WWWATSHU' ”‘1 .~.. '3313‘3' 9.:3'fl'1113'

.3353 2 .5'11122 1. 1 1. 1331.1
' '3 1-22» "3.331!
'55"" ""' '3 333“. 5"" 55535133535 3 “3'2-3 "I"I1"}I

1212.2 1-1.1.111 1‘11..
-:u

231 11 . 1.1.11.7?”
1111.131
1333‘

 

 

    
     
  
 

   

   

     

   
    
  
 
 
    
 
  
  
 
 
          
 
   
   
 
 
 

   
    
 

 

   
 
       
    

I 4.! '
" 12352151211311" . 333113-“1321.'.‘.3 "“32. ‘332 1.1231321 33
' >7 24 . 2 - . I. 1 ‘I 1". '1.” ’II
' ' "3 3:1: 4 I ~ A I I 2 II
, 1H,.,_. 1 .m11 u.mmflw&%3uqm..
.1121. ~1 1:.- 11;.2 32 111.1%- 1 2.. « 121:1" "'21" ‘1""":.,'.2‘:2e'2'.'."3~“"2
.1»... 1.1331 2... I... .2 :: 2 ~2.»2.1.~1.‘.-;.=.»2..1. .1.
1.;2 113311” 11» 1113 111" ‘ 331$. 321131112119 2:113:21!
' .I; 5- 1'1" 3 nt‘ ‘ 32545.13 "33""331 3' 5': I 3.5"“ 39g; '3' '
1315 .3 33 “MW'T' .3oJ33W‘11311 »2-*
.... 1... 2: M24112». 2.‘ .-
n. ’.' ‘1‘ p. . - 1
2- . £141.35" 3 25-2112 13:33:15. 3 3131-3 33 » = 12.13“: “13.9121512333‘1-2 » .
. 1 3 1’ {'1' $9? 31113: ‘lt‘l r :‘N’31, (3” '5'K'3I'I' 'II'; ""5311: 13!! 'EI‘I‘?:§I"' 1 :
' I 5&41'1'1. 1'. 1'1'3" 1:5 1331'??? “3'31"” ,1 3331:"; 1:3” z'IIJ‘HE'IIIIE‘I'I‘EI; " " _ '. 'I
3122-12-2 ..3. .2...
. ‘. “"3“"""" '21’3'1'533133v 1‘321'2‘2‘ “3"‘“"33’“332'3"131 1... ""2 "w;
'2: 2, '11"? “ 913.31 '1‘. .1212 z .. «“233? .
1.11:3:1 2.3 21.1111.In!1111.1].3";.,1Ihmh”‘1'”..3. 3331411 31131- 122... 1151111 .-
$511538“)! I ‘III153'3.L!31II"I;'I' 4..."; II t
- ' -3' 311.131’35'3333515"L‘ .353'3'1'1". .2 2m. a. e I!"
'. 33'I31I1‘t. .m'II'JIT'I 3:51-II3] "1’33 éh %:
. ' .'. '3']: 3'1'.":\..3'11'1;§I:1""1.555%“. ‘5:"'3'3'] “I" - 4‘
2 . .‘ ' {111‘ 1:3;115 :2 1;, ,. ”13.31113 "'3‘31' 5 5-23 I {4331' gr,"
‘1 I . . ‘1‘ $111: 1“, 311 1.11.33 ’1 . £1513. 1 [3 113311111” dI‘N}. Ib'Ii .1 -1 ~ :1!
1 , ‘ - ,7 11.1.35! "3 .23" 33:33.“ 32'! '33..I"_113':';'33'1:1331....1333"» 21313'5'3'511'»|323 515131" :1?“ ' t
.; - -, ., fr' . _' 113-1112.; 2i“."."“.';13.1.113...111,1.i.’,fi1'5‘.z.1'1 1,11,11,11 .111. .2112... 1:131. l 2 1.». 2' ‘33 31 25 2'51 '2
. 1 ‘9‘. “.3 1:1?!” ‘ ..,:‘1:3;1'I‘I:|:321“it". [.11. 3"Il 3.9.“. :1. I" :4" 1:13 _ ., '1': 1 "h '3;3H{'.'5\1I:I:I'P§:' 5"["'3'" 5115"?" 1:31" :‘:.'
'23-. »" ‘.:3‘,?.53I‘..“- 2'1..,‘.'1.-‘... 2111335"-"""2 '7:"-‘».:-:. . .1 z ”-7-... .1- 3‘3." . 1.1-.. £2 . .2
, 2 2'111‘1' 27. .'.'IJ.‘,,. 1.1 m I11' .12.-:.'. flu...“ . 23.". ; .11 3332331 In: 1115'”. “I" "”35 l I :1" 'I ‘ .131. : , ; .
3.x . -‘11322...-.:.~:‘ ‘;-:~. .2“ 222;- 11-23-1-5‘3‘.‘ . '7 ‘ 1. 1.1.1.... 533235-3321
I | :5 ‘ ' I‘o-I. 513. ' 11'3'1 5' ‘ '3 I- "’ 5:.“ '... ' 5" a " 5". . 2 3. v1? :6 2'1": 'I1I'" '4'"
.‘.~ 2.11.1“. "3 . \ 11! .2 .111 '."Il“' \I/32.'3v.1.3, £1.1I1n..1h‘.‘= 3"'." 6.3“” :11
'31.}; “1.1.3321-1111'1311Z111111‘ 211.,1r1'.;;-".21;-I .,.3 " 2 .‘.: r. 1,1371.‘ ‘.£ 1. ,'.
to 1212.11? -.1.,'.,»». 3... ~ - » .». " . 2 ': 2 2r: . .1. :21' 5 .
1, g I,. . ;:v.“3,'.'.o|'fi “12 , “1' .111‘1 ”.13", v I I:.11. ‘Jr
"'Q.'.l3 ’I -.' , "'4 I1" ' .3
1g 1",”; ' I""""31" '11" 3 I3. . .3173'1313'131I1 .I {I} 1":
3* "'3'f"' '3'3I '3' ' ' 55"" ' """"I'“" . 5"333'1' 35':
‘1; 1' 1:)".31. 313 I'3"' 3:'-'3.'3 I..'.1“.: '“.33' '“" '.
3 I l . 3 'I 1 '1" , _... .11.
3" 3 ' I ," '5'. "5"“ 3. ' "" " 3 " .'|.. .. '.
'r :1211‘1-0'311, ." U". ‘ l1::',,'3‘;11l'. ‘I,)1:'.‘ "'.""‘II‘ 5"15
5." ‘.'!1' 3' I'3'5"""..'"'JI“' ..'1.3.|313 ' "1" 2- '1 .v .1,"
3’ 31'1I1II3.‘3' 23-‘ H313. "' " ,3 .3' '.““2“" .' $25 ""3
1.713} 1. 2' “13;“ ' »13I'1'l "1' .1""l 1‘]: :2 33.113141; '2" ,
W43 " i.'33|113":;13"' I 3L1'1111 3'1I7'1,V""5 ._ ‘1‘}1. ' '
I 1311,311Iu 3.5.... “333 3 .1.) II’I ‘ .11311;:|"'3" {1:1
"2 2 2 . . '.'".. .3 .- 2-1'1 . 2 ‘
3: 5"‘3' "\1I".“'5l' ‘ 01 .13'33 1;: 3| :Cl‘: “.1 11.1151 ".113 1 l':::;5" v" 11:1'3' I R'E'Ii‘ 5F'l:2l' $333115: , 1; I ""'I: ’
1'1. ,,,;_ I .3.. ,1. 1.:._:....,I....:.ji '; mu: 1 3 "_.. ..‘,,.
I l 1 .. 1 .. .. . 1 I . . I r
1 ' ' “'.1...I3|I .I.« 1, ., . 22.1311. '3193: H--'3'3'333 flw'; '. 1
13,‘ "' '. I". 1‘2'11 “3 5" "7'2. ,I III .f.'.13". ...
. '3'-.1 “19.11... ,..J'1.I,..21..,1 n11 .- 2'1' .1.
.5.“ 3.“ '.133|‘.“'15'._,.,,22'-“'3 " 5 3 '2'.“ 313-3.}. 2'. :1 1

