The Cleveland Era, A Chronicle of the New Order in Politics | Page 4

Our institutions have been tried by the fiery test of war, and
have survived. It remains to be seen whether the attempt to govern the
country by the power of a 'solid South,' unlawfully consolidated, can be
successful.... The republic must be strong enough, and shall be strong
enough, to protect the weakest of its citizens in all their rights." And so
late as 1884, Mr. Sherman earnestly contended for the principle of
national intervention in the conduct of state elections. "The war," he
said, "emancipated and made citizens of five million people who had
been slaves. This was a national act and whether wisely or imprudently
done it must be respected by the people of all the States. If sought to be
reversed in any degree by the people of any locality it is the duty of the
national government to make their act respected by all its citizens."
Republican party platforms reiterated such opinions long after their
practical futility had become manifest. Indeed, it was a matter of
common knowledge that negro suffrage had been undone by force and
fraud; hardly more than a perfunctory denial of the fact was ever made
in Congress, and meanwhile it was a source of jest and anecdote among
members of all parties behind the scenes. Republican members were
bantered by Democratic colleagues upon the way in which provision
for Republican party advantage in the South had actually given to the
Democratic party a solid block of sure electoral votes. The time at last
came when a Southern Senator, Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina,
blurted out in the open what had for years been common talk in private.
"We took the government away," be asserted. "We stuffed ballot boxes.
We shot them. We are not ashamed of it.... With that system--force,
tissue ballots, etc.--we got tired ourselves. So we called a constitutional
convention, and we eliminated, as I said, all of the colored people we
could under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments.... The
brotherhood of man exists no longer, because you shoot negroes in

Illinois, when they come in competition with your labor, and we shoot
them in South Carolina, when they come in competition with us in the
matter of elections."
Such a miscarriage of Republican policy was long a bitter grievance to
the leaders of the party and incited them to action. If they could have
had their desire, they would have used stringent means to remedy the
situation. Measures to enforce the political rights of the freedmen were
frequently agitated, but every force bill which was presented had to
encounter a deep and pervasive opposition not confined by party lines
but manifested even within the Republican party itself. Party platforms
insisted upon the issue, but public opinion steadily disregarded it.
Apparently a fine opportunity to redress this grievance was afforded by
the election of President Harrison in 1888 upon a platform declaring
that the national power of the Democratic party was due to "the
suppression of the ballot by a criminal nullification of the Constitution
and laws of the United States," and demanding "effective legislation to
secure integrity and purity of elections." But, although they were
victorious at the polls that year, the Republican leaders were unable to
embody in legislation the ideal proposed in their platform. Of the
causes of this failure, George F. Hoar gives an instructive account in
his "Autobiography." As chairman of the Senate committee on
privileges and elections he was in a position to know all the details of
the legislative attempts, the failure of which compelled the Republican
leaders to acquiesce in the decision of public opinion against the old
issues and in favor of new issues.
Senator Hoar relates that he made careful preparation of a bill for
holding, under national authority, separate registrations and elections
for members of Congress. But when he consulted his party associates in
the Senate he found most of them averse to an arrangement which
would double the cost of elections and would require citizens to
register at different times for federal elections and for state and
municipal elections. Senator Hoar thereupon abandoned that bill and
prepared another which provided that, upon application to court
showing reasonable grounds, the court should appoint officers from
both parties to supervise the election. The bill adopted a feature of
electoral procedure which in England has had a salutary effect. It was
provided that in case of a dispute concerning an election certificate, the

circuit court of the United States in which the district was situated
should hear the case and should award a certificate entitling the one or
other of the contestants to be placed on the clerk's roll and to serve until
the House should act on the case. Mr. Hoar stated that the bill "deeply
excited the whole country," and