Grant and the Campaign for a Third Term

John A Logan

How Conkling, Cameron, Logan and their opponents operated needs to be placed in context. Historians have characterized their strategies as heavy-handed, as they were by today’s sensibilities, when factors like campaign financing, rather than party mechanics, are more commonly questioned. But there were at least two sides to the story in 1880.

In the case of Illinois, Logan and other Grant supporters (including Commissioner of Internal Revenue Green B. Raum, lawyer and Illinois Constitution expert Elliott Anthony, and lawyer Emery A. Storrs, who later became a strong supporter of Grant’s rival James A. Garfield) all defended the validity of the process in Illinois that resulted in a Grant delegation arriving in Chicago. Among their points: the process was unchanged from 1860, when the process produced Abraham Lincoln; charges of fraud during the 1880 contest were hardly impartial and without evidence; and Grant, by any measure, simply outpolled other candidates in the Cook County contest that now was being disputed.

Perhaps unexpectedly to contemporary sensibilities, The Pittsburgh Gazette defended the general manipulation of the nationwide campaign on behalf of Grant. The Gazette opined that strong tactics were needed to overcome lawlessness in the South and elsewhere, and that Grant’s position was so strong, in fact, that he “conquered and then conciliated the politicians. He (is) not subject to them, but they to him.” The view also offers another perspective on the subsequent view by some historians that the Triumvirate manipulated and used Grant in the 1880 campaign.

Many writers then and since also have focused on the Triumvirate’s autocratic methods, which alienated opponents who could have been allies later. There were anti-third term demonstrations in some states; rump, or protest, conventions, in New York and St. Louis; and controversies in Louisiana and elsewhere, as noted.
See the related article. (A Third Term for Grant?: Point-Counter-Point)

Critics forecasted a backlash at the Chicago convention to the methods of Roscoe Conkling on behalf of Grant. The convention is shown here looming in the background as a bird of prey.

Ackerman wrote that Grant seems to have pulled back in late May, just before the national convention. He allegedly wrote a letter, which does not survive, to the Triumvirate and his supporter George S. Boutwell, authorizing his withdrawal, suggesting that Blaine also withdraw to avoid a party split and allow a neutral dark horse to be nominated. Ackerman questions the intent of the letter. He speculates that Grant might have meant simply to give his managers a free hand. Regardless, the push for Grant continued as the Republican national convention convened.

<<	Grant and the Campaign for a Third Term	>>
A Boom For Grant	Contenders	Other Hurdles
Grant's Participation	The Big Three Battlegrounds	Tactics
The National Convention		A Third Term for Grant: Point - Counterpoint
The 1880 Republican National Convention in Chicago: The Setting
Conkling Nominates Grant	Was Grant a Candidate?	Q&A with author Ken Ackerman
Sources