Ohio History Journal

THE OHIO DELEGATION AT THE

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONVENTION OF 1888

by

 

 

EVERETT WALTERS

Instructor, Department of History, Ohio State University

 

When Governor Joseph Benson Foraker of Ohio arrived at

Chicago on June 16, 1888, to attend the National Republican Con-

vention, he found his fellow delegates in confusion. Despite the

Ohio delegation's commitment to Senator John Sherman by the

state convention of 1887, there was evidence that certain delegates

might break their pledge. The well organized Chicago boom for

James G. Blaine had led these Ohioans to believe that their old

favorite might secure the nomination. Other Ohio delegates were

backing a proposal that, if Sherman failed to receive an early

nomination, the Ohio vote should go to Congressman William

McKinley or to Governor Foraker. Would-be slate-makers glibly

predicted "Depew and McKinley," "Blaine and Foraker," and

"Depew and Foraker."   Lapel buttons of the latter combination

could be purchased on the Chicago streets.¹ The Ohio vote ap-

peared as uncertain as it had been in 1880 and 1884.

Governor Foraker himself had been suspected of leading the

opposition to Sherman since 1887. His rise in Ohio politics had

been meteoric. His widely acclaimed 1887 Lincoln Day speech

in New York, his "No rebel flags will be returned while I am

governor" statement, his verbal attacks on President Cleveland,

and his bristling bloody-shirt oratory had won him a place in

national headlines. Such had been his Ohio following that the

Sherman adherents had demanded the Senator's endorsement for

the Presidency a full year before the national convention. Dur-

ing the spring of 1888 certain eastern and midwestern newspapers

played up Foraker's threat to Sherman, openly prophesying that

1 Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, June 17, 1888.

228

• 1
 

REPUBLICAN CONVENTION OF 1888               229

 

Foraker would desert the latter at the Chicago convention. The

Ohio governor, charged the articles, would be a willing candidate

for the Vice Presidency or the Presidency.² Even after the April

1888 state convention the Shermanites took little stock in the

Governor's statement that he would support the Senator "as long

as he had a button on his coat."3 Sherman himself had been so con-

cerned that he had Foraker selected as chairman of the Ohio dele-

gation in an attempt to be assured of the younger man's support.4

During May and June the Sherman managers' distrust of

Foraker deepened. With singular transparency they neglected to

consult the Governor, head of the Ohio delegation, concerning their

campaign plans. This neglect irritated Foraker. On May 10 he

complained to his good friend Mark Hanna of Cleveland that he

was "wholly ignorant as to Mr. Sherman's plans, wishes, hopes and

prospects."⁵ Hanna quickly realized the dangers in alienating

such an influential politician as Foraker, and on May 15 wrote

Sherman suggesting that it would be advisable "at least to extend

an invitation to Governor Foraker" to the approaching Washington

conference of Sherman managers. Hanna believed that Foraker

would be unable to attend, yet he did "not think it wise to ignore

him [Foraker] in making plans for this campaign."⁶ Sherman

accepted Hanna's suggestion and wrote the invitation. Governor

Foraker, as Hanna had predicted, was unable to accept but assured

Sherman that he would "see Foster and Hanna when they return

and [would] cooperate with them."7 He had just the day before

written the Senator that the Blaine movement "seems to be devel-

oping so strongly that I am getting somewhat uneasy."8

Several days after the Washington meeting of Sherman,

Hanna, Charles Foster, William McKinley, Charles Butterworth,

and other Ohio politicians, the Senator wrote Foraker that "a great

many things are said and information communicated from different

parts of the country which is well for me not to attempt to repeat

. . . but which it was understood should be communicated to you

2 Stories reprinted in ibid., March 11, 1888.

3 Ibid., April 20, 1888.

4 John Sherman to Joseph B. Foraker, January 13, 1888, in Foraker Papers, His-

torical and Philosophical Society Library, Cincinnati.

