Part 1

[Illustration: A. K. McCLURE]

OUR PRESIDENTS AND HOW WE MAKE THEM

BY A. K. McCLURE, LL.D.

ILLUSTRATED

NEW YORK AND LONDON HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS 1900

Copyright, 1900, by A. K. MCCLURE.

_All rights reserved._

CONTENTS

PAGE

THE WASHINGTON ELECTIONS, 1789–92 1

THE ADAMS-JEFFERSON CONTEST, 1796 7

THE JEFFERSON-ADAMS-BURR CONTEST, 1800–1 12

THE JEFFERSON-PINCKNEY CONTEST, 1804 21

THE MADISON-PINCKNEY-CLINTON CONTESTS, 1808–12 25

THE MONROE ELECTIONS, 1816–20 32

THE ADAMS-JACKSON-CRAWFORD-CLAY CONTEST, 1824 39

THE JACKSON-ADAMS-CLAY CONTESTS, 1828–32 47

THE VAN BUREN-HARRISON CONTEST, 1836 59

THE HARRISON-VAN BUREN CONTEST, 1840 65

THE POLK-CLAY CONTEST, 1844 75

THE TAYLOR-CASS-VAN BUREN CONTEST, 1848 94

THE PIERCE-SCOTT CONTEST, 1852 115

THE BUCHANAN-FRÉMONT-FILLMORE CONTEST, 1856 130

THE LINCOLN-BRECKENRIDGE-DOUGLAS-BELL CONTEST, 1860 154

THE LINCOLN-MCCLELLAN CONTEST, 1864 183

THE GRANT-SEYMOUR CONTEST, 1868 202

THE GRANT-GREELEY CONTEST, 1872 221

THE HAYES-TILDEN CONTEST, 1876 244

THE GARFIELD-HANCOCK CONTEST, 1880 270

THE CLEVELAND-BLAINE CONTEST, 1884 288

THE HARRISON-CLEVELAND CONTEST, 1888 316

THE CLEVELAND-HARRISON-WEAVER CONTEST, 1892 337

THE MCKINLEY-BRYAN CONTEST, 1896 361

ILLUSTRATIONS

A. K. McCLURE _Frontispiece_

GEORGE WASHINGTON _Facing p._ x

JOHN ADAMS “ 12

THOMAS JEFFERSON “ 20

JAMES MADISON “ 24

JAMES MONROE “ 32

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS “ 38

ANDREW JACKSON “ 46

MARTIN VAN BUREN “ 58

WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON “ 64

JOHN TYLER “ 70

JAMES K. POLK “ 74

ZACHARY TAYLOR “ 94

MILLARD FILLMORE “ 106

FRANKLIN PIERCE “ 114

JAMES BUCHANAN “ 130

ABRAHAM LINCOLN “ 154

ANDREW JOHNSON “ 182

ULYSSES S. GRANT “ 202

RUTHERFORD B. HAYES “ 244

JAMES A. GARFIELD “ 270

CHESTER A. ARTHUR “ 274

GROVER CLEVELAND “ 288

BENJAMIN HARRISON “ 316

WILLIAM McKINLEY “ 360

INTRODUCTION

The crux of American politics is the quadrennial election of President. In the ebb and flow of our political activity the flood-tide comes in the Presidential contests. There are often tumultuous struggles and decisive events in the intervals, but their political effect and all the issues and movements of parties crystallize in the recurring conflict for the possession of the chief executive power.

Our American system makes the President the centre and focus of political life. He is at once Prime Minister and independent executive. He blends the functions of what in parliamentary government is the head of the Cabinet, and what in other government is the head of the State. He is a vital part of the legislative power without being amenable to its control or dependent on its life. He is the framer of policies and the arbiter of parties. All this makes the election of President the central chord and the arterial force of our broad political action.