    
      
    

   

   
   

    
         
     

 
     
 
 

    
 
    

 

 
 
 
   
    
  

3 'ng """3;: 53" """353I'3'3' ”33,351.. .2 ' 5'.

1 1:3";33 €1.21. '0'12'3115' 1,11:‘-‘-1..I;.1.1Iuv o ”11:11 P 5'51'3131'133"'.5.1";'I31‘I 1 "if.
1.....1“ . 11 3.“ .114 :11}. 211,132. 53"53'3'»3”7’.t" I" ,1
I . a. I 'l ‘ I ‘7 ' f; I vvvvv . < . 3‘

1.!..,_' 231-12 , mums 2,.13 1.253.512.13‘3'31 11.12“" ”12”." 511'! "1' .
”33 "“" " ”33‘ 11" .' "" 1:115. 31.1" ”13133" '1 “J ' “1'3 333' “-
‘1‘II :‘1.,.‘ '1'. U . '11:;[11' ~11 n1» -‘7 71I‘3‘ 1!; l _ £1W Y 1i1r0i)’,' "‘1‘
5511;213:311 J. -3 '1 ' 3 ,‘1'11E'J1'13351 1.13.1131'1'n31'1 .131; ”1111.11 "I'HI113"1
‘ .v. "I ' . 1 .
v.3. 1., ‘3’533' I 1;. . MI ‘5'33‘1‘5‘ :5'I5II' 5;? 3.“; "qr"?!
.. 7131.2. 1 ' ‘2 ‘ . .1. '1'3""'III,'1" :fi'
‘3 I? 13.. ' 2 2 " [(11 1.;13ji'""‘:_fl3‘1111

 
  
 
 

   
 

2'“. 11'111'1'33'7112
11:. 3.112311 11;

1.
r”, .333

        
 
 

b¢4l~
’ 'u;

,
tang;
.1 V '
‘31” .
5:...“ . ‘

.. ,
n...

..
"'...W
.14

  

     

    
  
   

._ a,-
11:31am.- '5: 2 - 3.33535
'1631I11""33';3"'5""
:EI'é'if' 3':_'f':"°:- Ev-

     
   

   
  
  
   

'jII-é'I'fi ;_
:2? .122 2
"P35333113- :

 

    

 

3 7293 01

//’7’7/7"7/~77777777

"

This is to CCI'llllJ tlmt the

thesis (‘ntitlml

THE RISE OF Eli-7K H .‘NN J.

prescntcd b1;
Thomas Edward Felt

has been acoeptcd towards fulfillment

of tlm requirements {or

Ph. D. degme inHisto

, » , . ‘ ”I ’
"' @Xfl/zfx f; r,:(¢r v
V I ,
Majur proléssnr

 

Dam December 2, 1960

   
      

  

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

3"- m gamut.—

           

  
 
 

1 - .Il. . a
. ..;. .... fivta t‘
a ,_ .. .. WES w 4..,v5._2-...._.......-.5%.? A...) i in? 5’ 512‘.
5 s... .2... . . -\.. ”finq JAM .5 4 5. try... flu" .~ 1 .f/ u -, ., ”/1? .4d .4 i .‘r \‘
.., . . 5-5. 555-55. :55. as 5 555,5-

     

        

   

5de 5 - §
a i M. D‘

               

       
   

. ‘1... 1. 1,,- L0. “.th - ‘
get .54.. O 5'44?“ Sal
b.5-

_a u» a“. “A“ Wag ‘ ‘ \uh .

. 1...; )fiel‘ ‘ '1 05' -~_-. . .
-.....-;?t-ttaa%.yl \ «an .5 4E... ¢N~ all
5-5.55.3 .15 1a $55.55.?WW9/z 5.. leyl

5 .7 is,“ 53. 5 .5 x...‘lilr.n
fim‘fier'avwvbu a .Wu.

5

V‘.’

 

       

    

    

». 4.5-... CO jinn-ii; n 4mm 1
:fi%.-,w?55¢45,5 37%....54/
5 55.55.5551 545...... 5&5? v, v 5.5-4}?

. \_...- -.-15 .5”...- Mum”. t. a.“ &\.i /l .m. 5. 5.... \ l’lfl
. .. ._ 5.5%fiwfifiwm .335 .55,- ufi. var-”A3 155-594?
.. . _. - 5 55.5-55- MM @5- 55 .55 .sz 5.5.55... $55542 .v_m,».,_,..5..5-§
. -- 55555... 5% .555“ £52,5-...555.55.752.1né
. u...._ . , . .. -.5.-.5M.,-.M. : 555-5. MW.- ..w 5-55.55 W55“ widen-m won-5.35. "1.0““?
....... W. ..&a ........-..m..yf4.hmm PM...“ 1P5»? . . . i .KN‘.M.MW5\ “Hfi II! \VI ‘ w
. - .- mumf mm..- -. 5... ”Crun- nuw 555-51me 5.4- rfiwiwm ”551,, -§\.\D./.WM 1”. 5“"?! .V&lml’//’/
.. 75%,..WW... : 5.. . 7'“-
..M. r; . $.55; wimpy-.55 M ”nu?
...- x . - . .,._. .. - m {t
M my
”ff/7’
m 5%
5 \\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.

TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

I

1L ”(HOW/A

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

‘

        

     

   

   

54.“ 55

 

 

.5 .5wa55 MAW-w -. -

    

   

   
   

.5 V51: .31 11.. -., .
6 SK. U‘“ \V/Il/U" / Jflw.0 w/Wflaktmn’u.
.u! gnaw-flagmfiifiyy - .5. I!