5 Mark Hanna to Foraker, May 10, 1888, in Foraker Papers.

6 Hanna to Sherman, May 15, 1888, in Sherman Papers, Library of Congress.

7 Foraker to Sherman, May 17, 1888 (telegram), in Sherman Papers.

8 Foraker to Sherman, May 16, 1888, in Sherman Papers.

• 2
 

230 OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

by either Hanna or Foster."⁹ Former Governor Foster wrote

Foraker that Hanna would make the report. But Hanna failed to

visit Foraker. By May 25 Foraker complained to Sherman that

the Cleveland businessman had not yet come to Columbus and that

it appeared that he would not do so since he had gone on a trip

West.¹⁰ Hanna had written Foraker at length about preparation

for the delegation headquarters at Chicago but had said nothing

about convention strategy.11 Neither Hanna nor any other Sher-

man manager told Foraker about their attempt to deal with Thomas

C. Platt for the New York vote or with Matthew Quay for the

Pennsylvania support. Not until early June did he learn that Gen-

eral D. H. Hastings of Pennsylvania would make Sherman's nomi-

nating speech and that he, as leader of the Ohio delegation, would

deliver the seconding speech. Foraker was definitely piqued by

this preconvention treatment.12

Although not an avowed candidate, James G. Blaine domi-

nated the Republican National Convention at Chicago, June 19 to

25, 1888. The personal magnetism of the "Plumed Knight" still

fired the imagination of thousands. The possibility of a Blaine

stampede hung pall-like over the convention and presented a con-

stant concern for political managers.13 Despite his several state-

ments to the contrary, Blaine was a candidate. Sherman was the

strongest admitted candidate, having Ohio, most of Pennsylvania,

and the South pledged to him. No other states, however, seemed

willing to favor him. Other leading aspirants were Benjamin Har-

rison of Indiana, Russell A. Alger of Michigan, Walter Gresham

of Illinois, William B. Allison of Iowa, and Chauncey M. Depew

of New York. William T. Sherman was mentioned by a few.

In such a field a dark horse might expect a chance.

On the first day of the convention, June 19, Foraker openly

became suspected of political ambitions. With certain Ohio dele-

gates he believed that Hanna was proceeding on the theory, with or

without Sherman's approval, that if Sherman's chances ran out, the

Shermanites would switch to McKinley. With this in mind Foraker

 

9 Sherman to Foraker, May 21, 1888, in Foraker Papers.

10 Foraker to Sherman, May 25, 1888, in Sherman Papers.

11 Hanna to Foraker, May 24, 1888, in Foraker Papers.

12 Joseph Benson Foraker, Notes of a Busy Life (2 vols., Cincinnati, 1916), 336

339.

13 David S. Muzzey, James G. Blaine (New York, 1934), 375.

• 3
 

REPUBLICAN CONVENTION OF 1888             231

 

sought to determine Hanna's strength in the Ohio delegation. A

check of Hanna's plans revealed that he intended to have Amos

Townshend of Cleveland chosen as national committeeman. For-

aker decided to contest this selection because Townsend was a

staunch Sherman adherent and was reported to have called Foraker

"a weak, dizzy-headed man." Foraker selected A. L. Conger of

Akron as his choice for the position. A preliminary poll of the

Ohio delegation disclosed 31 members for Conger and 15 for

Townshend. Hanna decided against an official count and permit-

ted Conger to be chosen without contest. Hanna said "some un-

kind things" following this episode.14

That same evening the Sherman-Hanna faction became even

more annoyed with Foraker. During the evening's festivities, the

Foraker Club of Columbus deliberately left the procession of clubs

serenading the Sherman headquarters and made an independent

tour. Five hundred strong, the smartly uniformed club members,

carrying banners and flags, jammed the downtown Chicago streets

shouting their choice: some for Sherman but mostly for Foraker.

