Produced by The James J. Kelly Library Of St. Gregory's
University, and Alev Akman
THE CLEVELAND ERA,
A CHRONICLE OF THE NEW ORDER IN POLITICS
By Henry Jones Ford
NEW HAVEN: YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS
TORONTO: GLASGOW, BROOK & CO.
LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
1919
Volume 44 in the Chronicles of America Series. Abraham Lincoln Edition.
CONTENTS
I. A TRANSITION PERIOD
II. POLITICAL GROPING AND PARTY FLUCTUATION
III. THE ADVENT OF CLEVELAND
IV. A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
V. PARTY POLICY IN CONGRESS
VI. PRESIDENTIAL KNIGHT-ERRANTRY
VII. THE PUBLIC DISCONTENTS
VIII. THE REPUBLICAN OPPORTUNITY
IX. THE FREE SILVER REVOLT
X. LAW AND ORDER UPHELD
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
THE CLEVELAND ERA
CHAPTER I. A TRANSITION PERIOD
Politicians at Washington very generally failed to realize that the
advent of President Hayes marked the dismissal of the issues of war and
reconstruction. They regarded as an episode what turned out to be the
close of an era. They saw, indeed, that public interest in the old
issues had waned, but they were confident that this lack of interest was
transient. They admitted that the emotional fervor excited by the war
and by the issues of human right involved in its results was somewhat
damped, but they believed that the settlement of those issues was still
so incomplete that public interest would surely rekindle. For many years
the ruling thought of the Republican party leaders was to be watchful
of any opportunity to ply the bellows on the embers. Besides genuine
concern over the way in which the negroes had been divested of political
privileges conferred by national legislation, the Republicans felt a
tingling sense of party injury.
The most eminent party leaders at this time--both standing high as
presidential possibilities--were James G. Blaine and John Sherman. In
a magazine article published in 1880 Mr. Blaine wrote: "As the matter
stands, all violence in the South inures to the benefit of one political
party.... Our institutions have been tried by the fiery test of war, and
have survived. It remains to be seen whether the attempt to govern the
country by the power of a 'solid South,' unlawfully consolidated, can be
successful.... The republic must be strong enough, and shall be strong
enough, to protect the weakest of its citizens in all their rights." And
so late as 1884, Mr. Sherman earnestly contended for the principle of
national intervention in the conduct of state elections. "The war," he
said, "emancipated and made citizens of five million people who had been
slaves. This was a national act and whether wisely or imprudently done
it must be respected by the people of all the States. If sought to be
reversed in any degree by the people of any locality it is the duty
of the national government to make their act respected by all its
citizens."
Republican party platforms reiterated such opinions long after their
practical futility had become manifest. Indeed, it was a matter of
common knowledge that negro suffrage had been undone by force and fraud;
hardly more than a perfunctory denial of the fact was ever made in
Congress, and meanwhile it was a source of jest and anecdote among
members of all parties behind the scenes. Republican members were
bantered by Democratic colleagues upon the way in which provision
for Republican party advantage in the South had actually given to the
Democratic party a solid block of sure electoral votes. The time at
last came when a Southern Senator, Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina,
blurted out in the open what had for years been common talk in private.
"We took the government away," he asserted. "We stuffed ballot boxes. We
shot them. We are not ashamed of it.... With that system--force, tissue
ballots, etc.--we got tired ourselves. So we called a constitutional
convention, and we eliminated, as I said, all of the colored people we
could under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments.... The brotherhood
of man exists no longer, because you shoot negroes in Illinois, when
they come in competition with your labor, and we shoot them in South
Carolina, when they come in competition with us in the matter of
elections."
Such a miscarriage of Republican policy was long a bitter grievance to
the leaders of the party and incited them to action. If they could have
had their desire, they would have used stringent means to remedy the
situation. Measures to enforce the political rights of the freedmen were
frequently agitated, but every force bill which was presented had to
encounter a deep and pervasive opposition not confined by party lines
but manifested even within the Republican party itself. Party platforms
insisted upon the issue, but public opinion steadily disregarded it.