   

  

  

   

    

  

... . 5:. PUSH-I:
55,- 2. .55. a» 55......55fi55un Hm...“ mm 5
55.:- :3- .5 : .
55...,5-555-5555-555-5...new 5-5; . -. .
. «5.5.1.» 52:5 a - 5 were; $555,510!me ../

5......- - --..-.-.-,.5 555.55%» .wW5.M..5w-¥ we] ‘5 x ..
, -. 5&mMM5f-H-5w-5vvé ,5 56% o §N _. ..
- a imflflw-x

 

.. .. 5
.5 5w v w...- 5
“TV/fl,
flap-55.53%“ 55455155. , . .5. - . 5.5
., -- mktfiuflmwwu54§hrtfit [Vfiwwt

. em 5' h
n 55.7. .5 f... we? \Mi 5 V. 5’?
.flame-.55-,...awm5mwmww55fl55-.,_,.,-,5,5, L55Mmy-Mfl
.,3...“..55-M-55...“EH-5M.......5-.55-55-55-.-..-.._.Em.555.5-5_-a .. . 13.555555».
5-55..5555r5..-$.5.-H.5 . 5 _. .5: 5..”
..u 55... 155.. 5555.5...- m. 5 g. .

‘53.... .‘ \l A ‘5
.-.,5Ev.wmon..m W $35.43!? a, 5.7.5.- .5

,...5uun..h..cn.wtn.u5¢nV£ g Q! I
M ft-HHHr/¥3fi§ls§

1111.0 5
i!

 

. HIM, \
”“57 Hill A autumn“. \\

\wunb“ 3‘“ /5//..I¥I / A‘.‘; /\.r.
i &m¢g..-,_.mm5_=7a%u\: 5.
555,-“...amw5. .51.

:5.
'.\\ 5

1

AV‘
1?... .f.

I.

 

.....I..W.~.-....... 42‘41‘... 5|!.1\\.' Milnv... 5 We... .3: “~“ ..
- ,u Jute-33$? 5...?éh «MW.QA. Um I/ “‘9‘

\
WV/"'

kt. \5! z .I
15W~IIJ...\\-€$‘\bw h

5 .h

u,

  

- . // 7.x. .
WW “fiammmqsaw.ar/4M
Q

- “-5.5%”:
5 5555-53»...

will , .54... 57/, 5 .hmi 5‘ltt 0:
“WA W ‘ .4 .n- gun/J" 'aflvyflfllild Il.‘ t’."t ’1‘“ a —

- -nfi.~r‘ 5 5 , Ifl‘qlll % - o: .3 ‘I 0!! I.l.-» .. I

I» 5- t I} A |’

 

L1

In: Alonzo Es“.
351192110: II
“2.3: ta? ;.;':§
:. 3155mm :10'
m‘ :czzittu
92:53 55:21! I "

"jil‘: Li 1150

O.—
I

O
9‘
,'3l':1:. ii -4“

Do.

'I .x camp'”!
Va. ".
II'VQA’. ensign.

=5

r. ..

‘35! S; .n
. ‘.' I.
QI

Q

I” Q “a?
’5". 2Q

“t .5:: 00 . J
11:!“ .

THE RISE 0? MARK HANNA
An Abetract

Marcus Alonzo Hanna (1837-1904) first attracted
national attention as the manager of William McKinley's
caIpaign for the Republican presidential nomination in
1896. His success then and subsequently as chairman of
the national committee during the campaign against William
J. Bryan made Hanna a "legend in his own time," a partisan
power feared and disliked by the opposition as "Dollar
Hark” Hanna while admired by many Republicans as ”Uncle
Hark,” their victorious field commander.

Two book-length efforts, one by Herbert Croly in
1912 and the other by Thomas Beer in 1929, have preceded
the present study, which traces his career through the
election of 1896. Here the purpose has been to sift out
the ascertainable facts of his life and with them to test
some of the commonly received images and legends of Hanna's
’1“ to Power. Considerable attention is given to his
“1'1! life and business career, for here was shaped in
8"“ part the political outlook of later years. His
Successive alliances with political leaders Joseph B.
Forster, John Sherman, and William McKinley are examined
“0“”. for it was Hanna's exchange of loyalties and
"Men With each of these men that brought him Braduany
into tin mainstream of national party history. His re-

 

uh ,"Wui'flr :

I
JIZJ '0'“ ' "k ‘
G

"121:1. Se 5‘?

32 1.2: u :I later

4: "‘6‘..." ".¥ .
VIII-iddauer .‘ae 0

.II I I!‘ .
1:. u «.1 u ,..‘.

."' 1.....ch p Q
..: ......:... ,5?.?.5."

105:3..L“ ‘3“ .1"

'"Ieo
-, .g mun... .
.‘J‘. r‘v.b....- 5

"Se.

‘1‘ Qt.
ms. ‘5 bass w:

 

 

“an5

I v ‘
"'3'- J— 3:11

w
4115313 i“-‘. c

in, ,

'3 H u

‘0. J..!.‘ .‘ .
"flu 5 .

I'.‘
'..:.:1t’ b1 9“...
e .vs 1:
ti .‘ . '
" J H, H
u u
'5 “ ‘ "00
Line.
M l
Needy. 1... 1’
s.“
K. t
.1 er‘ 'T.“‘
'0 "ii“ a.
‘ . a
. 1,, ..

lationehip with Foraker soured in 1888 into a lifelong
factional rivalry. He served Sherman in the years 1881}
to 1892 much as he later did his second hero, McKinley.
Hanna's friendship with McKinley is seen as a closely
personal as well as political one in which the candidate
was the dominant partner.

His role in these years was limited by choice to
managing and promoting the campaigns of others for office.
He was a machine boas with the difference that he was his
on: machine. In local Cleveland politics his power was
never firm even within the party. In the state he was
thwarted outside his own northern section, and sometimes
even within it, by Foraker. In the nation he was unknown
until he fought his way to victory in 1896 hand in hand
With McKinley. Yet that victory was doubly significant.
It made him the symbol of both the economic and the po-o
litical power of the dominant business interests of his
time. Literally, as manager, and figuratively, as a mine
Operator, banker, and industrialist, Hanna contributed
“Mainly to making McKinley president.

Some of the sources used were unavailable to earlier
blOSI‘IEIDI'xere or have been overlooked by recent scholars.
Mt"merlpt collections include the surviving papers 0‘

Hanna, Foraker, Sherman, McKinley, Charles Dick, Charles

6' Dawes, and OtbPB.

THE RISE OF MARK HANNA

By
THOMAS EDWARD FELT

A THESIS

Sumutted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of History
1960

 

 

Copyright 1960 by Thomas E. Felt
All rights reserved

‘ Q
‘O.:Cnfla ‘t.q:‘.'.

oo\¢.I.. . ...‘...

«wit 1.,".- n ..
..- ' sli.§“l.'.