The club serenaded all the prominent political leaders. After his

extended serenade, Foraker made a short speech, concluding with

a call for three cheers for Sherman.15 This musical escapade of

the club was promptly reported to Sherman in Washington.16

Increasing the Sherman-Hanna group's suspicions of For-

aker's ambitions was his convention speech of June 20. While

waiting for the credentials committee to make its report, several

well-known orators were called upon for speeches. The delegates

wanted entertainment! Cries for Foraker rang out insistently but

he refused. Then a formal motion for a speech by the fiery Ohio

governor was made and adopted. Foraker's piquant words were

popular with the great audience. With glowing phrases he re-

viewed standpat Republican doctrines. His partisan attacks on

President Cleveland appealed enormously to the assembled dele-

gates; each barb at Cleveland's unpopular actions brought forth

tremendous cheers and applause. As in his bloody-shirt orations,

Foraker knew what the crowd wanted and gave it to them. "He

fixed the convention," commented the Cincinnati Commercial Ga-

 

14 Foraker, Notes, I, 345-346.

15 Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, Tune 20, 1888.

16 Green R. Raum to Sherman, June 20, 1888 (telegram), in Sherman Papers.

• 4
 

232   OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

zette,l⁷ while the Chicago Tribune observed that the speech made

"Governor Foraker the favorite of the convention," adding that

"many incline to the belief that a younger Blaine is in the Repub-

lican party."18

That evening Foraker was blamed for the division in the Ohio

delegation over the credentials of the West Virginia delegates. The

Governor, the Sherman managers contended, planned to speak

against General Malone, the West Virginian pledged to Sherman.

Hanna, however, persuaded Foraker not to speak, although he

could not prevent the latter from leading the Ohio Blaine group

to H. A. Wise, long a Blaine adherent in West Virginia. In re-

porting Foraker's actions to Sherman, Hanna and the others com-

plained that they had been forced to grant concessions to the Ohio

Blaine group because of the Governor. A. C. Thompson and

Charles Grosvenor further reported that Foraker had set up his

own headquarters on the hotel floor above the Sherman rooms and

had never cooperated but had obstructed all moves.¹⁹

On the third day of the convention, June 21, the roll of states

was called for the presentation of candidates. Joseph R. Hawley

of Connecticut, the first nominee, received little enthusiasm. Walter

Gresham, Benjamin Harrison, William Allison, Russell A. Alger,

and Chauncey M. Depew were all placed in nomination. Then in

response to the Ohio call, General D. H. Hastings of Pennsylvania

took the platform and with spread-eagle eloquence presented the

name of John Sherman. The convention broke out in a great burst

of cheers, songs, and noise. The Ohio Senator appeared to be the

convention favorite.

Amid this storm of applause Foraker strode to the platform

to second the Sherman nomination. Just as he reached the stand

a huge floral piece several feet high and half a foot thick was placed

at the speaker's rostrum. In red flowers upon a white background

blazed forth the famous dispatch of the Cleveland battleflag epi-

sode: "No rebel flags will be returned while I am governor."

Many in the audience could not see and cried out, "Turn it around,

 

17 Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, June 21, 1888.

18 Chicago Tribune, June 21, 1888, in Foraker Scrapbook, Historical and Philo-

sophical Society Library, Cincinnati.

19 Green R. Raum to Sherman, June 20, 1888 (telegram); A. C. Thompson and

Charles Grosvenor to Sherman, June 21, 1888 (telegram), in Sherman Papers.

• 5
 

REPUBLICAN CONVENTION OF 1888             233

 

turn it around." An uproar amounting to a small riot developed.

A total and disagreeable surprise, the floral tribute was the gift of

two politically inept Chicago women whose brother Foraker had

pardoned a year before at the request of former Governor Foster.

Visibly embarrassed, Foraker had the display cleared away before

beginning his speech. His words were as arresting as his floral

introduction. Studded with provocative phrases, his magnetic ad-

dress "wrought the vast throng to the highest pitch of enthusiasm.

