DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 112 DEMOCRATIC PARTY. alsu ix-utlu|it iii^ substantially Utv phitforiii of iMA. 'I'lic >ti-i-ding ■Uaiiilmniers' lu-lil a State tonvi-utioii ill .luiii-, in «liieli di'li'yali-s t'loiii tour otiii'i' Stalf-. wi'ii- |>if«Mit, and iioiiiiiiali-il Van Uuri'ii loi- till' I'lC'sideiicy, and in Aiij;u>l they took imil ill the national convention of the l'"iee Soil Party at BulTalo, vvhii-h nominated their leader /or the Presidency, and Charles Krancis Adams for the Vice-Presidency. This comliiiiation of "rreeSoilers' and 'Barnliurners' ell'ected such a division of the Democratic vote in New York that Taylor carried the Stale and secured in the ag- gregate Iti.'i electoral votes, while Cass received 127. Itetwecn 1848 and 185J political conditions
- were materially changed, particularly through the
progress of events attending the C'ompioiuise -Measures of 1850 (q.v. ), and also through the etl'ect upon the Whig Party of the dillereuces between the "Conscience" Whigs and the "Cotton' Whigs. At the Baltimore conveiilion of .June 1, 1852, Cass, Buchanan, and Douglas were prominent candidates, hut on the forty-ninth ballot lraiikliii Pierce, of Xew llampsliiic. was named, William H. King, of Alabama, being nominated for the Vice- Presidency. The platform was similar to that of 1848, with the addition of the "finality' plank, with an apjjioval of the doctrines of the V'irginia and Kentucky Kesolutions (q.v.), and with a declaration of the justness of the war against -Mexico. The Kree-Soilers nominated .John P. Hale (q.v.), of New llampsliire, while the Whigs, for what was the last campaign of the party, nominated Gen. Winfield Scott (q.v.), who received oiil.v 4'2 elec- toral votes, as agjiiust 254 cast for Pierce. In the convention of .June 2, 185(i, Pierce was again a candidate, being .supported largely b,v South- ern delegates, while the Northern delegates sup- ported .laines Buchanan, of I'ennsylvania, who was chosen on the seventeenth ballot, .lohn ('. Breckenridge being named for the Vice-Presi- dencv. The platform introduced a declaration in favor of insuring the ascendency of the rnit<'il States in the Gulf of Mexico, ami contained a declaration of the right of the Territorial govern- rnenls of Kansas and Nebraska to allow slaverv in those Territories. The convention of the American I'artv nominated ex-President Fill- more, who received the eight electoral votes of Maryland, and the new Republican Pai"t,v (q.v.) nominated .John C. Fremont (q.v.), who se- cured 114 electoral votes, while ISiichanan was elected with 174 electoral votes. The year 18t>0 was disastrous to the organization of the Demo- cratic Party, inasmuch as it had become impos- sible to hold all factions of the part,v to the support of any one platform. Thus, the conven- tion of the party, which met at Charleston. S. C, .Vpril 2:i, adopted resolutions which rep- resented the middle view as to slavery rather than the distinctively Southern view, and this led to the withdrawal from the lonvention of the Bolid delegations of -lal)ama, Mississippi. Flor- ida, and Texas, as well as of many delegates from Georgia. Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina. .Arkansas, and Delaware. The portion of the convention remaining in session adopted a resolution (hat a vote equal to two-thirds of a full lonvention should be necessary for a nom- ination, and afti-r several days of ineirectiial balloting, in which Stephen .. Douglas (q.v.) was easily in the lead, adjoiiriieil to meet at Baltimore ..n .lim.. Ui ( that time the place? of the Charleston seceders weiv filled so uni- formly with followers of Douglas that a new secession look jdace. uniler the lead of some of the irginia delegates, whose e.ample was fol- lowed by most of the delegates from the other Southern Slates. Finally, the delegates still remaining virtually rescinded the two-thirds rule, and declared Douglas to be their 11011111111' for tin Presidency. Ilerscliel . .Johnson, of lieorgin. was nominated for the "ice-Presideiicy. Tli. delegates who had withdrawn from the Haiti more conveiilion. rei)rcsciiting in .some manner twenty-one .Slates, proceeded to nominate for the Presidency John C. Jireckinridge. of Keiiluck, . and for the Vice-1'resideney Joseph Lane, ol Dregoii. These nominations, furlliermore, well- adopted by those who had seceded at Charle~ ton, and had later inet in conveiilion at l{icli- mond. In the following election the combined pojiular vote of Douglas and Breckinridge ex- ceeded the popular vole of l.iiKolii by more than 350,(100, allhough the <decloial vole of l.iiicolii was 180, while that of Breckinridge was 72, and that of Douglas only 12. Douglas secured tlic whole electoral vote of Missouri, and three vote- from New Jersey. The Constitutional Union Party (q.v.) carried Virginia. Kentuck,v. and Tennessee, and the rest of the South went solidly for Breckinridge. The strength of the Democratic Partv was thus |)lainly in the South, and the el feet of the war was iiatuiall,v to remove the part,v, for the time being, from its position as a factor in natiimal politics. Even in 1808 the Southern States were still in such relation tn the National Government as to lose their elei- toral votes entirel,v. In the campaign of 18l>4 General McClellan (q.v.), standing as a candi- date in the North on a platform which declared the war was a failure, secured onlv 21 electoral voles as against the 212 given to Lincoln. The party having taken an attitude of criticising both the ccmduct of the war an<l its ri'sults, its defeat was assured b.v the I{epublican nomination in lSt)8 of General Grant, who received 214 electoral votes, while his opponent, Horatio Seymour, received onl,v 80. of which iiS were from his own State of New York. The in trenchment of the Kepublienns in jiowcr wa- emphasi/ed in the following campaign, when Grant's vote rose to 28(5, and Thomas -V. Hend- ricks (the Democratic candidate, Horace Greele.v having died before the casting of the electoral votes) received onlv 42 votes. The character of the Itepiiblican aclministnilion. and tin- vigor- ous atUicks upon it (see CRfcorr Mobilier), made possible the return to ellective activity of tin- Democrats, particiilarlv as the.v had at the .jiiiK lure an especially strong leader in the man who. as the reform Governor of New York, and as Ihr successful opponent of Tweed (q.v.). had become the most conspicuous Democrat of his da.v. Tin energetic campaign of 1871!. however, while sik'iii ing to give Tihleii siilistaiitial success, resulti'd in the election of Haves, through the intervenlioii of the abiiornial process of the Electoral Coimnis sion (((.v.). In the matter of ]iopular vote, tin' following election was eqiiallv favorable to the Democrats, the vote of Gartield exeeeiliiig that of Hancock by fewi'r than 10.000. Gartield. how- ever, received 214 electoral votes, while Hancock received only 155. In the ensuing cam|iaigii (he Democrats were able to take ailvantave of the factional conilitions within (he Kepiibliean