Apparently a fine opportunity to redress this grievance was afforded
by the election of President Harrison in 1888 upon a platform declaring
that the national power of the Democratic party was due to "the
suppression of the ballot by a criminal nullification of the
Constitution and laws of the United States," and demanding "effective
legislation to secure integrity and purity of elections." But, although
they were victorious at the polls that year, the Republican leaders were
unable to embody in legislation the ideal proposed in their platform. Of
the causes of this failure, George F. Hoar gives an instructive
account in his "Autobiography." As chairman of the Senate committee on
privileges and elections he was in a position to know all the details of
the legislative attempts, the failure of which compelled the Republican
leaders to acquiesce in the decision of public opinion against the old
issues and in favor of new issues.
Senator Hoar relates that he made careful preparation of a bill for
holding, under national authority, separate registrations and elections
for members of Congress. But when he consulted his party associates in
the Senate he found most of them averse to an arrangement which would
double the cost of elections and would require citizens to register
at different times for federal elections and for state and municipal
elections. Senator Hoar thereupon abandoned that bill and prepared
another which provided that, upon application to court showing
reasonable grounds, the court should appoint officers from both parties
to supervise the election. The bill adopted a feature of electoral
procedure which in England has had a salutary effect. It was provided
that in case of a dispute concerning an election certificate, the
circuit court of the United States in which the district was situated
should hear the case and should award a certificate entitling the one or
other of the contestants to be placed on the clerk's roll and to serve
until the House should act on the case. Mr. Hoar stated that the bill
"deeply excited the whole country," and went on to say that "some worthy
Republican senators became alarmed. They thought, with a good deal of
reason, that it was better to allow existing evils and conditions to
be cured by time, and the returning conscience and good sense of the
people, rather than have the strife, the result of which must be quite
doubtful, which the enactment and enforcement of this law, however
moderate and just, would inevitably create." The existence of this
attitude of mind made party advocacy of the bill a hopeless undertaking
and, though it was favorably reported on August 7, 1890, no further
action was taken during that session. At the December session it was
taken up for consideration, but after a few days of debate a motion to
lay it aside was carried by the Democrats with the assistance of enough
Republicans to give them a majority. This was the end of force bills,
and during President Cleveland's second term the few remaining statutes
giving authority for federal interference in such matters was repealed
under the lead of Senator Hill of New York. With the passage of this
act, the Republican party leaders for the first time abandoned all
purpose of attempting to secure by national legislation the political
privileges of the negroes. This determination was announced in the
Senate by Mr. Hoar and was assented to by Senator Chandler of New
Hampshire, who had been a zealous champion of federal action. According
to Mr. Hoar, "no Republican has dissented from it."
The facts upon which the force bill was based were so notorious and
the bill itself was so moderate in its character that the general
indifference of the public seemed to betray moral insensibility and
emotional torpor. Much could be said in favor of the bill. This latest
assertion of national authority in federal elections involved no new
principle. In legalistic complexion the proposed measure was of the same
character as previous legislation dealing with this subject, instances
of which are the Act of 1842, requiring the election of members of the
House by districts, and the Act of 1866, regulating the election of
United States Senators. Fraudulent returns in congressional elections
have always been a notorious evil, and the partisan way in which they
are passed upon is still a gross blemish upon the constitutional system
of the United States, and one which is likely never to be removed until
the principle of judicial determination of electoral contests has been
adopted in this country as it has been in England. The truth of the
matter appears to be that the public paid no attention to the merits
of the bill. It was viewed simply as a continuation of the radical
reconstruction policy, the practical results of which had become
intolerable. However great the actual evils of the situation might be,
public opinion held that it would be wiser to leave them to be dealt
with by state authority than by such incompetent statesmanship as had
been common in Washington. Moreover, the man in the street resented the
indifference of politicians to all issues save those derived from the
Civil War.
Viscount Bryce in his "American Commonwealth," the most complete and
penetrating examination of American political conditions written during
this period, gives this account of the party situation:
"The great parties are the Republicans and the Democrats. What are their
principles, their distinctive tenets, their tendencies? Which of them is
for tariff reform, for the further extension of civil service reform, a
spirited foreign policy, for the regulation of railroads and telegraphs
by legislation, for changes in the currency, for any other of the twenty
issues which one hears discussed in this country as seriously involving
its welfare? This is what a European is always asking of intelligent
Republicans and intelligent Democrats. He is always asking because he
never gets an answer. The replies leave him deeper in perplexity. After
some months the truth begins to dawn upon him. Neither party has, as a
party, anything definite to say on these issues; neither party has any
clean-cut principles, any distinctive tenets. Both have traditions. Both
claim to have tendencies. Both certainly have war cries, organizations,
interests, enlisted in their support. But those interests are in
the main the interests of getting or keeping the patronage of the
government. Tenets and policies, points of political doctrine and points
of political practice have all but vanished. They have not been thrown
away, but have been stripped away by time and the progress of events,
fulfilling some policies, blotting out others. All has been lost, except
office or the hope of it."
