CHAPTER VII

NOMINATION PROCESSES

Unwritten law in the United States.

It is a popular error

to presume that the government of the United States is one of written law. Unlike England it has a written Constitution but like the mother, the daughter heeds the voice of custom and many of her operations have no other sanction. Most if not all of the party machinery of the government has no other force than custom.

Throughout the history of the country, various methods have been employed for placing the machinery of the government in operation. The history of these methods admits of an interesting investigation. From the earliest times the colonists assuming a sort of democratic form of government -- especially those colonies which adopted the charter government had occasion to observe some method of selecting officers to fill the various positions. In New England, the domicile of the "town meeting," no difficulty was encountered. These democratic centers like so many nerve centers served the purpose, not only for the development of political enthusiasm, but for the organization and direction of it. The first real important step in the organization was the selection of the man to fill the office.

Account of an early caucus. One of the earliest accounts of that process is from the racy pen of John Adams, in his diary in 1763. He says:

This day learned that the Caucus Club meets, at certain times, in the garret of Tom Dawes, the adjutant of the Boston Regiment. He has a large house, and he has a movable partition in his garret which he takes down, and the whole club meets in one room. There they smoke tobacco till you cannot see from one end of the garret to the other. There they drink flip, I suppose, and there they choose a moderator, who puts questions to the vote regularly; and selectmen, assessors, collectors, wardens, fire-wards, and representatives are regularly chosen before they are chosen in the town. Uncle Fairfield, Story, Ruddock, Adams, Cooper, and others are members. They send committees to wait on the Merchants' Club, and to propose and join in the choice of men and measures. Captain Cunningham says they have often solicited him to go to those caucuses. They have assured him benefit in his business.

This interesting description throws light upon the peculiar political activity of that section of the country.

In vogue in New England at an early date. It is asserted by authority that this caucus method was in vogue as early as 1724, when it is said that the father of Samuel Adams and twenty others frequently met in caucus and laid their plan for introducing certain persons into places of trust and power. "When they had settled it they separated and used each to their particular influence with his own circle. He and his friends would furnish themselves with ballots, including the names of the persons fixed upon, which they distributed in the days of the election. By acting in concert, together with a careful and extensive distribution of ballots, they generally carried the elections to their own mind. It was in like manner that Samuel Adams first became a representative of Boston." The caucus was a favorite method of the centers up to the point when it was declared unrepresentative and dictatorial. The growth of numerous centers within the same Commonwealth necessitated some plan which sought unity in action.

Conditions in Pennsylvania. The wide extent of territory of a single State like Pennsylvania, and the sparsely settled condition of the States, generally, necessitated some other method. Frequently conferences of self-appointed leaders

in the localities were held. Later a system of correspondence, not unlike the "Committees of Correspondence" in Massachusetts and Virginia, was begun. This plan was adopted in Pennsylvania to secure some concert of action between the East and the far-away West. With the growth of the population better plans came into operation. Down to the inauguration of the national government, no well-defined method was in general use other than that mentioned.

Some method of nomination imperative. When the Constitution went into effect, its provisions for numerous officers and its inferences relative to yet more numerous State officers demanded a plan for putting before the voter the name of the aspirant for office. There were few newspapers in the centers of population. A newspaper could not exist outside these centers. In fact some of the States could not support a paying circulation. Numerous experiments were made with the same unhappy result. Up to 1800 most of the newspapers were controlled by adherents to the Federalist party. In that year some publications were started in the interest of the Republicans. Through them local party organizations were effected co-extensive with the political units. In a short time by the effectiveness of the local political machinery of the Republicans, the opponents of the recent powerful Federalists carried every State but two in the National campaign.

Party machinery a natural creation in the United States. The American system was designed to accomplish such ends. The numerous national offices to be filled, and the various State, county, municipal and township offices which are filled by the citizens in the frequent elections, guaranteed a continuous campaign throughout the entire nation. At that time necessary enthusiasm and unity of action were the chief needs. How to secure them was a matter of concern to the publicspirited citizen. This concern was satisfied by the local political machinery. Through the various local organizations and the establishment of party organs in the main centers of

population, as mediums of communication, the whole country was enlisted in one common cause, and party interest became all-pervasive. By these means the whole people became identified with one or the other party, and the voters for days preceding election day were arrayed against one another like the forces of war approaching a battle-field. Each side chose its leaders with the one purpose - victory. The line of battle was studied with the same purpose. The wide extent of territory and the variety of interests involved, and the necessity of united effort made the selection of the standard-bearer one of the most important matters of the campaign. Especially was this true in the case of the election of the President of the United States for every election since the second election of Washington was the occasion of a spirited contest between parties. This contest extended to the remote parts of the country and involved every State of the Union and all parts of each State.

Selection of candidate important. The manner of selecting a leader, who would unite all the forces in the party, was of no small consequence. The quality of strength required in one section might prove weakness in another. The wide separation of the remote parts of the country was a constant danger of sectional disputes. The most rational plan suggested for solution was the "congressional caucus." It was thought that the representatives fresh from the people, in combination with the senators, would best know the wishes of the people and most fairly represent them. Their function as legislators required their commingling at the seat of government and enabled them to consult freely with regard to the welfare of the country as no other body of citizens could do. These considerations, in conjunction with the fact that every State was represented presumably by its best men, led to the selection of the presidential candidate by this "congressional caucus." Washington was selected by universal consent. In 1792 there was expressed quite a universal desire that he would

accept a re-election, which he was eventually persuaded to do. Not until the French sympathizers organized their opposition to Washington's policy of neutrality did party spirit assume the attitude of strenuous opposition.

Original purpose of the electoral college. At first it was intended that the men chosen to constitute the electoral college should employ discretion in their choice of the President. That reduced the general interest in the election, since the voter was not casting his vote for the President, but rather for a delegate who was to select the President. This fact will

account in part for the very light vote cast for the electors in the early elections. Elbridge Gerry, a Jeffersonian Republican, wrote to Jefferson, stating his desire to vote for him for President, but from the fear that he (Jefferson) might receive more votes than Adams and thus defeat the latter, he would be compelled to withhold his vote. Here is the beginning of the practise of the unwritten law, which is universally observed to-day, namely, to allow the people to name the candidate for whom the electoral college are to vote. This custom transferred the interest from the voting of the electoral college to the popular election of the electors, which is in reality the election of the President.

First two elections. It appears that some uneasiness was felt in the second election, over the possibility of Adams running ahead of Washington, thus making the former President and the latter Vice-President. There is little doubt that Hamilton had correspondents in two or three States, trying to forestall such a result, advising the withholding of the vote from Adams to insure his falling below Washington. The result showed the following:

Washington, the entire vote, 132; Adams, 77; Clinton, 50; Jefferson, 4; Burr, 1.

Third election. The general belief that Washington would decline a third election was confirmed by his "Farewell Address," in September, 1796. It was conceded that Adams