O
I
..-I:I :x..;c.ih'
" ‘u l . -.; 5e.
'u. O
as
'.':o .
In: . _:‘.‘ .
‘0
Q .w-O .
V 0..
e. ‘.
'" - 4... z'
n
v.
.' .A‘..:: 3.0
Q oe....‘ a O.
b. ..
... ‘:
. ‘ .
~:e...‘. :3. C .5»
.0
‘12: e ‘ .
. In. ‘.‘.:‘= 0 - :
.. ‘
.ie. v
‘ \
"e" R .‘-_ .
‘fifi‘ ea -
H‘ " v.

Q“. II.“Q.
' ‘I-U t‘w': .
I 5‘...

.60..
‘I‘
C, '-
‘d .‘I
Uh.“ c.V|c.-
b. ‘-
I
e u
I‘.°o' ’I*o~
h
e‘s.“ :‘
5 e
‘e

.\
‘ I
'01 -
3~.\
.-
.‘s‘f ‘
j e
e.
7p
I ‘r‘
v‘ ‘
‘I‘
. a.
\
:1 ‘ _
. .‘he
'5
t
‘I
. s
e. I,
.‘.—Vt

PREFACE

A preface I understand to be a modern name for the old
"Author's Apology." This will not be an apology in the
sense of an expression of regrets, for that would seem
hypocritical. I leave it to the reader to express his own
regrets. But an apology can also mean a defense of a doc-
trine or belief, and that would be in order here. Even if
the significance of the subject undertaken in these pages
is granted, there already exists a fair body of literature
on it that includes two book-length efforts at biography.

It would hardly suffice for the scholar to depend simply on

the "endless fascination" of the story he wants to retell.

Something more substantial is wanted.

In the spring of 1957, while opening the papers of
George W. Perkins and organizing them for another purpose,
I came across a group of letters to Perkins from Marcus A.
, Hanna, then senator from Ohio. Many of them dealt in a

seemingly frank and earnest way with the critical anthra—

cite coal strike of 1902. Immediately on reading them my

previously simple notion of what the man was like came un-
stuck. Far from sounding like the "public-be-damned" manip-

ulator of parties and presidents, here he was putting to

paper such sentiments as these: "I have investigated the

ii

OO:.‘.:"' ’1'

e.\!'seoe‘: II.

'0'.

. l‘. I“ .Q 0." A. - w
' .0 V. 5a Q ' o.

u. r , .
CL. fig '1 -o ...
~ ‘ o- .-

.eh ‘

nag-4'9 .,:. ..
~ue. ."

5....“ a .l

‘e ..
.h. ' °' . “
‘3‘. ':.Q o

e e;o‘oo..3‘. .
O

I. I; ‘. '
"5". ‘39:. e,
e ‘h... 5 _
7
Ir. '
‘1'. .Q'. "_ -
e. -‘. .fi “ ..
v
'e
.“e .
e. "’ ,“.-.
-

Os.~:
'e.
5". x
S a II
he ‘41 Hr ~..“
‘1
‘e
\ ‘ .
I. ‘
4,9..3 u.‘
. -‘
1
‘I“
l
\| 2
3"5 .
C“ e_"
° 1 0..
.-.‘
‘n “
k. t
:4 f; f
«a
C
.."
,; ..
\I so“ :
. ‘\ C .
“~. ..$ .
i
‘3‘ I
a
"“:t 5..
' .m-
t1._g
.. L, ‘
‘2 ‘g.
“‘ .127.
‘
r. '.
I. ‘
I
_
"V‘:‘ “
~. ,
Q
I
‘g
.:‘
‘C
‘
3' W LP Q
‘ v - ::.~.
l“|"‘ , t
‘
.. C‘:‘ s
‘ v“. Q
I ~
\A .
.3»
0‘. ‘.
. .4. 5:-
~AK;

charges in regard to Mitchell's drinking --John Mitchell
was leading the miners' strike-- which as I supposed are
infernal lies. It is a shame to start such stories to in-
jure a man who is desirous of having the confidence of even
the men who are fighting him." And later in the same let-
ter: "Certainly there has been enough mtg in the strike
thus far to satisfy everybody that both sides are in dead
m. Now is it not time to consider the public and
other interests that are "innocent sufferers." Hanna, who
was himself financially interested in Ohio coal mines,
talking of "waste," the "public interest," and "innocent
sufferers?" But here was more: "There is some investiga-
tion going on quietly in regard to the responsibility of
the Anthracite RR's under the Sherman Act. But I cannot
trace it to the White House or Atty Genl. One good atty
told me he had no doubt that it was the clearest case that
could be made-ma better example than the 'Merger' or 'Beef
trust.”l Hanna, whose advice to "let well enough alone"
and "stand pat" had keynoted the second McKinley campaign
“3 calmly considering the prospects of using the Sherman
antitrust Act against business combinations? Apparently
30a for he had mentioned it in another letter as well.2 In

a third letter of the same series he barks back at Perkins,

‘

w

1
a Hanna to Perkins, June 9, 1902, George W. Perkins
P Pers, Michigan State University Library, East Lansing.

2
Same to same, May 8, 19029 ibis-
111

. e ' ‘
e... ' ‘t- .
.l ' g g e 0 °
f-I: P:- ';;-;. .
‘ 5" "'-- ‘ .

ole... ' .‘...'.
' ‘
I‘ 3 '5'“; 1
b! A“ E.“-“.

e

.e- eb- . .' ‘ .
-~-~£ i ,CiJJs

\
O

‘1; W. " '
~-ee:ue vco s::.:.i-.:

\I
:"~
~.' Cf 9L.
5“: " P
«a...
La...
.‘.‘ .P
M- trust
w: A o
‘5

a partner of J. P. Morgan, for having said in effect that
he (Hanna) had seemed to lose his enthusiasm for mediating
the strike. "No wonder when I am treated as I am by men

in NY who in a general way I have been serving for six
years. I am getting tired of it and were it true that I
was serving a political ambition I would have made a speech
today on 'capital and labor‘ that would have given Baer

Truesdale & Co. something to think about. [George Beer of

the Reading and William H. Truesdale of the Lackawanna were
among the intransigent railroad-mine operators.] I was
urged to speak at Chicago, Pitts. 8: about 20 other places
to the labor assemblys But [sic] declined them all because
as you know the tension over the coal strike is at the

limit."3 And there was more of the same.

These were the off-the-record sentiments of the man
whose face was serving the hostile cartoonists of the day

as their live model for the bloated figure of "The Trusts."