That such a situation could actually exist in the face of public
disapproval is a demonstration of the defects of Congress as an organ of
national representation. Normally, a representative assembly is a school
of statesmanship which is drawn upon for filling the great posts of
administration. Not only is this the case under the parliamentary system
in vogue in England, but it is equally the case in Switzerland whose
constitution agrees with that of the United States in forbidding members
of Congress to hold executive office. But somehow the American Congress
fails to produce capable statesmen. It attracts politicians who display
affability, shrewdness, dexterity, and eloquence, but who are lacking in
discernment of public needs and in ability to provide for them, so
that power and opportunity are often associated with gross political
incompetency.* The solutions of the great political problems of the
United States are accomplished by transferring to Washington men like
Hayes and Cleveland whose political experience has been gained in other
fields.
* Of this regrettable fact the whole history of emancipation is a
monument. The contrast between the social consequences of emancipation
in the West Indies, as guided by British statesmanship, under conditions
of meager industrial opportunity, and the social consequences of
emancipation in the United States, affords an instructive example of
the complicated evils which a nation may experience through the sheer
incapacity of its government.
The system of congressional government was subjected to some scrutiny in
1880-81 through the efforts of Senator George H. Pendleton of Ohio, an
old statesman who had returned to public life after long absence. He had
been prominent in the Democratic party before the war and in 1864 he
was the party candidate for Vice-President. In 1868 he was the leading
candidate for the presidential nomination on a number of ballots, but
he was defeated. In 1869 he was a candidate for Governor of Ohio but
was defeated; he then retired from public life until 1879 when he
was elected to the United States Senate. As a member of that body, he
devoted himself to the betterment of political conditions. His efforts
in this direction were facilitated not only by his wide political
experience but also by the tact and urbanity of his manners, which had
gained for him in Ohio politics the nickname of "Gentleman George."
In agreement with opinions long previously expressed in Story's
"Commentaries," Senator Pendleton attributed the inefficiency of
national government to the sharp separation of Congress from the
Administration--a separation not required by the Constitution but made
by Congress itself and subject to change at its discretion. He proposed
to admit the heads of executive departments to participation in the
proceedings of Congress. "This system," said he, "will require the
selection of the strongest men to be heads of departments, and will
require them to be well equipped with the knowledge of their offices.
It will also require the strongest men to be the leaders of Congress and
participate in the debate. It will bring those strong men in contact,
perhaps into conflict, to advance the public weal and thus stimulate
their abilities and their efforts, and will thus assuredly result to
the good of the country."* The report--signed by such party leaders as
Allison, Blaine, and Ingalls among the Republicans, and by Pendleton and
Voorhees among the Democrats--reviewed the history of relations between
the executive and legislative branches and closed with the expression of
the unanimous belief of the committee that the adoption of the measure
"will be the first step towards a sound civil service reform, which will
secure a larger wisdom in the adoption of policies, and a better system
in their execution."
* "Senate Report," No. 837, 46th Congress, 3d session, February
4, 1881.
No action was taken on this proposal, notwithstanding the favor
with which it was regarded by many close students of the political
institutions of the country. Public opinion, preoccupied with more
specific issues, seemed indifferent to a reform that aimed simply at
general improvement in governmental machinery. The legislative calendars
are always so heaped with projects that to reach and act upon any
particular measure is impossible, except when there is brought to bear
such energetic pressure as to produce special arrangements for the
purpose, and in this case no such pressure was developed. A companion
measure for civil service reform which was proposed by Senator Pendleton
long remained in a worse situation, for it was not merely left under the
congressional midden heap but was deliberately buried by politicians who
were determined that it should never emerge. That it did emerge is due
to a tragedy which aroused public opinion to an extent that intimidated
Congress.
Want of genuine political principles made factional spirit only the more
violent and depraved. So long as power and opportunity were based
not upon public confidence but upon mere advantage of position, the
contention of party leaders turned upon questions of appointment to
office and the control of party machinery. The Republican national
convention of 1880 was the scene of a factional struggle which left
deep marks upon public life and caused divisions lasting until the party
leaders of that period were removed from the scene. In September 1879,
General Grant landed in San Francisco, after a tour around the world
occupying over two years, and as he passed through the country he was
received with a warmth which showed that popular devotion was abounding.