The history of Presidential elections, if not the history of the nation, is at least the history of its determining periods. The successive epochs of our national progress, with their passionate struggles and controlling influences, are fully reflected in these contests. After the retirement of Washington the battles from 1800 for a quarter of a century, which gave the succession of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, marked the reaction from federal authority and the rise of the democratic impulse in the young Republic. Then came the period running through the three contests and two elections of Jackson, the heirship of Van Buren, and the cyclonic reversal under “Tippecanoe and Tyler too” in 1840, which turned on practical questions of internal polity and signalized the transition from the formative stage of the government to the inevitable clash between the sections. This was followed by the long political and moral contention between freedom and slavery, which began with the success of Polk and the Texas annexation policy in 1844 and ended with the defeat of the divided Democracy and the election of Lincoln in 1860, when the political combat culminated in the armed and colossal struggle of the civil war. Since its conclusion and its settlements the nation has been engaged in the mighty work of internal upbuilding, never equalled anywhere else in the world, and the elections have involved the contending theories.

The narrative of these elections, with the rise and fall of parties, their divisions and their creeds, presents the outlines of the national development. For this work Colonel McClure, by experience, taste, and special knowledge, is peculiarly and pre-eminently fitted. It is doubtful if any other living American has borne so active and so intimate a part in so many Presidential elections. Not yet of age, but already a zealous and eager observer of political movements as a young editor, he attended the Whig National Convention of 1848 in Philadelphia, and witnessed the nomination of General Taylor. From that time he has been personally familiar with the inner workings of every national convention and campaign. Including this year, there have been twenty-nine Presidential contests in our history. Colonel McClure has actively participated in fourteen, or practically one-half of the entire number.

He was born at Centre, Perry County, Pennsylvania, on the 9th of January, 1828. Spending his youth on his father’s farm, he became a tanner’s apprentice at fifteen, and remained at this trade for three years. His schooling was very limited, and his mental equipment was almost wholly the rich endowment nature had given him and the attainments which his extraordinary intellectual force brought in after-years. At nineteen he became the editor of the Juniata _Sentinel_, and his natural ability and vigorous pen soon gave him a recognized position and a distinct influence. Before he was twenty-one he served as a conferee for Andrew G. Curtin in his Congressional candidacy, and laid the foundations of his long and intimate friendship with the great War Governor. Speedily called to the editorship of a more important paper at Chambersburg, his impress broadened, and in 1853, at the age of twenty-five, he was nominated by the Whigs for Auditor-General, the youngest man ever named by any party in Pennsylvania for a State office. Four years later he was elected to the Legislature, serving in the House and then in the Senate for several years. His career in that body was brilliant and distinctive. He was independent, fearless, and aggressive, a ready and trenchant debater, and he displayed political and parliamentary abilities of the highest order.

In the Republican National Convention of 1860 he played a prominent part. He and Curtin were potential in leading the Pennsylvania break from Cameron to Lincoln, and in promoting the nomination of the latter. With that success he accepted the chairmanship of the State Committee, and made a dashing and energetic campaign, which resulted in the October State victory that assured and portended the election of Lincoln. This relation to the contest and subsequent service with Governor Curtin, in directing Pennsylvania’s part in the war, placed him on an intimate footing with the President, and during those dramatic and trying years he was a commanding figure in the State. Later he settled in Philadelphia in the practice of the law; became one of the leading spirits in the Republican revolt of 1872 which led to the Greeley movement; returned to the Legislature, where, free from party shackles, he waged unsparing war against jobbery and wrong, and where his forensic talent, his bold attacks, and rare powers of invective and sarcasm made him at once respected and feared. Finally, he found what was to prove his higher and truer place, and entered upon what was to be his main life-work in the establishment of the Philadelphia _Times_, where he has had an ample and conspicuous arena for the editorial genius which has ranked him among the foremost journalists of the country. Here, for twenty-five years, with ripened experience and mellowed spirit, but with unabated passion for political movements, Colonel McClure has been both the actor and the critic in the great and constantly changing drama of public events. Standing between both parties, bound by neither, but in the counsels of each, he has been exceptionally informed on all the currents of political activity. No one has had a broader acquaintance with the public men of his time, or has been more thoroughly behind the scenes in the shifting transformations of public action. From his earliest years politics has had an extraordinary fascination for his fertile mind, and his taste and talent for it have been equally marked. There has been no national convention of either party for years that he has not attended, and the episodes and influences which have turned the decision of the hour have been as familiar to him as the broader principles which have moulded the general course of action.