What could account for this apparent attack of statesmanship

in the politician? Or was he a politician? More questions

arose. Soon I was toying with the idea of attempting a

biography of the man. Since I was looking for a doctoral
dissertation topic anyway, perhaps I could fulfill that
°b1i88tion and at the same time try out the prescription

for an education once offered by Hendrik Willen V311 Loon,

u

——

3Same to same, undated (ca. June, 1902), 1.1211-
iv

   
  
  
  
   
  

a-“h’. I‘re: his :
.=:t':e km 36317.5
:3 it was to wit»
. Y
2: be sure tat .
re. *: L: .
3......5 fit “.5 an.
:- szazzarz' sci-2e
' :i ""5 v-J .
*Iim Ln.
it '21: Inner: ic c
3:5 firm. cm a m:
“35» he cfte: :‘a‘.
1-‘2. it seem: to z
3315.3 States 0'...
‘..':e fealt Vii: a

W
' “*5 Ctntrcra-v.
' ‘ V e

’r

“if? 50: tL:

\

"L
a. 9: t

) ‘ . 7
‘ 5 .
‘sh‘a'31<.“‘3 !
Ca ‘ C(. a

who said that when his curiosity was attracted by a new
subject he knew nothing about, he found that the best way
to study it was to write a book about it. First, however,
I had to be sure that I was not alone in my ignorance. I
looked into what his biographers had written of Hanna.

The standard source was Herbert Croly's m M
m m Life. and M, published in 1912. Croly, I
found, had answers to offer on many points. And he seemed
to have drawn on a considerable body of sources. At the
same time, he often failed to convince. He was overly de-
fensive, it seemed to me, and he failed to cite in most in-
stances the sources from which he drew his arguments. In
short, he dealt with a controversial figure without con-
sistently presenting his material in such a way as to help
settle the controversies. I suspected that he had written
under subsidy from the family, and later found that this

was the case.” Then too, I wondered how much more might be

—_

“$15,955.52 was noted as paid for "biography" in the

Hanna estate book. Doubtless much of this went for research
conducted

by James B. Morrow, but his work contributed to

Ehe final result as it was turned over to Croly. See
rthur Young 8: Co., comp., "Marcus A. Hanna° Report Cover-
iii-lg Transactions of the Executors with the state and of the
153- Ruthfllianna McCormick Trust, for Period from February
C i ' . . (typed MS.), copy in Ohio Historical Society,
F: ambus. Hanna's brother-in-law, the historian James
sari Rhodes, wrote a friend after Croly's book appeared
r Ytng that some of its inaccuracies "might have been cor-
bgc 9d I think had L. C. [Leonard C. Hanna, Mark's brother]
hog“ accustomed to read proof carefully." He also noted,
f1 3"”, that he believed "L. C. was not entirely satis-

6 with it and H[oward Melville [Mark's other brother]

criticized it severely.' Quoted in John 1" Garraty, m

V

 

 

 

 

 

 

a..._

   

 

 

 

 

3... .. "3
~-.. ..- ..
' -- .... .‘Z . -
.. .
..
“Hi“. ‘
'5‘ .'_ I.
. .. - . .
u
. “ v.. ‘-> .
Al" .‘I -
'l' ‘ ‘.~ - .

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

added to the story if a new bio,;rapher were willing to
search through the available papers of many of Hanna's eon-
ten;poraries. Nineteen hundred and twelve was a long time
ago, and if Croly's book had the advantage of? a close-up
view, perhaps a fresh attempt might win sore of the advan-
tages of perspective. Final 3;, I concluded that whatever
Croly had to say he said verbosely and clumsily. If I could

not write better than that, at least I could hardly do worse.

Next I went to Thomas Beer's gigging, published in 1929.
Here the discussion night shift to the present tense, for
though Beer himself has been dead for twenty years, his book
is nothing if not lively. In fairness to him it must be
noted that he does not offer it as an orthodox biography,
but as an extended informal essay on the political life of
the period with hark Hanna as his protagonist. Beer's
virtues are immediately apparent: he searches restlessly
for insights and interpretations, and when he thinks he has
found one he pounces on it hard. i’eanw‘nile he entertains
with a proudly sparkling style that never misses the twist

or an anecdote or the spice of an exclamatory quotation.

And if his research is spotty, he brings up some fresh

material. The historian who reads Beer, however, is soon

Q‘—

 

fl

Barber and the Historian, The Correspondence of Georr'e 1‘-

§-18Ps and James Ford Rhodes, 1910-19237001113‘15—657—0—1—35 —
distor cal Society, 1956)), p. 19. From the estate report
above and other sources it appears that Hanna's c‘i'iila'lren
chose Croly to do the writing.

Vl

aware that he is not reading the work of a fellow historian,
but the work of an esthete trying desperately to hammer his
recalcitrant subject into an epic work of art. The artistry
is self-conscious, cocky, almost breathless in its effort
to impress. At times, it does impress, for Beer can see the
irony of a situation, highlight an image and polish a sym-
bol with telling effect. He does show insight, if not the
detachment he pretends. ("I prefer Hanna as a subject as
I might negligibly prefer Grunewald to Botticelli. . . ."
P-x. ). His good father, it must be remembered, was one

Of Hanna's confidential agents for a number of years.

Then too, the quality of his sources--which means to
a great extent the strength of his foundations-13 diffi-
cult to evaluate. Only rarely does he cite authority for
a statement in such a way that it could be checked. Inter-
views are casually alluded to in the text and then not
listed among those acknowledged. Some of the most fre-
QUently cited interviews and documents are associated with
strange names that are never properly introduced. Most
unfortunate, though not entirely through his fault, the
extremely valuable portion of the papers of his father re-
lating to the book-~his one important fresh source--has
Since been lost though the irrelevant remainders are care-

a

fully housed in a university library.

For the historian the initial and final impression of
Beer's V0 ,

I‘k are the same--a distrust of his scholarship

vii

 

mixed with a reluctant admission that his self-esteem is in
part justified by the shrewdness of his insights.

Perhaps what was needed, I concluded, was a straight-
forward, unhurried, critical biography of the private and
public Mark Hanna that would be based on a fresh review of
what is known, or thought to be known, of his life; that
would sift out and present whatever might 'interest those
curious to learn what sort of man he was, what he did in
his time-~and did not do--and, so far as possible, why he
did what he did. He has certain obvious claims to the his
torian's attention: he was a successful businessman in the
important fields of tranSportation, utilities, mining and
banking. His business career proceeded at a pace and in a
place that reflected something of the economic history or
his time. He had a political career that invites the stu-
dent of leadership to explain his rise as manager, pro-
moter, boss and senator. And he had close political as-
sociates of importance in their own right: Sherman, Foraker,
McKinley and Roosevelt. A close look at their relationships
with Ham“ might tell something Worthwhile of them. Again,
in his later- years he made a reputation as an advocate of
ways And nleans to industrial peace. For a man of his back-
ground to Concern himself seriously and successfully with
labor I'elations other than his own was a novelty. A look

at the .
or“gins and nature of that novelty might reveal

viii

 

 

.. .a "'C"t‘3.:
. “J. “g“...u.

.._

0 'Q
.4
a a

.. 0'.- Ou‘r *’ ."
_‘u no: 5“.“ U. ‘I'

I”.

.3 A on 'V: 1.
55..“ up: -‘

w

”a" er ‘9; “a. c:
an “ .g H... ‘. v

4“ .-. ‘.. .
. . .a..: I":
"U
. .‘

“: . 3." ‘Q ‘.
.o‘.. C .
a ..