A movement in favor of renominating him to the Presidency was started
under the direction of Senator Roscoe Conkling of New York. Grant's
renown as the greatest military leader of the Civil War was not his only
asset in the eyes of his supporters. In his career as President he had
shown, on occasion, independence and steadfastness of character. He
stayed the greenback movement by his veto after eminent party leaders
had yielded to it. He had endeavored to introduce civil service reform
and, although his measures had been frustrated by the refusal of
Congress to vote the necessary appropriations, his tenacity of purpose
was such that it could scarcely be doubted that with renewed opportunity
he would resume his efforts. The scandals which blemished the conduct of
public affairs during his administration could not be attributed to any
lack of personal honesty on his part. Grant went out of the presidential
office poorer than when he entered it. Since then, his views had
been broadened by travel and by observation, and it was a reasonable
supposition that he was now better qualified than ever before for the
duties of the presidential office. He was only fifty-eight, an age much
below that at which an active career should be expected to close, and
certainly an age at which European statesmen are commonly thought to
possess unabated powers. In opposition to him was a tradition peculiar
to American politics, though unsupported by any provision of the
Constitution according to which no one should be elected President for
more than two terms. It may be questioned whether this tradition does
not owe its strength more to the ambition of politicians than to sincere
conviction on the part of the people.*
* The reasoning of "The Federalist," in favor of continued
reeligibility, is cogent in itself and is supported by the experience
of other countries, for it shows that custody of power may remain in the
same hands for long periods without detriment and without occasioning
any difficulty in terminating that custody when public confidence is
withdrawn. American sensitiveness on this point would seem to impute
to the Constitution a frailty that gives it a low rating among forms of
government. As better means are provided for enforcing administrative
responsibility, the popular dislike of third terms will doubtless
disappear.
So strong was the movement in favor of General Grant as President that
the united strength of the other candidates had difficulty in staying
the boom, which, indeed, might have been successful but for the arrogant
methods and tactical blunders of Senator Conkling. When three of the
delegates voted against a resolution binding all to support the nominee
whoever that nominee might be, he offered a resolution that those who
had voted in the negative "do not deserve and have forfeited their vote
in this convention." The feeling excited by this condemnatory motion
was so strong that Conkling was obliged to withdraw it. He also made a
contest in behalf of the unit rule but was defeated, as the convention
decided that every delegate should have the right to have his vote
counted as he individually desired. Notwithstanding these defeats of
the chief manager of the movement in his favor, Grant was the leading
candidate with 304 votes on the first ballot, James G. Blaine standing
second with 284. This was the highest point in the balloting reached
by Blaine, while the Grant vote made slight gains. Besides Grant and
Blaine, four other candidates were in the field, and the convention
drifted into a deadlock which under ordinary circumstances would have
probably been dissolved by shifts of support to Grant. But in the
preliminary disputes a very favorable impression had been made upon the
convention by General Garfield, who was not himself a candidate but was
supporting the candidacy of John Sherman, who stood third in the poll.
On the twenty-eighth ballot, two votes were cast for Garfield; although
he protested that he was not a candidate and was pledged to Sherman. But
it became apparent that no concentration could be effected on any other
candidate to prevent the nomination of Grant, and votes now turned to
Garfield so rapidly that on the thirty-sixth ballot he received 399, a
clear majority of the whole. The adherents of Grant stuck to him to the
end, polling 306 votes on the last ballot and subsequently deporting
themselves as those who had made a proud record of constancy.
The Democratic national convention nominated General Hancock, which
was, in effect, an appeal to the memories and sentiments of the past,
as their candidate's public distinction rested upon his war record. The
canvass was marked by listlessness and indifference on the part of the
general public, and by a fury of calumny on the part of the politicians
directed against their opponents. Forgery was resorted to with marked
effect on the Pacific coast, where a letter--the famous Morey letter--in
which Garfield's handwriting was counterfeited, was circulated
expressing unpopular views on the subject of Chinese immigration. The
forgery was issued in the closing days of the canvass, when there
was not time to expose it. Arrangements had been made for a wide
distribution of facsimiles which exerted a strong influence. Hancock won
five out of the six electoral votes of California and came near getting
the three votes of Oregon also. In the popular vote of the whole
country, Garfield had a plurality of less than ten thousand in a total
vote of over nine million.