The crowd had been bursting with it for two days. Foraker re-

moved the pressure." Climaxing his oration was a rhetorical out-

burst that if the Democrats had chosen the red bandana for their

banner, then the Republicans would carry the American flag. Thou-

sands of American flags were thrown into the air, men jumped on

tables and chairs, and everyone cheered and screamed. The din

was deafening. After ten minutes the hilarious demonstration took

song form in "Marching through Georgia.." Foraker's electrifying

speech and the "old snuff rag" (as one reporter phrased it), made

dramatic eulogy for Sherman--and for Foraker.²⁰

Foraker promptly was accused of launching a boom for him-

self. The vote for the committeeman, the Columbus Foraker Club

serenade, the floral display, and now the dramatic flag speech

caused Sherman's managers to doubt more than ever his trust-

worthiness. This was too much attention for an unannounced

candidate. Sherman's lieutenants reporting the day's events to the

Senator castigated Foraker and described him as a man "wild with

ambition.21

The first ballot, taken June 22, proved a tremendous disap-

pointment to the Sherman cohorts. He received only 229 out of

416 votes necessary for nomination. Hanna had confidently pre-

dicted 300; Foraker had estimated 360. But most discouraging

was the distribution: outside of Ohio and Pennsylvania, virtually

all Sherman's support came from the South. An increase from

Pennsylvania under the direction of Quay was anticipated on the

second ballot, but any other change was doubtful.²² Many of the

southern votes were not dependable because they were regarded as

20 Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, June 22, 1888.

21 H. C. Hedges to Sherman, June 20, 1888 (telegram); Grosvenor to Sherman,

June 21, 1888 (telegram), in Sherman Papers.

22 Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, June 23, 1888.

• 6
 

234   OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

"bought." Both the Sherman and Alger managers had transported

Negroes to southern state conventions and then to Chicago in an

effort to obtain these votes. During the first days of the conven-

tion these Negroes sold their extra admission tickets at high prices

in exchange for their votes. After the convention Governor For-

aker asserted that Hanna's purchase of the southern tickets was

one of the causes for his break with the Cleveland businessman-

politician.²³

Sherman gained 20 votes on the second ballot, acquiring a

total of 249. On the third his vote dropped to 244. Alger re-

ceived 122; Harrison 94; Depew 91; Allison 88; and Blaine 5.

After this vote Depew withdrew his name, and it was understood

that his pledges would go to Harrison. The Sherman managers

telegraphed to the Senator for instructions--"Quick."24 Hanna

reported "too much Blaine talk for comfort," and expressed fear

that if a break occurred, the Foraker group would go to Blaine.²⁵

A motion to adjourn until Saturday morning was carried, and the

delegation managers retired to mobilize their forces. Hope of

nominating Sherman dimmed in the Ohio delegation, but at a meet-

ing it was agreed to stand by him until some member requested a

poll.²⁶ Strong pressure was put on the Ohioans by the Blaine and

Harrison men. In other delegation conferences, certain delegates,

hoping to forestall the Harrison movement, discussed plans to

nominate a dark horse, frequently mentioning McKinley and For-

aker. Blaine's small vote was due to an attempt by the Blaine

men to scatter the vote so that the "Plumed Possum of Kennebeck"

might stampede the convention after the third ballot.²⁷

Late on the twenty-second Foraker telegraphed Sherman that

he had arranged a midnight meeting with Gresham and Allison in

an effort to obtain their support. Then, obviously attempting to

scotch the reports that he knew the Sherman men were sending

their leader, he added:

 

[I] may get mention by anybody for anything . . . but . . . it will be

 

23 Foraker, Notes, I, 393-394.

24 Hanna to Sherman, June 22, 1888 (telegram); A. E. Bateman to Sherman,

June 22, 1888 (telegram), in Sherman Papers.

25 Hanna to Sherman, June 22, 1888 (telegram), in Sherman Papers.

26 Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, June 22, 1888.