Colonel McClure is thus peculiarly qualified, not only to present the large history of Presidential contests, but to illuminate it with the instructive side-lights which are as entertaining as they are suggestive. Comprehensive in its treatment, infused with the very life and spirit of political action, prepared with complete knowledge, and written in a style of singular charm and force, this work is not only a labor of love, but a valuable contribution to the historical literature of American politics.

CHARLES EMORY SMITH

WASHINGTON, _April, 1900_

PREFACE

I have endeavored in this volume to supply a want in our political history by giving not only a detailed and reliable report of the nomination and election of every President of the United States, but by giving with it many important sidelights relating to the selection and character of our Chief Magistrates.

With a personal knowledge of national conventions covering over half a century, and an intimate acquaintance with the chief actors of both parties in selecting Presidential candidates, I am able to give the inside movements of some of our important national struggles which are imperfectly understood. The inspiration and organization of all the various political parties, great and small, are concisely presented, and the personal reminiscences of the struggles of the great men of the country have been most carefully prepared.

Absolute accuracy in the preparation of political history covering a period of one hundred and twelve years is not to be expected, as record evidence is at times either imperfectly preserved or entirely destroyed; but no pains have been spared to make this volume a complete and reliable history of our Presidents and how we make them.

I am indebted to Edward Stanwood’s “History of Presidential Elections” and to Greeley’s “Political Text-Book of 1860” for valuable data of the earlier conflicts for the Presidency. Many of the personal and political reminiscences given are an elaboration of a series of articles originally prepared for the _Saturday Evening Post_, of Philadelphia.

A. K. M.

PHILADELPHIA, March 1, 1900.

THE WASHINGTON ELECTIONS

1789–1792

The first election for President of the United States was held on the first Wednesday of January, 1789, and it was an election in which the people took no part whatever in most of the States. The election should have been held in November, 1788, but the Constitution of 1787, that required ratification by nine States to make it the supreme law of the nation, did not receive the approval of the requisite number of States until the 21st of June, 1788, when New Hampshire made up the ninth State approving it. Vermont followed five days later, and New York, after a bitter struggle, ratified the Constitution on the 26th of July. There was then ample time for Congress to make provisions for a Presidential election in November, but many weeks were wasted in a struggle for the location of the national capitol, and it was not until the 13th of September that Congress was prepared to pass a resolution declaring the ratification of the Constitution, and directing the election of Presidential electors.

[Illustration: GEORGE WASHINGTON]

Communication was at that time very slow and uncertain between the several States, and as Congress did not fix the time for an election until the middle of September, the first Wednesday of January, 1789, was deemed the earliest period at which an election could be had. Considering the length of time required to communicate with the different States, and the extreme difficulty in the States communicating with their people and Legislatures, it was practically impossible to have a Presidential election in which the people of the country generally could participate.

None of the States had made any preparation for an election, and the only practical method for choosing electors was by the Legislatures, as the Constitution provided then, as it does now, that each State shall appoint Presidential electors “in such manner as its Legislature may direct.” Attempts were made to hold popular elections in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, but even in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, after elections had been held after a fashion, the Legislatures of those States finally chose the electors. There were next to no votes cast in Pennsylvania,[1] Maryland, and Virginia, as there was no contest, the election of Washington being conceded by all; and whatever votes were cast in the States have never found their way into the political statistics of the country. Rhode Island and North Carolina had not ratified the Constitution and did not choose electors, and in New York a bitter contest arose in the Legislature between the friends and opponents of the Constitution, resulting in a disagreement between the Senate and House that was not adjusted in time for the Legislature to choose electors. Thus, New York, Rhode Island, and North Carolina gave no votes for President in the Electoral College of 1789.

[1] Imperfect returns at Harrisburg show 5930 votes cast in Pennsylvania for Washington in 1789 and 4576 in 1792.

