of 1884 approached; and the Democratic party came to the conclusion that the line of policy which had enabled them to wrest the government of New York State from the Republicans, might serve them equally well in the more important enterprise of securing the control of the national administration. Mr. Cleveland's resolution, and his indifference to party and to popularity hunting, had attracted some attention outside the State, whilst the approbation he had won within its borders seemed likely to ensure to the Democratic party the New York vote; and this counted 36 out of a total of 401.

On the 28th June, 1884, he consented to be put in nomination for the Presidency.

CHAPTER IV.

AMERICAN PARTIES.

Choice of party connection-Cleveland joins the Democrats-The oldest of American parties—Influence of Jefferson—The veto power-The Federalists-The Whigs-The Republicans-Composition of parties in 1884.

R. CLEVELAND, it has been already stated, was

Ma member of the Democratic party.

In older countries, the choice of a political connection depends on family, or creed, or class; or perhaps on local circumstances. In the Union, it is more generally a matter of business associations. In the case of the young barrister, there was nothing to attract him specially to one side more than the other. His uncle at Buffalo, who has been already mentioned, Mr. Allen, had long been a member of the Republican party. Among his intimate friends was Judge Tracy, a distinguished lawyer, celebrated in the locality for his public spirit and independence. He had worked first on the Democratic side, and had afterwards become a Whig; but he had refused any official position. His power of mind and varied experience gave him great influence over young men ; and it is said that it was in the company of this shrewd political observer that Cleveland acquired the indifference to mere party cries, which has been one of his most striking characteristics.

Dislike of the pretensions and self-seeking of the Republican managers may have had something to do with his adoption of Democratic opinions. Perhaps, too, his vigorous nature led him to select the weakest side, in the hope of restoring them to the position they once held in the Commonwealth, and thus completely effacing the memory of the Civil War.

Before, however, introducing the subject of this memoir as a party politician, some endeavour must be made to give the European reader an idea what party terms in America mean.

It was said of American parties as late as 1889:

"Neither party has any principles, any distinctive tenets. Both have traditions; both claim to have tendencies; both have certainly war cries, organizations, interests enlisted in their support. But those interests are in the main the interests of getting or of keeping the patronage of the Government All has been lost except office or the hope of it."*

This was, in a sense, more accurate in 1889 than it is now, for the policy of Mr. Cleveland has done much to bring into relief those distinctive principles of the Democrats which were lost from sight after the War of Secession. Even in England, which may be called the cradle of party organization, the dividing line of thought between one party and another-between Tory and Whig, Conservative and Liberal-has, at times, become perceptible only to political experts; but the general principles which mark the career of the two great parties in the United States are more distinctly traceable than are the tenets of parties among ourselves. Their final cause is, in fact, * BRYCE'S American Commonwealth, vol. ii. p. 20.

more easily explained from the nature of American institutions. An examination of their history shows that the filiation of ideas is more complete in the Democratic party than in the case of their great rivals. There is some confusion from change of name, but not more than there is in the early history of party in England from change of dynasty.

In the minds of many there is a vague idea that the Democrats are the friends of the South, who were spared by the magnanimity of the Republicans at the close of the Civil War, and have been since resuscitated by the nation as a means of correcting the sins of power in the Republicans. On the contrary, they are the oldest of the American political organizations, and have had far more to do with the history of the Union than the Republicans.

The present Democratic party are lineally descended from the first opposition which was organized in the Union after the adoption of the Constitution of 1787. During the two presidencies of Washington, the exultation at the great discovery, the Federal Constitution, the cherishing of the new political birth, became the main business of the President and his colleagues. Pride in the infant nation was the dominant feeling; but as to the character of the new nationality and of the Government which should represent it, differences of opinion were, as time went on, developed, and the more rapidly as the events of the French Revolution, and the outbreak of the war between England and France, became known in America. No one can read over the Declaration of Independence * See note to this chapter, p. 54.

*

The

adopted in 1776, and the Constitution agreed on in 1787-88, without being struck by the different spirit which breathes through each of these documents. first was, in a great part, the composition of Jefferson; the second was moulded under the eye of Washington, whilst Jefferson was in Paris drinking deep of the enthusiasm inspired by the approach of the French Revolution. It was only at the end of 1789 that Jefferson returned from France to accept from the first President the post of Secretary of State. Although he continued in this position for nearly four years, his passion for the democratic ideas of the French Revolutionists grew warmer, the greater the reaction he observed in Philadelphia; and he soon applied himself, although still the Minister of Washington, and the colleague of Hamilton and Knox, to organize a party, which, on the new lines of Jacobinism, should occupy the position so often held in England by the country party as against the Crown and the Central Government.

The Constitution of 1787 was a compromise between the old liberties of the States and the necessities of the new National Government. The men who thought the President and his advisers too conservative in their views, too indifferent to what they regarded as the great struggle for human advancement going on in France, somewhat inclined to look with favour on the former enemy of American liberty-England-aristocratic and exclusive in their sympathies and bearing, these men naturally fell back on the State organizations. To develop the freedom of the masses in these local commonwealths, to resist the growth of centralization, became their main