27 A. M. Jones to Sherman, June 22, 1888 (telegram), in Sherman Papers.

• 7
 

REPUBLICAN CONVENTION OF 1888                  235

 

without my consent or approval and if I should be nominated for either place

it will be declined unless you should request me to accept.²⁸

The fourth ballot, taken Saturday morning, June 23, revealed

Harrison's gains. He received 216 votes, Sherman but 235. When

Connecticut was called on this ballot, one of her delegates voted

for McKinley. Immediately McKinley arose and addressed the

convention, stating that he would not accept any votes because he

was pledged to Sherman. His simple but effective speech won

him a host of admirers and unquestionably vitalized Hanna's un-

dercover McKinley boom.²⁹

Then the story that Blaine would be a candidate on the fifth

ballot swept through the convention. A recess until four o'clock

was called. Of unknown origin the Blaine rumor had an electric

effect on the Ohio delegates. Believing that Sherman could not be

nominated now, many of them voted that if by the time Ohio was

called on the next ballot it should appear that Blaine would be

nominated, they would demand the right to vote for him. For-

aker, as chairman of the delegation, sanctioned the decision and

planned to vote for Blaine himself. He did, however, caution the

delegates not to "break" for Blaine until the last minute--the

break, he advised, could be made at any time.30 But the break did

not come, for at four o'clock the convention was adjourned by the

Blaine men until Monday morning. At a brief delegation meeting

after adjournment it was voted to defer action until Monday.

Saturday night and Sunday were left to intrigue and bargaining as

the political managers marshaled their forces.

Late Saturday afternoon Governor Foraker made an an-

nouncement which startled his fellow delegates. Carried by the

Associated Press, his statement ran as follows:

 

I have been faithful and true to Mr. Sherman. I have strained every

nerve in his behalf and stood by him until I feel the case is hopeless. I can-

not be accused of unfaithfulness or treachery under these circumstances.

Now, I believe, I have honorably been absolved and am for Blaine hence-

forth. I shall vote for him next Monday and the main part of the Ohio

delegation will vote with me, if at all. I believe I should try to represent

28 Foraker to Sherman, June 22, 1888 (telegram), in Sherman Papers.

29 Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, June 22, 1888.

30 John Little to Foraker, June 24, 1888 (telegram); Little to Sherman, June

23, 1888 (telegram), in Sherman Papers.

• 8
 

236   OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

faithfully the sentiment of the delegation and I am trying to do so. I do

not believe there is any chance for Sherman's nomination. That fact is

patent to everyone, and therefor I look for the next man to win, and I

believe Mr. Blaine is the only man left to us.31

Shocked surprise greeted Foraker's statement.    Cries of

treachery were spread wholesale. Many claimed that they had ex-

pected Foraker's unfaithfulness all during the preconvention pe-

riod. Especially was Foraker condemned because Blaine had al-

ready twice declined to run; supporting Blaine was interpreted as

actually his own bid for the Vice Presidency or the Presidency.

Curiously enough, Foraker, on Sunday, June 24, publicly denied

having made the statement.

Foraker's determination to go to Blaine stemmed from many

sources. First of all, during the Saturday recess he had been ap-

proached with the offer of the Vice Presidency by the Blaine man-

agers who realized the Ohio Governor's political stature as well as

his influence in the Ohio delegation. If Foraker would accept,

much of Sherman's strength would go to Blaine. But Foraker

declined the offer, because Sherman would not give his approval.

Furthermore Foraker was piqued by the Ohio McKinley boom,

and to come out for Blaine would injure McKinley's chances. Un-

questionably too, Foraker was nettled by not having heard from

Sherman regarding the seconding speech. Even Sherman in Wash-

ington knew that Foraker had been offended. Hanna had failed to

convey Sherman's appreciation to the Governor, for it was Sher-

man's intention that Hanna should do the honors.³² Foraker must

have wondered why "John couldn't speak for himself." Finally,

should Blaine decline, Foraker's own chances for the Presidency

might have materialized. He had presidential aspirations, and

there was always the possibility that Sherman might release him.