There had been no formal nomination of Washington for President and Adams for Vice-President in any part of the country. In later Presidential elections it was common for Legislatures and mass-meetings to present candidates for President, but I cannot find a record of any formal presentation of either the name of Washington or Adams as candidates at the first Presidential election. Washington was accepted as the logical ruler of the Republic, whose sword had won its independence, and Massachusetts, the State of Lexington and Bunker Hill, was conceded the second place on the ticket by general assent. Both were pronounced Federalists, and Washington was much more positive in his partisanship than is now generally believed. He was consulted about the choice of a Vice-President, and he answered that while he took it for granted that “a true Federalist” would be elected to the Vice-Presidency, he was unwilling to indicate any preference; but it was generally known that he and his immediate friends preferred John Adams, who had been one of the committee with Jefferson to prepare the Declaration of Independence, and who had written a very vigorous pamphlet in favor of the adoption of the Constitution.

It is now generally assumed that there was no shade of opposition to Washington’s election to the Presidency, but the anti-Federalists, many of whom were opposed to the Constitution, made several ineffectual efforts to defeat him. It is known that Franklin was approached on the question of being Washington’s competitor, but there is little doubt that he peremptorily refused. At that time the Presidential electors did not vote directly for President and Vice-President as they do now. Each elector voted for two men for President, both of whom could not be a resident of the same State, and the candidate receiving the largest vote, if a majority, was chosen President, and the candidate receiving the second largest vote for President became Vice-President. Several movements were made, without ever attaining the dignity of importance, to have votes quietly taken from Washington and given to Adams, and other movements were made to defeat Adams for Vice-President, but all of them were signal failures. It is understood that Hamilton, the closest friend of Washington, was not friendly to Adams. There is some reason to believe that he would have seconded the movement of the anti-Federalists to make George Clinton Vice-President had it given any promise of success.

The electoral colleges met on the first Wednesday of February, 1789, and elected Washington President, he receiving 69 votes, being the full number of electors, and John Adams received 34 votes for President, which made him Vice-President, although he did not receive a majority of the electoral votes. The following table shows the vote in detail as cast by the Electoral College, all of the men having been voted for only as Presidential candidates:

══════════════╤═══════════╤══════╤═══════════╤════╤════════╤═════════╤════════╤═════════╤═══════╤══════════╤════════╤════════ │ George │ John │ Samuel │John│ John │Robert H.│ George │ John │ John │ James │ Edward │Benjamin STATES. │Washington.│Adams.│Huntington.│Jay.│Hancock.│Harrison.│Clinton.│Rutledge.│Milton.│Armstrong.│Telfair.│Lincoln. ──────────────┼───────────┼──────┼───────────┼────┼────────┼─────────┼────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────────┼────────┼──────── New Hampshire │ 5 │ 5 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― Massachusetts │ 10 │ 10 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― Connecticut │ 7 │ 5 │ 2 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― New Jersey │ 6 │ 1 │ ―― │ 5 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― Pennsylvania │ 10 │ 8 │ ―― │ ―― │ 2 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― Delaware │ 3 │ ―― │ ―― │ 3 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― Maryland │ 6 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ 6 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― Virginia │ 10 │ 5 │ ―― │ 1 │ 1 │ ―― │ 3 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― South Carolina│ 7 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ 1 │ ―― │ ―― │ 6 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― Georgia │ 5 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ 2 │ 1 │ 1 │ 1 ├───────────┼──────┼───────────┼────┼────────┼─────────┼────────┼─────────┼───────┼──────────┼────────┼──────── Total │ 69 │ 34 │ 2 │ 9 │ 4 │ 6 │ 3 │ 6 │ 2 │ 1 │ 1 │ 1 ══════════════╧═══════════╧══════╧═══════════╧════╧════════╧═════════╧════════╧═════════╧═══════╧══════════╧════════╧════════

The Congress of the Confederation had provided that the new Congress chosen under the Constitution should meet in New York on the first Wednesday of March to declare the result of the Presidential election and inaugurate the new Republic, but a quorum of the Senate did not appear until the 6th of April, and on that day the electoral vote was counted in the presence of the two Houses, and Washington and Adams declared elected. They were notified of their election as speedily as possible, but it was not until the 30th of April that they were inaugurated.

