to
receive that majority. The motion raised a storm. It gave rise to a
violent, disorderly, furious and tumultuary discussion--a faint idea
of which may be formed from some brief extracts from the speeches:
Mr. Brewster, of Pennsylvania.--"They (the delegation from this
State) had then been solemnly instructed to vote for Martin Van
Buren first, and to remain firm to that vote as long as there
was any hope of his success. He had been asked by gentlemen
of the convention why the delegation of Pennsylvania were so
divided in their vote. He would answer that it was because some
gentlemen of the delegation did not think proper to abide by
the solemn instructions given them, but rather chose to violate
those instructions. Pennsylvania had come there to vote for
Martin Van Buren, and she would not desert him until New York
had abandoned him. The delegation had entered into a solemn
pledge to do so; and he warned gentlemen that if they persisted
in violating that pledge, they would be held to a strict account
by their constituency, before whom, on their return home, they
would have to hang their heads with shame. Sorry would he be to
see them return, after having violated their pledge."
Mr. Hickman, of Pennsylvania.--"He charged that the delegation
from the 'Keystone State' had violated the solemn pledge taken
before they were entitled to seats on the floor. He asserted
on the floor of this convention, and would assert it every
where, that the delegation from Pennsylvania came to the
convention instructed to vote for, and to use every means to
obtain the nomination of Martin Van Buren for President, and
Richard M. Johnson for Vice President; and yet a portion of the
delegation, among whom was his colleague who had just preceded
him, had voted against the very proposition upon which the fate
of Martin Van Buren hung. He continued his remarks in favor of
the inviolability of instructions and in rebuke of those of
the Pennsylvania delegation, who had voted for the two-thirds
rule, knowing, as they did, that it would defeat Mr. Van Buren's
nomination."
Mr. Bredon, of Pennsylvania.--"He had voted against the
two-thirds rule. He had been instructed, he said, and he
believed had fulfilled those instructions, although he differed
from some of his colleagues. His opinion was, that they were
bound by instructions only so long as they were likely to be
available, and then every member was at liberty to consult his
own judgment. He had stood by Mr. Van Buren, and would continue
to do so until the New York and Ohio delegates flew the track."
Mr. Frazer, of Pennsylvania, "replied to the remarks of his
colleagues, and amidst much and constantly increasing confusion,
explained his motives for having deserted Mr. Van Buren. On the
last ballot he had voted for James K. Polk, and would do so on
the next, despite the threat that had been thrown out, that
those who had not voted for Mr. Van Buren would be ashamed to
show their faces before their constituents. He threw back the
imputation with indignation. He denied that he had violated
his pledge; that he had voted for Mr. Van Buren on three
ballots, but finding that Mr. Van Buren was not the choice of
the convention, he had voted for Mr. Buchanan. Finding that
Mr. Buchanan could not succeed, he had cast his vote for James
K. Polk, the bosom friend of General Jackson, and a pure,
whole-hogged democrat, the known enemy of banks, distribution,
&c. He had carried out his instructions as he understood them,
and others would do the same."
Mr. Young, of New York, "said it had been intimated that New
York desired pertinaciously to force a candidate upon the
convention. This he denied. Mr. Van Buren had been recommended
by sixteen States to this convention for their suffrages before
New York had spoken on the subject, and when she did speak it
was with a unanimous voice, and, if an expression of opinion on
the part of these people could now be had, it would be found
that they had not changed. (As Mr. Y proceeded the noise and
confusion increased.) It was true, he said, that a firebrand had
been thrown into their camp by the 'Mongrel administration at
Washington,' and this was the motive seized upon as a pretext
for a change on the part of some gentlemen. That firebrand was
the abominable Texas question, but that question, like a fever,
would wear itself out or kill the patient. It was one that
should have no effect; and some of those who were now laboring
to get up an excitement on a subject foreign to the political
contest before them, would be surprised, six months hence, that
they had permitted their equanimity to be disturbed by it. Nero
had fiddled while Rome was burning, and he believed that this
question had been put in agitation for the especial purpose of
advancing the aspiring ambition of a man, who, he doubted not,
like Nero, 'was probably fiddling while Rome was falling.'"
The crimination and recrimination in the Pennsylvania delegation,
arose from division among the delegates: in some other delegations
the disregard of instructions was unanimous, and there was no one to
censure another, as in Mississippi. The Pennsylvania delegation, may
be said to have decided the nomination. They were instructed to vote
for Mr. Van Buren, and did so, but they divided on the two-thirds
rule, and gave a majority of their votes for it, that is to say,
13 votes; but as 13 was not a majority of 26, one delegate was got
to stand aside: and then the vote stood 13 to 12. The Virginia
delegation, headed by the most respectable William H. Roane (with
a few exceptions), remained faithful--disregarding the attempt to
release them at Shockoe Hill, and voting steadily for Mr. Van Buren,
as well on all the ballotings as on the two-thirds question--which
was the real one. Some members of the Capitol nocturnal committee
were in the convention, and among its most active managers--and the
most zealous against Mr. Van Buren. In that profusion of letters
with which they covered the country to undermine him, they placed
the objection on the ground of the impossibility of electing him:
now it was seen that the impossibility was on the other side--that
it was impossible to defeat him, except by betraying trusts,
violating instructions, combining the odds and ends of all factions;
and then getting a rule adopted by which a minority was to govern.
