The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-08-18
THE GREAT REVOLT.

The meetings in Tomlinson Hall this
week may have led a few people to
imagine that there 10 a serious detection
in the Republican party against the re-
election of President Mckinley. So far
from this 1T may be said that there never
has been less dissatisfaction with a candi-
date receiving denomination. There was a
convention held in 1854 TO protest against
the nomination of Abraham Lincoln. and
In 1872 the protest against the denomination
of General Grant was so general on the
surface hat a Liberal Republican cohven-
ton was held and Horace Greeley. better
known TO most Republicans before the war
than any man in the party. was nominated.
The detection seemed general in every
State, and after the Endorsement of Gree
ley by the Democratic national convention
the deserters from the Grant ranks were
numerous. In an Eastern city the an
nouncements were so numerous that a par
~ man expressed the opinion that the post
master could not be relied on. In this State
the Greeley movement was headed by sew
eral men of influence. including the late
George w. Julian. Four weeks before the
state election in 1872 1t seemed as If the
Democratic ticket. backed by Greeley,
would nave $1,000 plurality. When the
votes were counted in the October cleo
tion Thomas A. Hendricks, Democrat, was
found elected Governor by LOO over
Thomas NJ. Browne. Republican. while
the remainder of the Republican state
ticket, except superintendent of public in
struction. was elected by small majorities,
in some cases less than 2OO-yet Grant car
ried the State in November by over 1900
plurality.
In other States the movement was even
more marked. In Illinois the anti-Grant
movement was led by Senator Trumbull.
Judge David Davis and Gen. John NJ.
Palmer, backed by the influential Chicago
Tribune. In Missouri Senator Carl Schurz.
General Grant, led. backed by the West
liche Post. In Ohio the Greeleyites had
such leaders as Gen. ]. d. Cox and ex-
Judge Stanley Matthews, backed by Murat
Halstead and the Cincinnati Commercial.
In New York half of the more prominent
Republicans were opposed to Grant. Among
those supporting Greeley were Senator
| Fenton. Lucius Robinson. senator Depew
and all the following of the New York
| Tribune. Massachusetts had Charles Sum-
| ner, General Banks and a host of others.
In Maine two influential Republican ex-
| representatives to Congress were candi-
/ dates against those regularly nominated.
| The movement in Massachusetts seemed to
be so formidable that In August 1t was pre-
| dicted that Greeley would carry the State
by $1,000. In November Grants vote was
more than twice that of Greeley.
1t was not until the middle of August
| that the Republican outlook began to i'm
prove. On the first Tuesday in September
| Vermont voted. giving the Republican
| ticket 25.33S majority, and Maine followed
| the next Monday with 1925 Republican
| majority. These elections showed that the
| disaffection was confined to leaders or
would-be leaders and a few newspapers,
and did not reach o~ne-fourth as many Re
ley kept from the polls. If the election
had taken place in August Greeley would
have carried three or four usually Repub-
lican States. so strong was the Liberal Re-
publican movement, but when the Repub-
lican masses took time to think the matter
over they gave their votes to Grant. who
was denounced as the Man on Horseback
who was undermining the constitutional
4 institutions of the Nation.