More articles by Brian JosepherA History of Conventions: An IntroductionA History of Conventions: An Introduction
(Here in this space today, and throughout the summer, I’m going to take a look at some of the more contentious, and entertaining, conventions of the latter half of the 20th century. A few weeks ago I began this series with the Republican Convention of 1980. Before delving into other later 20th century conventions, I thought an introduction was in order.)
With the country teetering on the breaking point, with war clouds gathering and a polarized nation uncertain of its next step, the Republican Party held its convention to elect a candidate for the presidency. The pre-convention favorite was the senator from New York. The senator, however, had many detractors and therefore was not a lock for the nominee. That led to a series of other candidates announcing their presidential intentions. They included: a lawyer from Missouri, a former governor from Ohio, a former congressman from Illinois.
On the first ballot, the senator from New York gained a clear advantage but fell some 60 votes shy of victory. The congressman from Illinois gained the second most votes, winning his home state of Illinois and neighboring Indiana. The political team representing the Illinois congressman celebrated. The election had come down to two candidates.
The political team representing the New York senator worried. Detractors seemed to be growing. The campaign director, Thurlow Weed, declared, “We are facing a crisis; there are troubled times ahead of us. What this country will demand as its chief executive for the next four years is a man of the highest order of executive ability, a man of real statesmanlike qualities, well known to the country, and of large experience in national affairs. No other class of men ought to be considered at this time.”
Thurlow Weed, of course, had his candidate in mind: America’s greatest statesman at that time, a former governor of New York, a powerful senator, a link back to the founding father’s generation.
The congressman from Illinois had a western sensibility. He didn’t put his faith in Alexander Hamilton, as the New York senator did, but rather in the wisdom of Henry Clay. To vote for the Illinois congressman over the New York senator was to vote for the future.
Sound familiar? Terry McAuliffe might have recently uttered Thurlow Weed’s comments, with a gender change of the pronoun. As for the current legislator from Illinois, it’s as if he’s taken a page directly from the Republican Convention of 1860. It’s as if he’s the new frontier.
On the second ballot, the Illinois congressman’s vote tally climbed to within three votes of the New York senator. That key nominating state, Pennsylvania, had thrown its weight behind the Illinois congressman. Simply put, the Pennsylvanians received a deal from the Illinois congressman. Despite that congressman’s directive to his representatives – “Make no contracts that will bind me” – his representatives offered the chief Pennsylvanian a cabinet post. Simon Cameron, a corrupt, vacillating, former Democrat and Know Nothing, became secretary of war. He wouldn’t even last a year in that post.
On the third ballot, the congressman from Illinois eclipsed the nominating tally. His name was Abraham Lincoln.
The senator from New York, William Seward, was not considered for the vice president position. VP candidates then ran separately. Seward, however, did take the top cabinet post after Lincoln won the general election, secretary of state.
In the years that followed, Secretary Seward built an incredible legacy. Through his sheer negotiating prowess, he kept the Union out of a naval war with the British (and the French), at a time during the Civil War when both the British and the French were playing both the Union and the Confederate sides. That war would have crippled the Union. Almost any negotiator can negotiate from strength. Seward could negotiate from weakness.
Further, he turned this nation’s foreign policy in another direction, toward Asia. Seward was the first statesman to make alliances with Hawaii, Japan and China.
Further, he made a very unpopular purchase from Russia, known then as Seward’s folly. Today we call Seward’s folly the state of Alaska.
And perhaps most importantly, after a period of animosity and distrust between Seward and Lincoln, Seward became the president’s most trusted adviser. On nights when Lincoln couldn’t sleep (most nights, for the insomniac Lincoln), he would walk from the Executive Mansion across New York Avenue to Seward’s mansion on Lafayette Square. They would talk through the night. Lincoln typically would fall asleep in one of Seward’s easy chairs. Seward gave Lincoln great comfort.
Is there a parallel today? We have a country nearly as polarized as 1860, though with no talk of secession. We had a New York senator who once was the clear front runner. We have a legislator from Illinois lacking experience. We have a convention approaching in a city that serves as the gateway to the West. Chicago in 1860 certainly fit that description. As does Denver today.
In 1860, the Democrats were split by slavery. For the first and only time in the Democrat’s long history, they nominated two candidates to run for president, John C. Breckinridge in the South, Stephen Douglas in the North (even then the Democrats were good at self-mutilation). That left the country open for the new political party on the scene, the Republicans. In the general election of 1860 the Republican Party rallied around one issue, unionism. Keeping the country in tact catapulted Lincoln to the Executive Mansion.
Lincoln ran on other issues too. He stood for high tariffs on imported manufactures. He stood for a national bank. He advocated railroad construction and land-grant laws. The latter would turn into arguably the most progressive law passed in this nation’s history: the Homestead Act of 1862, which gave an applicant (including freed slaves) free land outside of the original 13 colonies. But most supremely Lincoln stood for the enduring and perpetual spirit of this nation as one.
South Carolina voted for secession about a month after the general election. In the north, they called the president-elect Honest Abe. In the south, they called him Honest Ape.
Honest Abe, or Honest Ape if you prefer, took a few weeks before appointing William Seward to the state department. How do you turn a rival into a trusted ally? You make him, or her, wait.
And so, today, we wait. We have multiple external wars, with others looming. We have an economy turning catastrophic, with foreclosure on homes reaching its highest rate ever, as nearly 1 percent of loans, or 447,723, have fallen into arrears. We have soaring prices, with food costs rising 5 percent this first quarter, the largest increase since the downturn of 1990.
All eyes are on the man from Illinois. The election is his to lose. What will he do in the face of so much adversity? To strengthen his hand, will he turn his New York rival into an ally? Or will he find a chief ally elsewhere, say in the governor of Ohio?
Lincoln, it should be noted, appointed the former governor of Ohio to be his secretary of the treasury. Salmon Chase, through extraordinary and perhaps extraconstitutional means (he created the income tax), kept the Union financially afloat. He was also an extremely ambitious man and he desperately wanted the presidency for himself. Chase’s ambition proved to be his downfall. He had a falling out with the president and he lost his job. (Lincoln, the most forgiving man ever to occupy the executive office, later appointed Chase to the Supreme Court.)
Lincoln and Seward never had a falling out. Unfortunately, Seward was not vice president under Lincoln. History would be a far different read had Seward ascended to the Executive Mansion on April 15, 1865. Sponsored by EnterTo.com the first REAL spam free email
Click Below to discover and share content from anywhere on the web
More articles by Brian Josepher |