He later claimed he had documentary evidence showing that he

could have had considerable support on the first ballot.33 Foraker's

popularity was attested to by a poll of the Ohio delegation taken

on Saturday afternoon which disclosed that Foraker would receive

38 votes and McKinley 8.

 

31 Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, June 24, 1888.

32 A. M. Jones to Sherman, June 23, 1888 (telegram), in Sherman Papers;

Sherman to Foraker, June 24, 1888 (telegram), in Foraker Papers.

33 Foraker to Murat Halstead, July 2, 1888, in Halstead Papers, in possession of

Mrs. Jesse Clark, Cincinnati, Ohio.

• 9
 

REPUBLICAN CONVENTION OF 1888                    237

 

Foraker's announcement and the known feeling of the Ohio

delegation loosed an avalanche of telegrams to Sherman. The

venerable Senator had been apprised of every move by Hanna,

Murat Halstead, A. M. Jones, George F. Hoar, and others. Hal-

stead summed up the situation late Saturday:

The Ohio delegation is already broken. The governor goes next ballot

for Blaine. He thinks you have no chance left .... The friends of Blaine

claim the Alger vote solid and indications are that the Blaine movement will

succeed. They are claiming everything and holding the support they have

given you calls for support in return.

Blaine will certainly be nominated unless the movement can be checked

by placing McKinley in nomination and concentrating the anti-Blaine forces.

Can we afford to lose the opportunity of securing a nomination for the

State? Give us the word and we believe we can pull McKinley through.

In my judgment the question is coming on the next ballot between Blaine

and McKinley.34

Hoar telegraphed Sherman to the same effect. Hanna tele-

graphed on Sunday that all was lost, begging Sherman to save

the party from "the Blaine lunatics" by declaring for McKinley.

He further complained that Foraker was unwilling to vote for

McKinley.³⁵ Sherman sent his answer to Hanna:

Let my name stand. I prefer defeat to retreat. I have no right to

say that Foraker should not vote for McKinley as against Blaine. ... I

like McKinley but such a movement would be unjust to others, and as I

view it, a breach of implicit faith .... Stand to your position and fall, if

need be, with honor. I understand Foraker thinks I am under obligation to

support Blaine. This is totally unfounded. I am grateful to Foraker and

the rest but not to Blaine. His course has been deceptive and I think dis-

honorable.36

Meanwhile Hanna had informed Sherman of more alleged

Foraker treachery. Although the "report" is of dubious authen-

ticity because of Foraker's known switch to Blaine, Hanna's ac-

count of it is interesting:

A report has just come to me that Foraker's agent attended a caucus

of Alger's friends and told them he could get 40 votes from Ohio. We have

known of this sentiment but could hardly believe it. What can we accom-

plish on combination with such conditions inside our lines.³⁷

34 Halstead to Sherman, June 23, 1888 (telegram), in Sherman Papers.

35 Hanna to Sherman, June 23, 1888 (telegram), in Sherman Papers.

36 Sherman to Hanna, June 23, 1888 (telegram), in Sherman Papers.

37 Hanna to Sherman, June 23, 1888 (telegram), in Sherman Papers.

• 10
 

238   OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

If it had been broached earlier, the report of Foraker's interest in

Alger might have been credible. On Saturday Foraker was a de-

clared Blaine man.

Late Sunday the scene shifted. A telegram was received from

Blaine asking that his Paris letter in which he had declined can-

didacy be respected. Immediately there was a scramble to com-

mit the Blaine men. The New York delegation voted to support

Sherman if the Indiana delegation could not secure Harrison a

large gain by Monday. Hanna worked furiously to give Sherman

a last chance. Then Foraker, on hearing of Blaine's refusal to run,

announced that he would stand by Sherman and that the Ohio

delegation would go with him. A press poll late Sunday substan-

tiated this: 45 votes for Sherman and one for Harrison (pledged

by a soldier who had fought under Harrison).38

Two o'clock Monday morning, June 25, Foraker was

awakened by his secretary, Charles L. Kurtz, with a delegation of

Blaine men headed by Stephen B. Elkins and Samuel Fessenden.

