Our Presidents and how we make themMcClure, Alexander K. (Alexander Kelly)
History
Our Presidents and how we make them
McClure, Alexander K. (Alexander Kelly)
Presidents -- United States -- Election
Among the delegates were Conkling, Garfield, Harrison, Logan, and many
other conspicuous and able leaders of the opposing factions. Blaine’s
people, with the aid of the field, weakened Grant’s lines by preventing
the unit rule in any delegation, whereby Grant lost a considerable
number of votes in New York, Pennsylvania, and other States. That was a
test of the distinctive Grant strength in the body. Conkling opened the
nominations by presenting the name of Grant, and he did it in imperial
grandeur and with a degree of eloquence that was most impressive. Next
to the speech of Ingersoll, who nominated Blaine in 1876, Conkling’s
appeal for the nomination of Grant will stand as the ablest of all the
many able deliverances in the history of American politics. I sat quite
close to him on the platform when he delivered it, and he was a most
interesting study. Had he been as discreet as he was eloquent, it would
have been a perfect exhibition of impressive oratory; but Conkling was
inspired not only by his love of Grant, but more influenced than he
confessed to himself by an intense hatred of Blaine, that he cherished
until his death.
[Illustration: JAMES A. GARFIELD]
He mortally offended every friend of Blaine, and thereby made it
impossible even to win the hesitating men in the Blaine ranks by
his keen and pungent fling at the delegates who disregarded their
instructions to vote as a unit for Grant, and by his aggressive
assault upon Blaine when he referred to Grant as a candidate “without
patronage, without emissaries, without committees, without bureaus,
without telegraph wires running from his house to this convention
or running from his house anywhere.” Unlike the Ingersoll speech
nominating Blaine in 1876, the speech of Conkling, able, eloquent, and
grand as it was, left Grant weaker, instead of stronger.
Very general interest centred in General Garfield, who was at the head
of the Ohio delegation, that was instructed for Senator Sherman for
President. Garfield knew the situation; he knew that a third candidate
must eventually be accepted, and he illy concealed his efforts to
advance himself, while ostensibly struggling for Sherman. His speech
nominating Sherman was a plea for peace rather than an aggressive
presentation of Sherman’s claims, and it was well understood that his
plea for peace was, in fact, a plea for himself. At various stages
of the balloting tidal waves of enthusiasm would start for Garfield,
and he narrowly escaped a spontaneous nomination. He was personally
very popular, of imposing presence, a most accomplished speaker, and
he was finally accepted by the friends of Blaine because he was not
the partisan of either Blaine or Grant, and also because they could
certainly win with him, and thus defeat Grant.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account