The motion of Mr. Miller was not voted upon. It was summarily
disposed of, without the responsibility of a direct vote. The
enemies of Mr. Van Buren having secured the presiding officer at
the start, all motions were decided against them; and after a
long session of storm and rage, intermitted during the night for
sleep and intrigue, and resumed in the morning, an eighth ballot
was taken: and without hope for Mr. Van Buren. As his vote went
down, that for Messrs. Cass, Buchanan, and R. M. Johnson rose;
but without ever carrying either of them to a majority, much less
two-thirds. Seeing the combination against him, the friends of
Mr. Van Buren withdrew his name, and the party was then without a
candidate known to the people. Having killed off the one chosen by
the people, the convention remained masters of the field, and ready
to supply one of its own. The intrigue, commenced in 1842, in the
Gilmer letter, had succeeded one-half. It had put down one man, but
another was to be put up; and there were enough of Mr. Van Buren's
friends to defeat that part of the scheme. They determined to render
their country that service, and therefore withdrew Mr. Van Buren,
that they might go in a body for a new man. Among the candidates
for the vice-presidency was Mr. James K. Polk, of Tennessee. His
interest as a vice-presidential candidate lay with Mr. Van Buren,
and they had been much associated in the minds of each other's
friends. It was an easy step for them to support for the first
office, on the loss of their first choice, the citizen whom they
intended for the second. Without public announcements, he was
slightly developed as a presidential candidate on the eighth ballot;
on the ninth he was unanimously nominated, all the president-makers
who had been voting for others--for Cass, Buchanan, Johnson--taking
the current the instant they saw which way it was going, in order
that they might claim the merit of conducting it. "You bring but
seven captives to my tent, but thousands of you took them," was the
sarcastic remark of a king of antiquity at seeing the multitude
that came to claim honors and rewards for taking a few prisoners.
Mr. Polk might have made the same exclamation in relation to the
multitude that assumed to have nominated him. Their name was legion:
for, besides the unanimous convention, there was a host of outside
operators, each of whom claimed the merit of having governed the
vote of some delegate. Never was such a multitude seen claiming the
merit, and demanding the reward, for having done what had been done
before they heard of it.
The nomination was a surprise and a marvel to the country. No voice
in favor of it had been heard; no visible sign in the political
horizon had announced it. Two small symptoms--small in themselves
and equivocal in their import, and which would never have been
remembered except for the event--doubtfully foreshadowed it. One
was a paragraph in a Nashville newspaper, hypothetically suggesting
that Mr. Polk should be taken up if Mr. Van Buren should be
abandoned; the other, the ominous circumstance that the Tennessee
State nominating convention made a recommendation (Mr. Polk) for
the second office, and none for the first; and Tennessee being
considered a Van Buren State, this omission was significant, seeming
to leave open the door for his ejection, and for the admission of
some other person. And so the delegates from that State seemed to
understand it, voting steadily against him, until he was withdrawn.
The ostensible objection to the last against Mr. Van Buren, was
his opposition to immediate annexation. The shallowness of that
objection was immediately shown in the unanimous nomination of
his bosom friend, Mr. Silas Wright, identified with him in all
that related to the Texas negotiation, for Vice-President. He
was nominated upon the proposition of Mr. Robert J. Walker--a
main-spring in all the movements against Mr. Van Buren, whose most
indefatigable opponents sympathized with the Texas scrip and land
speculators. Mr. Wright instantly declined the nomination; and Mr.
George M. Dallas, of Pennsylvania, was taken in his place.
The Calhoun New York convention expired in the conception. It
never met. The Tyler Baltimore convention was carried the length
of an actual meeting, and went through the forms of a nomination,
without the distraction of a rival candidate. It met the same day
and place with the democratic convention, as if to officiate with
it, and to be ready to offer a _pis aller_, but to no purpose. It
made its own nomination--received an elaborate letter of thanks and
acceptance from Mr. Tyler, who took it quite seriously; and two
months afterwards joined the democracy for Polk and Dallas, against
Clay and Frelinghuysen--his old whig friends. He had co-operated in
all the schemes against Mr. Van Buren, in the hope of being taken up
in his place; and there was an interest, calling itself democratic,
which was willing to oblige him. But all the sound heart of the
democracy recoiled from the idea of touching a man who, after having
been raised high by the democracy, had gone over to the whigs, to
be raised still higher, and now came back to the democracy to obtain
the highest office they could give.