.,.5 9

’w9.,
5 ‘ .
C. .
....“
0‘. -c Q.“
§.—.S ”t .1
. 0
~.
‘ o
‘c‘ .Cac“..‘
”‘1..'-
a..
.I‘
.4. .‘3
.‘4. ‘3

something unsuspected in the possibilities of that situa-
tion at the turn of the century.

In his own time Hanna became the symbol of a new power
of business in politics. This too, raises questions of
interest to the biographer. Public symbols are made rather
than born, so one question becomes who made a symbol of
Mark Hanna? Or, if there were more than one, who created
the several symbols? And what validity do they have for
the historian who wants to simplify the history of the
Period by focussing on its key figures--its ”movers and
shakers"? This last problem may always be one like "The
Final Problem" of Sherlock Holmes, and send the hero who
attempts it tumbling over the cliff grappling with another
Professor Moriarty. But the question is an old one and
will doubtless be revived. If the present study provides
a firmer foundation for later evaluations--if it narrows
somewhat the range of disagreements--it will have con-
tributed something. Sherlock Holmes, after all, was not
finally killed in that harrowing struggle with his nemesis;
his guardian and creator, Dr. Doyle, let him live to detect
a83111 another day.

The nine chapters that follow constitute only the first
part of a full-length biography, though they have a unity
0f their Own as the story of the rise of Mark Hanna. The
narrative ends as he finds his place on the national scene.
H13 c‘E‘ndidate has won the presidency in the election of

in

 

 

 

 

 

1896, and this, though outwardly he seems not to realize it

at the time, is the point of no return in his own career.

For the moment he is playing Cincinnatus. He has rescued

his fellow countrymen from their peril and will return now

to his peaceful and private pursuits. It is a brief inter-

lude, a short resting place in a life that seldom slowed

down at all until the last. For that reason it seems a
good place to stop with him and look back, as he must have

done privately, and look forward, as he would like to have

done.

ACKNOWLEDGl'ENTS

There is no order of priority in these acknowledgments
of thanks. Without the aid of each of the following the
result would be something less than it is. Professor
John A. Garraty, then of Michigan State University, first
encouraged my notion that I might do something with the
Hanna idea; Professor Madison Kuhn took over direction of
the dissertation as I was beginning to write, and to him
is due credit for the improvements over a first draft that
shall remain forever and fortunately unseen. Professors
Stanley L. Jones of the University of Illinois in Chicago
and H. Wayne Morgan of San Jose State College have gener-
ously loaned me notes and ideas from their researches on
the campaign of 1896 and McKinley respectively. Mrs.

Garvin Tankersley entrusted me with use of the most valuable
manuscript collection I used--one that I had given up be-
lieving survived. Mr. and Mrs. Edgar Williams of Akron,
Ohio, were kind and helpful hosts during my visit to their
mine and examination of a portion of the Charles Dick
pupers then in their possession. The late Mr. Homer Dodge
0f mshington, D. C. loaned me a series of interesting

let
t9“ between his father and Hanna. Each 01' the persons

Xi

 

 

 

 

I-oo
.D
""".o._
no ‘ 1.. .
.
u
o
,.
.-
..¢vo: ’ '
.09 .
I. '- -o~‘~ .
O .4
D
-
..

0;;

I..- .m.
0,.

Or.

3“. I. .

~ 332‘! "9'

‘ v

Q a
'3. a.
“" It. .

t K .

.~ .00 so
u. .30 ..

.;- ~..-.‘ ‘. .'.

vh':~-‘.‘ t o.

N-\' P'htc --
' 'i k-...‘

zt-epc-I‘, ‘ -. ..

\ Ii; uh...‘ .1 .
V...

\,' v- r- -. t-
. ‘naa. ._‘ \: v
:2 .‘A'A ..
Coy-J a.~e ...
3': a.‘ ‘;a ‘o.'.‘
“‘ b. b

 

I interviewed--they are listed in the bibliography--re-
sponded generously with their recollections and impressions.
Grateful acknowledgment is due to my colleagues and

employers at the Ohio Historical Society for their fore-
bearance and faith; to librarians of the Manuscript Divi-
sion of the Library of Congress, of the Western Reserve
Historical Society, the Historical and Philosophical Soc-
iety of Ohio, the Hayes Memorial Library, the Yale Univer-
sity Library, and the Illinois State Historical Library.

If this work were to have a dedication, it could only
be inscribed to my wife and son, as each of them has long
been dedicated to the dissertation.

Errors, omissions and interpretations I will assume
full reSponsibility for myself, distasteful as that may be.
Iam certain, however, that some of those persons who lent
their assistance in the enterprise will take exception to

Portions of the final product. They should not be held as

"1111118 accompli ce 3 .

xii

 

 

 

 

I...

 

PREFACE .

CONTENTS

0 C O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ll

AcmOwLEmMENTS O I I O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O Xi

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

IV,

COUNTRY BOY AND CITY BOY . . . . . . . . . . 1

Birth and Parents (1) -- The boy's
world (6) -- School, clubs and

friends (9) -- Parental politics (12)
-- Promoting the canal (13) -- Depart-
ure for Cleveland (15) -- New surround-
ings (15) -- YOung Rockefeller (18)

-- Student essays (l9) -- Colle e days
(22) -- The family business (25 --
Recreations (27) -- Civil War (29)

-- Courtship and marriage (31).

M. A. HANNA AND HIS COMPANY . . . . . . . . 38

The 011 business (39) -- Back to

father (#2) -- Rhodes and Company (an)

-- Opportunities (#5) -- Expansion (#9)

-- Ore and coal (SO) -- Docks (52) --

Shipbuilding (53) -- Leonard (59) --

Melville (60) -- Hanna at home (61) -- ‘ .
Religion and philanthropy (68) -- Young

Republican (69) -- With Grant to

Mentor (73).

VJO RKS AND WORICERS O O O O O O O O C O O O O 77

Street railways and Tom Johnson (77)
-- The 0 era house (85) -- The
IHerald ( 8) -- The Union National
Bank (90) -- Labor relations (92)
‘-- Hanna and unionism (103);

POLITICS: SOME POWER AND NO GLORY . . . . . 109

IDelegate-at-large (109) -- Sherman's
Chances in 188% (113) -- Friends and
Plans (115) -- Defeat in 1881+ (120)

xiii

-- McKinley's role (12%) -- Friend
Fbraker (126) -- State patronage
(132) -- Hanna's local standing

(137) -- "Boss" Hanna (IN-O) -- Fund
raéser (1H6) -- The game of politics
1 2 .

V.THELESSONSOF1888............ 151+

Foraker (155) -- Toledo convention
of 1887 (157) -- Scouting for
Sherman (159) -- Foraker's pique
(163) -- The Chicago convention

scene (169) -- Discord in the dele-
gation (172) —- Ticket-buying (175)
-- Ballots (176) -- The McKinley
boomlet (179) -- Foraker's bolt

(18%) -- False hopes (186) -- Seventh
ballot (188) -- Feraker's"temptation"
(190) -- Turning point (193).