The peculiarities of the party system which has been developed
in American politics, forces upon the President the occupation of
employment agent as one of his principal engagements. The contention
over official patronage, always strong and ardent upon the accession of
every new President, was aggravated in Garfield's case by the factional
war of which his own nomination was a phase. The factions of the
Republican party in New York at this period were known as the
"Stalwarts" and the "Half-Breeds," the former adhering to the leadership
of Senator Conkling, the latter to the leadership of Mr. Blaine, whom
President Garfield had appointed to be his Secretary of State. Soon
after the inauguration of Garfield it became manifest that he would
favor the "Half-Breeds"; but under the Constitution appointments are
made by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and both the
Senators from New York were "Stalwarts." Although the Constitution
contemplates the action of the entire Senate as the advisory body in
matters of appointment, a practice had been established by which the
Senators from each State were accorded the right to dictate appointments
in their respective States. According to Senator Hoar, when he entered
public life in 1869, "the Senate claimed almost the entire control of
the executive function of appointment to office.... What was called 'the
courtesy of the Senate' was depended upon to enable a Senator to dictate
to the executive all appointments and removals in his territory." This
practice was at its greatest height when President Garfield challenged
the system, and he let it be understood that he would insist upon his
constitutional right to make nominations at his own discretion. When
Senator Conkling obtained from a caucus of his Republican colleagues an
expression of sympathy with his position, the President let it be known
that he regarded such action as an affront and he withdrew all New York
nominations except those to which exception had been taken by the New
York Senators, thus confronting the Senate with the issue whether they
would stand by the new Administration or would follow Conkling's lead.
On the other hand, Senator Conkling and his adherents declared the issue
to be simply whether competent public officials should be removed to
make room for factional favorites. This view of the case was adopted by
Vice-President Arthur and by Postmaster-General James of Garfield's
own Cabinet, who, with New York Senators Conkling and Platt, signed a
remonstrance in which they declared that in their belief the interests
of the public service would not be promoted by the changes proposed.
These changes were thus described in a letter of May 14, 1881, from the
New York Senators to Governor Cornell of New York:
"Some weeks ago, the President sent to the Senate in a group the
nominations of several persons for public offices already filled. One of
these offices is the Collectorship of the Port of New York, now held by
General Merritt; another is the consul generalship at London, now held
by General Badeau; another is Charge d'Affaires to Denmark, held by Mr.
Cramer; another is the mission to Switzerland, held by Mr. Fish, a son
of the former Secretary of State.... It was proposed to displace them
all, not for any alleged fault of theirs, or for any alleged need or
advantage of the public service, but in order to give the great offices
of Collector of the Port of New York to Mr. William H. Robertson as
a 'reward' for certain acts of his, said to have aided in making the
nomination of General Garfield possible.... We have not attempted to
'dictate,' nor have we asked the nomination of one person to any office
in the State."
Except in the case of their remonstrance against the Robertson
appointment, they had "never even expressed an opinion to the President
in any case unless questioned in regard to it." Along with this
statement the New York Senators transmitted their resignations, saying
"we hold it respectful and becoming to make room for those who may
correct all the errors we have made, and interpret aright all the duties
we have misconceived."
The New York Legislature was then in session. Conkling and Platt offered
themselves as candidates for reelection, and a protracted factional
struggle ensued; in the course of which, the nation was shocked by the
news that President Garfield had been assassinated by a disappointed
office seeker in a Washington railway station on July 2, 1881. The
President died from the effects of the wound on the 19th of September.
Meanwhile, the contest in the New York Legislature continued until
the 22d of July when the deadlock was broken by the election of Warner
Miller and Elbridge G. Lapham to fill the vacancies.
The deep disgust with which the nation regarded this factional war, and
the horror inspired by the assassination of President Garfield, produced
a revulsion of public opinion in favor of civil service reform so
energetic as to overcome congressional antipathy. Senator Pendleton's
bill to introduce the merit system, which had been pending for nearly
two years, was passed by the Senate on December 27, 1882, and by
the House on January 4, 1883. The importance of the act lay in its
recognition of the principles of the reform and in its provision of
means by which the President could apply those principles. A Civil
Service Commission was created, and the President was authorized to
classify the Civil Service and to provide selection by competitive
examination for all appointments to the service thus classified. The
law was essentially an enabling act, and its practical efficacy was
contingent upon executive discretion.