And here ends the history of this long intrigue--one of the most
elaborate, complex and daring, ever practised in an intelligent
country; and with too much success in putting down some, and just
disappointment in putting up others: for no one of those who engaged
in this intrigue ever reached the office for which they strived. My
opinion of it was expressed, warmly but sincerely, from the first
moment it was broached to me on the steps of the Capitol, when
accosted by Mr. Brown, down to the rejection of the treaty in the
Senate, and the defeat of Mr. Van Buren in the convention. Of this
latter event, the author of this View thus wrote in a public letter
to Missouri:
"Neither Mr. Polk nor Mr. Dallas has any thing to do with the
intrigue which has nullified the choice of the people, and the
rights of the people, and the principles of our government,
in the person of Mr. Van Buren; and neither of them should be
injured or prejudiced by it. Those who hatched that intrigue,
have become its victims. They who dug a pit for the innocent
have fallen into it; and there let them lie, for the present,
while all hands attend to the election, and give us our full
majority of ten thousand in Missouri. For the rest, the time
will come; and people now, as twenty years ago (when their
choice was nullified in the person of General Jackson), will
teach the Congress intriguers to attend to law-making and let
President-making and un-making alone in future. The Texas
treaty, which consummated this intrigue, was nothing but the
final act in a long conspiracy, in which the sacrifice of Mr.
Van Buren had been previously agreed upon; and the nomination
of Mr. Wright for Vice-President proves it; for his opinions
and those of Mr. Van Buren, on the Texas question, were
identical, and if fatal to one should have been fatal to the
other. Besides, Mr. Van Buren was right, and whenever Texas is
admitted, it will have to be done in the way pointed out by
him. Having mentioned Mr. Wright, I will say that recent events
have made him known to the public, as he has long been to his
friends, _the Cato of America, and a star of the first magnitude
in our political firmament_."
And now, why tell these things which may be quoted to the prejudice
of democratic institutions? I answer: To prevent that prejudice!
and to prevent the repetition of such practices. Democracy is not
to be prejudiced by it, for it was the work of politicians; and as
far as depended upon the people, they rebuked it. The intrigue
did not succeed in elevating any of its authors to the presidency;
and the annexation treaty, the fruit of so much machination, was
rejected by the Senate; and the annexation afterwards effected
by the legislative concurrence of the two powers. From the
first inception, with the Gilmer letter, down to the Baltimore
conclusion in the convention, the intrigue was carried on; and was
only successful in the convention by the help of the rule which
made the minority its master. That convention is an era in our
political history, to be looked back upon as the starting point
in a course of usurpation which has taken the choice of President
out of the hands of the people, and vested it in the hands of a
self-constituted and irresponsible assemblage. The wrong to Mr.
Van Buren was personal and temporary, and died with the occasion,
and constitutes no part of the object in writing this chapter: the
wrong to the people, and the injury to republican institutions,
and to our frame of government, was deep and abiding, and calls
for the grave and correctional judgment of history. It was the
first instance in which a body of men, unknown to the laws and the
constitution, and many of them (as being members of Congress, or
holding offices of honor or profit) constitutionally disqualified
to serve even as electors, assumed to treat the American presidency
as their private property, to be disposed at their own will and
pleasure; and, it may be added, for their own profit: for many
of them demanded, and received reward. It was the first instance
of such a disposal of the presidency--for these nominations are
the election, so far as the party is concerned; but not the last.
It has become the rule since, and has been improved upon. These
assemblages now perpetuate themselves, through a committee of their
own, ramified into each State, sitting permanently from four years
to four years; and working incessantly to govern the election that
is to come, after having governed the one that is past. The man they
choose must always be a character of no force, that they may rule
him: and they rule always for their own advantage--"constituting
a power behind the throne greater than the throne." The reader
of English history is familiar with the term, "cabal," and its
origin--taking its spelling from the initial letters of the names
of the five combined intriguing ministers of Charles II.--and
taking its meaning from the conduct and characters of these five
ministers. What that meaning was, one of the five wrote to another
for his better instruction, not suspecting that the indefatigable
curiosity of a subsequent generation would ever ferret out the
little missive. Thus: "_The principal spring of our actions was to
have the government in our own hands; that our principal views were
the conservation of this power--great employments to ourselves--and
great opportunities of rewarding those who have helped to raise us,
and of harming those who stood in opposition to us._" Such was the
government which the "cabal" gave England; and such is the one which
the convention system gives us: and until this system is abolished,
and the people resume their rights, the elective principle of our
government is suppressed: and the people have no more control over
the selection of the man who is to be their President, than the
subjects of kings have over the birth of the child who is to be
their ruler.