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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.