VI. THE LEAN AND ANGRY YEARS . . . . . . . . . 196

The Harrison disappointment (196)
-- Hanna's strateg (198) -- Cam-
paign of 1889 (199 -- McKinley's
fortunes, 1889-1890 (20%) -- The
watson letters (207) -- McKinley
for governor (218) -- Raising funds
(220) -- Sherman for senator (222)
-- Sherman reelected (233).

VII. Two "CLOSE SQUEAKS" WITH McKINLEY . . . . . 237

The primacy of McKinleg (237) --

Sherman's position (23 ) -- Truce

‘with Fbraker (2%1) -- The Minneap-

olis convention (2M2) -- McKinley's

show of strength (2N8) -- The cam-

paign of 1892 in Ohio (251) -- De-

veloping issues (255) -- Looking

toward 1896 (259) -- The Walker-

McKinley bankruptcy (259) -- The

McKinley-Hanna friendship (270) --

189l+ (277).
VI
II‘ FROM THOMASVILLE TO ST. LOUIS . . . . . . . 28].
Thomasville Ga. (282) -- Foraker's
comeback (28h) -- Strategy (286) --
The "combine" (288) -- Decisive vic-
‘ts3ries (293) -- Hanna and his team

xiv

\vugrr «I.

not

u‘a.

o 9
00¢ -.s
.. a. . .
Q on - cg
. ‘o a
on.

n—. O
a . O

 

IX.

EPILOGUE
SOURCES .

(29%) -- Enemies (295) -- Expenses
(297) -- Dealing with Foraker (301)
-- St. Louis Convention (302) --
Currency issue (303) -- Decision
for gold (308).

18960000000000.000000000

Tariff vs. currency (322) -- Bryan
(326) -- The issues polarized (327)
-- Scope of battle (329) -- Chicago
headquarters (329) -- New York
headquarters (332) -- Canton (33h)
-- The "campaign of education" (337)
-- Raising funds (3H2) -- Some im-
pressions of Hanna (3hh) -- Contribu-
tions (3M6) -- The purchasable vote
(352) -- Economic browbeating (357)
-- "It is all over" (361).

O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O

XV

5:.“ :‘A'.. . .

. ao.‘...~._

n.

o
w u .
. . .
~J" is .. N c‘ ‘ ‘

0‘ .‘l .
on .
.v . ‘.'.‘A”.o.
i one . '-b‘ .
' a-

‘ : .. VF‘s‘ ‘ Q
' u ‘, , ‘ .,
“1 ...
.‘ I
.‘“ ‘
' -
Int. .. ..‘ -

-.-‘ .
NI I” -
0 ’5‘ ' ‘7

0.9“. 0.,
\- “P~ .
‘4 .5 \"-"..‘
. "u".‘.
._.
;.. -'I. I
..
' '2': 7"! .
“ mg '-

I _ ‘
n' «7‘ ‘,._
‘ . 't".-.
ca.‘~: ‘
‘<
.a.
. 3..”
~.’\‘ a . ‘n‘
‘
a
.- ..
- u
5 A
LS, “-.. !
\.\“ .
a
Q‘l
.. ‘
\.F.
‘ H 9‘0 Q
u. q -
a... ‘.
“V
a ‘ " ‘
3" ‘I‘.
' ”a; v-
..‘
.
cl.“
'-. n-
u z s- A:
~‘a I.
.
..I‘
x. .-
._ .-
3: ou'6

..
.‘b
0
"~ .‘.-.V
‘\
I
0“
.3‘.‘
. . ‘..
.. . “
.
‘-
l“
a... ‘
's '3. _
~ i 1
. n
U"-
.‘..o .
.
' Q
I
‘ a
Q
C
Q
.
I
. .-
\‘. I: .
.~ _
a“ ‘
‘
‘\
- a
“
o ._
k" ‘

CHAPTER I
COUNTRY BOY AND CITY BOY

Marcus Alonzo Hanna as a man signed his name "M. A.
Hanna," as if to suggest that the first two names meant
nothing in particular. Among friends, the lifelong nick-
name "Mark" would always suffice. But the name Hanna iden-
tified the man in important ways. It placed him as one of
a family for which he felt a sensible pride. Without be-
coming worshipful of family, he thought himself fortunate
to have been born and raised as he was. His origins were
not only an inescapable part of him; they were an agree-
able memory as well.

He was born inauSpiciously enough on September 21},
1837’ in the small northeastern Ohio town of New Lisbon--
0“ Simply Lisbon, as it has been known since 1895. As the
firSt‘bOrn son of Dr. Leonard and Samantha Converse Hanna,
he chose parents of better than average endowments. Mark's
mother’ Who would be the stronger parental influence, was a
Vermont‘born former schoolteacher. Young, with a round,
must face, she was unquestionably one of the better edu-
mcjated women of the community. This, together with an upper
lddle c1388 background that she carefully preserved in her

, left the young woman open to suspicions of being

1

2

a shade too aristocratic by local standards. She was the
daughter of Porter Converse, who had been a lawyer in New
England and then a merchant after bringing his. family of
six out to the Western Reserve district of Ohio in 182%.
Both her father and mother-~the former Rhoda Howard-~had a
respectable background of largely English stock, and when
they moved to the West they did so in good order and some
Stli’le. Daughter Samantha was soon equipped for a position
teaching school, and ventured from her Geauga County home
down to New Lisbon, three counties to the south and east.

On September 10, 1835, she married Leonard Hanna, a young

PhYsician from one of the leading local families.1

Hanna had long been a name of some importance in this
flourishing young county seat of better than 1,200 popula-
tion. Mark's great-grandfather Robert, who died two months

¥

in thnless otherwise noted, the facts of family history
The B 5 Chapter are taken from M. Josephine Smith, ed.,
msf’g‘k 23 Benjamin Hanna, His Children and Their W-
mlableveland, privately printed, 1938). Copies are
(“Sterile in the Library of Congress, the Western Reserve
e W cal Society, the Cleveland Public Library, and in

(gesflisgession of various members of the Hanna family. For
MCCookp 11,0113 of Samantha Converse Hanna, see Henry C.
19531664. e Senator, A Threnod (Philadel hia, 1905), pp.

: Thomas Beer, Hanna (N. Y., 1929 , pp. 22, 23;
i g Morrow interview with Mrs. Samuel Prentiss Baldwin
Pars, 111 Helen Converse, Cleveland, Ohio, 1905, Hanna pa-
Mar-”and Possession of Mrs. Garvin Tankersley, Bethesda,

° This interview by Morrow, once editor of the

gatherind m, is one of a series he conducted while
material for the biography of Hanna later written

rely.

 

 

 

: D .-
. . “ '3' 5».
ha I .

- a a. .
." .. I I
L.‘ d ‘v'... .

I ’ ‘-"
“""°' ‘: .
.ousxhu ha,.‘..‘

 

a... ' - .O‘
.
a
u:'40:.p_‘ -.’
- Ouag‘..." . ‘
0.
.Z.‘ I...'....‘c I
.- u
l ‘-#~'_‘~. .
v
' I
. on .n.. .“‘.
0 In 4
. '. .‘.