They told him that the entire Blaine strength including New York

would be thrown to him if he would accept the nomination. The

majority of Blaine's friends, they related, favored Foraker over

anyone else and with his consent he would be "nominated without

fail and without difficulty on the first or second ballot Monday."

Foraker thanked the Blaine men but firmly stood by Sherman, say-

ing that he would not accept nomination unless the Senator with-

drew first and specifically asked Foraker to become a candidate.

Foraker closed the interview by asserting that he could prevent his

nomination--he did not wish to be placed in a position similar to

Garfield's in 1880. This account of the offer of Blaine support was

first recounted in 1896 by Senator Elkins and Fessenden upon

publication of Sherman's Recollections.  Fessenden closed his

statement: "The lines were at once closed for Harrison and he

was nominated easily and promptly, just as Foraker would have

been had he chosen to become a candidate himself."³⁹ It is difficult

to see how, if Foraker had accepted the Blaine support, he could

have been nominated. Harrison had received 219 votes on Satur-

day; of these, 58 were from New York. That Foraker could have

38 Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, June 25, 1888.

39 Foraker, Notes, I, 368-372.

• 11
 

REPUBLICAN CONVENTION OF 1888             239

 

obtained these votes--and the other 24 New York votes--is doubt-

ful since he had offended certain New Yorkers by his slurring re-

marks toward Chauncey M. Depew and Senator Hiscock in his

seconding speech for Sherman. Moreover Foraker's "desertation"

of Sherman on Saturday afternoon had displeased many delegates,

and they would not vote for him.

On Monday, June 25, Harrison obtained 231 votes on the

sixth ballot and 544 on the eighth. The Indiana delegation had

garnered enough votes to influence the entire New York group,

and the others followed. Five delegates continued to vote for

Blaine, and four for McKinley.

Foraker's actions at the Chicago convention were sharply

criticized during the months that followed. His temporary bolt

from Sherman, his slurs at Depew and Hiscock, and his suspected

bid for the Presidency elicited caustic comment from his political

opponents. The Ohio press daily debated whether Foraker was

or was not responsible for Sherman's defeat. Foraker ably pre-

sented his position in his July 2 speech at Springfield, although

he failed to comment on his surprising June 23 declaration for

Blaine. Accompanying his public defense was a thinly veiled at-

tack on Hanna and his confreres whom he accused of actively

working for a McKinley boom.     Foraker was determined to

present his case because he was angered by the newspaper accounts

that Sherman was "suspending judgment" on his conduct at the

convention.⁴⁰ He wrote Halstead after this attack: "If he pre-

sumes to question my integrity, I will make more music for him

so quick and strong that he and those who engineered the infa-

mous features of his case in the back rooms of the Grand Hotel

will wish they had never heard of the Convention of '88."41

Foraker obviously was referring to the purchase of the southern

tickets by Hanna. Several weeks after the convention Foraker

saw Sherman "in a truly broken and pitiable plight." The Senator

protested that he had not considered "suspending judgment."⁴²

Murat Halstead, influential publisher of the Cincinnati Com-

mercial Gazette and a staunch friend of Foraker's, reviewed at

 

40 Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, July 3, 1888.

41 Foraker to Halstead, July 2, 1888, in Halstead Papers.

42 Foraker to Asa Bushnell, July 7, 1888, in Foraker Papers.

• 12
 

240 OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

length the 1888 convention on June 30 and on later occasions.

Halstead defended Foraker's course although he regretted the

latter's temporary bolt to Blaine. The Cincinnati editor main-

tained that Foraker's announcement was merely recognition of a

fact--certainly it was not a secret that Sherman was through.

