The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-13

we are told that history repeats ltseii,
which means simply that similar causes pro-
duce similar results. Hence the wisdom OF
recalling and studying the past for the pur-
pose of aiding our judgment in the future.
The lessons of experience are too often neg
lected yet. if properly learned, they make
us wise, and are apt to save MS from grievous
mistakes. There are SO many points of SIM
ilarity between the political situation in New
York in the Presidential campaign Of 1860
and the Presidential campaign of 1876 that
a glance at the events Of the former year may
be productive of good.
In 1860 there was local democratic organ
ization in New York disputing the prestige
Of regularity with Tamnany Hall and ruled
by the one man power, as Tammany is ruled
to-day. Fernando Wood was at it's head.
The leader and his followers were opposed
to the nomination of Douglas for the Presi-
dency, and went to the State Convention Of
the party at Syracuse to resist the election of
delegates by that body in favor Of the Senator
rs the democratic candidate. Mozart and its
leader however, did not exercise any great
influence, because it was known that they
did not represent the democracy of the city
Of New York. Yet their open opposition to
Douglas indicated that he was not the unan-
imous choice of the democracy of the En-
pire State. There were far more important
elements opposed to Senator Douglas NOM
ination, represented by such men as Daniel
S. Dickinson, Edwin Croswell. Erastus
Corning. John G. Mather, David L. Seymour,
Clark S. Potter, Elijah Mather, Delos De
Wolf, and others throughout the State. The
Albany Regency headed by Dean Richmond.
were favorable to Douglas, and were. as the
result proved, determined to force his NOM
ination.
The State Convention met, and Daniel S.
Dickinson, Edwin Croswell and their ASSOC
ciates received consideration from it. They
were assured that the Convention, which
had at the commencement been rabid for
positive instructions to the New York dele
cation to vote for Douglas first, last and all
the time, would be contented if the resolu-
tons should show the respect and admira-
| ton of the democrats Of the State for the
Senator's course. Mr.. Croswell, Erastus
Corning and others who acted with them,
were put upon the list of delegates to
Charleston, and then the following resolu-
ton was adopted by the State Convention
Resolved. That the delegates to the Democratic
National Convention arc hereby instructed TO
rs a unit, In accordance with the will Of a
majority Of the members thereof; and in any
OF the members shall be appointed delegate by
any other organization and shall not forthwith In
writing decline such appointment his seat shall be re-
gardcd as vacated and tho delegation shall process to
hc q O
| vacancies by death, resignation or otherwise.
The New York delegates went to Charles
ton under these instructions. When there
them and powerful representation from
other States from another section, in fact
were opposed to the nomination Of Stephen
A Douglas. The New York delegates
alluded to fought and protested in their
delegation. but were compelled to vote as
unit on the floor of the Convention, their
votes being controlled by the Douglas ma
jority in the delegation. The struggle came
in the Convention. The HERALD's Charles
ton report, April &c. 1860 said:-'It is evil
dent that New York holds the balance Of
| power, and when it casts its vote rs q unit it
will probably determine the nomination"
New York had then thirty-ono votes, instead
of seventy, as now. Editorially the HERALD
warned the New York Douglas democrats that
if this power should be remorselessly used
to force a nomination the result would be the
destruction of the democratic party and the
defeat of the nominees; but that if used to
secure the nomination of a conservative and
acceptable candidate the party would be
saved and its success assured.
The Convention adjourned to Baltimore,
and the determination of the majority Of the
New York delegation to force the nomination
of Douglas was made evident. They pre-
ferred to risk the disruption of the party and
defeat with their favorite candidate than in
sure success with any other. The HERALD on
June %, 1860, said 1.-THE general feeling
is that the democratic party is finally broken
up, and the blame will be attributable to the
Albany Regency, who will have to face the
music in New York State. Deep and loud
are the curses which are uttered against
them by the minority of their own delegates
and by thousands of democrats here" The
New York delegates, holding the CONTROL ng
VOTE could have nominated Hunter, OF Vir-
GINA, or Breckinridge, of Kentucky, honor
able conservative men, and have saved the
party; but tie madness was upon them. BY
their vote, cast as a unit when there was no
unity among them, they nominated Douglas.
The party was destroyed-the candidate was
defeated.
May not Governor Tilden and his dele
gates study the almost forgotten story Of the
Democratic National Convention Of 1860 with
advantage?
Governor Tilden's Policy.
Governor Tilden may prove to be the
choice of the democracy of the United States