The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-04-20
Consequences of Democratic Defeat In
1872

1892.
There was a tine when the Democratic
rartv was managed by the wisest men in
l.. and when it, course in National Con-
yeut!cn was shared with n single eye to
the interests Of the party. The nomina-
ton Of President was made without re-
gard ~ its effect upon the fortunes OF q
particular asprant, but with exclusive
reference to one momentous question.
namely. who would b the most available
candidate. the most likely to obtain ma
jority OF the Electoral College, and thus
assure 70 his Democratic fellow citizens the
fruits Of victory ard guard them against
the consequences OF defeat. Such were the
principles which governed the Democratic
National Convention in q memorable crisis.
Ia some striking and suggestive ways anal
ogous to that which ROW confronts the
Democratic party.
The apt and interesting precedent which
we nave in mind was the Democratic Ma
t.onal Convention which met at Baltimore
on MAJ y. 1871. BY far the most conspic-
ucus candidate before that Convention was
MAGTI5 yAS buren, OF New York. who had
not only the unanimous and enthusiastic
support Of his own State. but from the
start commanded majority OF the dele
Sn.7s from the whole country. For almost
forty years Mr.. VAN buren, had been in
public life. and he had served the State and
the nation in almost every imaginable ca
pacity. He had been q Surrogate, a State
Senator. q member os the Court Of Errors. a
Regent OF the University. Attorney-Gen-
era! Of the State, q United States Senator, a
Governor OF New York; he had been An
DREW JACKSoS'S Secretary OF State. then
he hid himself become Nicc-President. and
finally. in 1856, he had bcea chosen President
OF the United States. But in 1910. while
still en- occupant OF the White House. he
had been reuoninated for the Presi-
daroy. and had been defeated by
tie opposing candidate. Gen. WILLIAM
HENRY HARRISON. Moreover. with re-
gard TO then burning question.
the annexation Of Texas. he had proclaimed
views at variance with those held by
large section OF the Democratic party in
the Southern States. By the cool and clear
headed men who then directed the Democ-
racy these facts were deemed fatal to Mr..
VAN BUEES's availability. They held the
claims OF the party paramount to those Of
illustr!ous might have been his public SER
vices. Taey accordingly withheld the
Presidential nomination from Mr.. VAN
buren, by adopting the two-thirds rule.
with the avowed purpose of averting what
would otherwise have been the effect Of the
majority with which tho New York candi-
date entered the Baltimore Convention.
The event justified tho forecast OF the
statesmen dominant at Baltimore. No one
who reviews the details OF the subsequent
election. and observes how narrowly
JAMES X. POLK escaped defeat. can doubt
that MARTIN VAN buren, would have been
disaStrOusiy beaten.
Full Of instruction and OF warning are
the points OF resemblance between I5i4 and
1902. 1t now seems tolerably certain that
the name of GROVER CLEVELAND will be
presented in the coming National Conven-
ton Of the Democratic party by a con-
siderable number % delegates. He also has
been for some years in the public eye. al
though neither for length nor for distinc-
ton can his career be compared for mo-
ment with that Of MARTIN VAN buren,. Mr..
CLEVELAND has been a Sheriff Of Eric
county and a Mayor OF Buffalo. He has for
York. aud in Iss. he was elected by a trivial
plurality in the Empire commonwealth
President Of the United States. In 1888.
like VAN BUREN, in 1s4o. he was. while still
an occupant OF the White House and WELD
ing the patronage OF the Federal Govern
mcnt. rerom!nated for the Presidency, and
he was beaten by the grandson OF VAN
DrRENs successful rival. He was beaten
because he was repudiaced by the
people Of his own State OF New
York. his slight plurality, OF four years be-
fore being transformed into formidable
adverse majority. There is where Mr..
CLEVELAND differs from Mr.. VAN buren,.
No one acquainted with political h5tory
disputes thai VAN BURES. if nominated in
lSit, would have carried New York by II
larger majority than it WAS carried by
JAMES X. POLK. Had there been the
slightest doubt OF his strength in his own
State. above all. had he appeared at Balti-
moro without single supporter among the
regularly chosen delegates from New
York. the. suggestion OF his candidacy
would have been laughed ont OF the Conyen-
tlon. In those days the Democratic leaders
were not rainbow chasers. They did not
play at politics. They fought to win
We have said that one OF the reasons OF
the refusal to nominate VAN buren, in ls4i
was the knowledge that he had taken n
position hostile to the views of a large sec
ton OF his party regarding the annexation
Of Texas. 1t was not necessary for the men
who in the Baltimore Convention had an
eye single TO the welfare OF their party. to
determine officially whether VAN buren,
or they who differed with him were in the
right. The fact Of the unmistakable, irrec-
oncilabe difference was all they needed
to consider. and it sutticei 70 demonstrate
VAN BRUEN's unavailablllty. To Mr..
CLEvELAND's candidacy ut this juncture
there is a like patent and decisive objection.
He has seen tit to take on the silver q,ies-
tion position which admits of no possible
compromise with the wishes and convic-
lions OF a multitude Of Democratic voters