Foraker had preferred Blaine as his next choice while Halstead

had chosen McKinley.  Halstead further stated that the Gov-

ernor undoubtedly had considered himself a dark horse because

of the urgings of his friends. He agreed with other political

observers that there were just too many politically ambitious Ohio

men at the convention:   Sherman, McKinley, Foraker--even

Harrison had been born in Ohio.

Sherman's failure to be nominated stemmed from other rea-

sons than Foraker's alleged treachery: his personal aloofness, the

hostility of Platt and the New Yorkers, the antagonisms of the

Stalwart element of the party, and the opposition of the rail-

roads. Sherman himself believed that he lost out through a

"corrupt bargain" between Platt and Harrison.

Early in 1889 when Foraker's name was being considered for

a Harrison cabinet position and for gubernatorial renomination,

the convention story was re-examined at length. Richard Smith

of the Cincinnati Commercial, one of Foraker's most consist-

ent opponents, initiated the revival by attacking Foraker for his

alleged treachery to Sherman, and demanded that Foraker should

not be allowed to run again for governor.43 Smith made much of

Foraker's denials, especially those proffered in his July 2, 1888,

speech, and he published the entire story of the circumstances

surrounding the issuance of Foraker's June 23 statement in which

he forsook Sherman. This account was written by John C.

Eckles, the Associated Press reporter who had interviewed

Foraker at Chicago that Saturday afternoon.  The Governor,

related Eckles, said that he had a "tip" that Murat Halstead had

received a telegram from Senator Sherman requesting withdrawal

of the latter's name, and that it was this "tip" which led Foraker

to declare for Blaine. At Foraker's request, Eckles did not re-

port the "tip" in his article. Before writing up the interview,

 

43 Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, February 26, 1889.

• 13
 

REPUBLICAN CONVENTION OF 1888             241

Eckles sought to verify the rumor of Sherman's decision to re-

tire through Halstead. The Cincinnati editor, roused from his

hotel bed, denied having received such a telegram. On Sunday

Eckles was surprised to learn that Foraker had denied having

been interviewed and having declared for Blaine.44

In a long open letter to Halstead, Foraker reviewed his course

at Chicago. He admitted talking to Eckles but averred that it was

not a "formal" interview. He asserted that he had never denied

having a conversation with the reporter. Further he contended

that Halstead himself had recognized that Sherman's chances were

through, and as evidence submitted the editor's June 23 telegram.

He did not mention the "tip." Halstead's signed editorial of

February 27 disclosed that there had been a misunderstanding be-

tween himself and the Governor. Halstead stated his belief that

Foraker, on June 23, when Sherman's hopes were fading, had said

"a good word for McKinley." Instead Foraker had meant that he

would support Blaine. Unquestionably Halstead had misunder-

stood Foraker because the latter before the convention agreed

that "McKinley must be thought of when the last button is gone

from Sherman's coat."⁴⁵ Halstead concluded his editorial with

a denunciation of Foraker's "friends"--those Ohioans who be-

lieved him to be "The Young Man of Destiny."

Governor Foraker's independent course at the Republican

National Convention of 1888 had far-reaching consequences in

Ohio politics. His thinly veiled opposition to Sherman's candidacy

and his impetuous declaration for Blaine split the party into two

factions, one of which he directed while Mark Hanna headed the

other. Their friendship ended abruptly and quickly became trans-

formed into an enmity which frequently flared into open warfare.

For over sixteen years they struggled for party control; only

after the nominations had been made did they join forces for party

"peace and harmony." Despite Hanna's power in national poli-

tics following McKinley's election to the Presidency, the contest

continued in full force. Only the death of Hanna in 1904 brought

an end to this phase of Ohio Republican factionalism.

 

 

44 Ibid., February 26, 1889.

45 Foraker to Halstead, June 11, 1888, in Halstead Papers.

• 14