* * * * *

Washington’s second election was quite as unanimous as the first, both at the polls and in the electoral colleges. No opposition electoral tickets were formed in any of the States, as the re-election of Washington and Adams was universally accepted. The Presidential electors of that day were appointed in accordance with the obvious spirit of the Constitution, that meant to provide an entirely dispassionate and independent tribunal in the Electoral College to exercise the soundest discretion in the choice of a President and Vice-President. No pledges were asked or given by any one named as an elector, and each one was free to vote according to the dictates of his own judgment. Had there been opposition electoral tickets, they would have logically run on opposing lines with distinct obligations on the part of each side as to how their votes would be cast, but no such question arose until the first battle between Adams and Jefferson in 1796.

There was no organized opposition to the administration of Washington at the close of his first term, but the Democratic sentiment, so ardently cherished by Jefferson, had been steadily growing, and with two such able and aggressive opposing partisans as Jefferson and Hamilton in the Washington Cabinet, it was only natural that opposition to the Federal policy would gradually take shape to be effective when the overshadowing personality of Washington became eliminated from the politics of the country. Jefferson and Hamilton often had serious differences in the Cabinet, and Washington uniformly sided with Hamilton. Washington had little personal and no political sympathy whatever with Jefferson, and only one of Jefferson’s rare tact and sagacity could have remained in the Washington Cabinet and fashioned the great opposition party that carried him triumphantly into the Presidential chair four years after Washington’s retirement. As opposition to the re-election of Washington and Adams would have been entirely fruitless, it was wisely not attempted, and the election passed off in almost as perfunctory a manner as did the first election in 1789.

Rhode Island and North Carolina had ratified the Constitution, and Vermont became a State on the 4th of March, 1791, and Kentucky on the 1st of June, 1792, giving fifteen States to participate in the second Presidential election. In nine of the States Presidential electors were chosen by the Legislatures, and by popular vote in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia, but there were very few votes polled, and what were cast indicated nothing politically, as there were no opposing electoral tickets.

Washington again received the unanimous vote in the electoral colleges—132 in number—and Adams became Vice-President by receiving 77 votes for President. When the two Houses met to declare the vote, Vice-President Adams presided in the House, opened and read the certificates of the votes of the several States, and declared Washington and himself elected President and Vice-President. The following is the official vote in the electoral colleges as cast in 1792:

══════════════╤══════════╤═════╤═══════╤═════════╤════ STATES. │Washington│Adams│Clinton│Jefferson│Burr ──────────────┼──────────┼─────┼───────┼─────────┼──── New Hampshire │ 6 │ 6 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― Vermont │ 3 │ 3 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― Massachusetts │ 16 │ 16 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― Rhode Island │ 4 │ 4 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― Connecticut │ 9 │ 9 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― New York │ 12 │ ―― │ 12 │ ―― │ ―― New Jersey │ 7 │ 7 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― Pennsylvania │ 15 │ 14 │ 1 │ ―― │ ―― Delaware │ 3 │ 3 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― Maryland │ 8 │ 8 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― Virginia │ 21 │ ―― │ 21 │ ―― │ ―― North Carolina│ 12 │ ―― │ 12 │ ―― │ ―― South Carolina│ 8 │ 7 │ ―― │ ―― │ 1 Georgia │ 4 │ ―― │ 4 │ ―― │ ―― Kentucky │ 4 │ ―― │ ―― │ 4 │ ―― ├──────────┼─────┼───────┼─────────┼──── Total │ 132 │ 77 │ 50 │ 4 │ 1 ══════════════╧══════════╧═════╧═══════╧═════════╧════

THE ADAMS-JEFFERSON CONTEST

1796

While it was generally accepted that Washington would not be a candidate for a third term, he gave no definite expression on the subject until he issued his farewell address a short time before the election of 1796. Washington was an extremely reticent man, and it is possible that, in view of the serious complications between this country and France, he may have anticipated a contingency that would make him accept a third election to the Presidency, but it seems to have been well understood by those nearest to him in official circles that he earnestly desired to retire to private life at the expiration of his second term. He was then the richest man in the country, his wealth being almost wholly composed of land and slaves, and for twenty years he had been unable to give any attention to his large business interests. While his election and re-election to the Presidency by a unanimous vote were very gratifying to him, he greatly preferred the life upon his plantation, where he gave most careful attention to all the details of its management.