'0. ‘
: 3"“5-. ..
‘ J
a... ‘...
fir. .s" ‘
a a.. . v .
I‘!
L ' ‘Cn- -
‘0‘ ,. N"
. ' i‘
o -" .I
. ‘.
, “ .
‘i
‘- :o‘~" ‘
. ‘ p u.,
‘.. -‘
b 2“.
'fs °-._
. I a
. O‘.‘ 5"
‘
o‘-
u.
. -o.__
N‘.- ‘\r
-Q
‘-
7‘.'.‘
h“ "n ._
a. -
'I.
‘ o
o .'..
“a- ’— -
.:.'-‘.:
‘
.: ‘-
'._ 1‘.“
“‘.‘
.‘.
‘sz :5“
‘o
. “‘.
u
‘0
- I.. .
. I
.‘: :‘
§“
-\
\ ‘.‘
\‘H s_
' u
I “
‘- a
.p; ,,
Q
o
.‘-‘
‘ \
g; .-
‘1

before the boy was born, had come there as the pioneer of
the family in 1801. He had arrived in the New World as a
boy from north Ireland, and was the first of the Hannas to
Join the Quaker faith. To Mark, he was only a respected
memory, but his second son, Benjamin, was a respected pres-
ence. Grandfather Benjamin Hanna was of the kind that im-
Presses youngsters. He was a big, burly man, the sire and
master of seven equally tall, husky sons. He was the patri-
arch of the New Lisbon family. In his younger days, grand-
father had accumulated his first capital by clearing tracts
of virgin land for the new arrivals. Since then he had
built up a prosperous wholesale grocery and warehouse bus-
iness in town. Meanwhile he married a bright but un-
schooled young Quaker girl named Rachel Dixon, recently

come over from southwestern Pennsylvania. The roster of
their thirteen children recalls something of the lost art
01‘ personal nomenclature: Joshua, Leonard, Levi, Zalinda,
Robert, Tryphena and Tryphosa (twins), Rebecca, Thomas,
Anna, Ben:laxnin, Kersey and Elizabeth. Most of them would
lead 10118 and useful lives. One of them, Kersey, would
°ut11Ve his famous nephew by five years, and so have an

Opportunity to tell curious biographers how it was with
them in the old days.2

\

‘

2 .
both CIfOT'T'OW interview with Kersey Hanna and H. M. Hanna,
eveland, 1905, both in Hanna papers.

The second eldest of these would become Mark's father.
Leonard had many of the physical features that reappeared
in the son: the wide-set, piercing brown eyes, the wide
mouth, large ears, and a pair of surprisingly small, taper-
ing hands. He had been the only one of the seven sons to
have received any education beyond what was locally avail—
able and necessary for business purposes. After due pre-
paration in a provincial college, he had attended Rush
Medical College in Philadelphia and then returned to enter
practice at home.

Whether his accident occurred prior to his marriage or
soon afterward is uncertain, but it was at about this time
that Dr. Hanna was thrown from his horse and injured in a
way that eventually resulted in his death. His son Mel,
“(Beam interest in medicine makes him perhaps the best
witness, told many years later that

. . . his spine was hurt but the injury was thought
to be slight. Later, however, he began to have
agonizing headaches at the base of his brain.
became necessary to keep hot cloths on the
back of his neck for hours at a time, cloths so
hot that my mother could scarcely touch them with
her hands. The headaches continued until there
"as a Surgical operation and some of the nerves
01‘ the neck were cut. After that my father had
9° more pain . . . but there was a steady decline
In his health and he died in 1862 from a de-
generation of the tissue of the medulla.3

‘

With :Morrow interview with H. M. Hanna; his interviews
ersey Hanna and Leonard C. Hanna, Cleveland, 1905,
'9 give slightly varying accounts.

.v

. .|
’ ’ “s- v
I»! ' '2 ' . ..‘ .
r‘ - ale. . I
‘ .-
. I
— .. '1‘21- 3..
" ”Janna
I
e
p,'- ,.. .'.\
‘0 .n.
5‘. .

' M
'Q

"a. a
g' v. ‘3 ‘
....:.0..‘O \ I a.
‘V
..,.. r. a,“
I
“Now .g..~ -. .
' a
”-0"! §r_. a...
. I
I ".0 "‘:5 b.¢..
. ‘
. ;' 0"; :g‘;
\. u .. .‘.. ~' -
‘ Q
ego IQ. .' “ ‘
. ‘ '.
“In no 5.. ‘- ‘
.. p ‘ .
l.; 'L -' p
‘0. ‘5‘. ‘. . .
In . -
:‘I b‘;=_ ‘ ..
‘I‘Q- l.-~.‘ ‘.'
.-‘-.(-" .
‘ C
o-—‘ &‘.‘; .
v
V .
‘ I
.‘_~ t,.. “A...
\." . 4
Una... . —. ‘
I u
. . . ' I .
F:I . .-
‘t- ‘ -g. .
a,
. Q
.‘ F..; ...D
‘ ~ . h. -
a_ -
4". .
. - 1"
.I“ ‘ ‘ I. ‘
| "a .3.
.'.= .. ,
~ ‘~‘.—- ‘
. . § ‘
- . ‘ .
I t.‘ ‘ ‘ 1
‘ . -_ .
\ q ‘
. . I‘ *' ‘\
I . v- I
. “‘
C. ‘
-. L‘n“ -
y ‘ ‘ ‘ '
‘ A"- ‘
. _ '-
‘5
. A -.,‘ .
n. _ ‘ ‘
‘ ~-
5' "
..
§..

 

One of the first consequences of Leonard's accident was the
abandonment of his medical practice. The children always
knew their father in the role of merchant in the family
grocery, wholesale and warehouse business.

Mark was the eldest son, but Gertrude preceded him and
Howard Melville ("Mel"), Salome, Seville, Leonard Colton
and Lillian followed in that order.1+ In common they shared
an ancestry that could already be called "old stock" Ameri-
can. Of all the strains it included, Mark was to be most
conscious of the Scotch-Irish, perhaps because of the fam-
ily name. One of his references to his relationship with
his friend President McKinley years later has often been
noted. Remarking on their differences in temperament, he
concluded that McKinley had got more of the Scot and he

more Of the Irish in the combination.5 But American family
H‘—

S Fkln more detail, they were Helen Gertrude (Mrs. Henry
Mélfklbbell) 1836-1891- Marcus Alonzo (1837-19oh); Howard
widVllle.(l8’+0-l92l); Salome Maria (Mrs. George W. Chapin,
lefiwid 1n 1881+, remarried to Jay Wyman Jones, 1886),

in 15 207; Seville Samantha (Mrs. James Pickands widowed
Leona . remarried to Jay c. Morse in 1899), who-1927;
“mid Colton, 1850-1919; Lillian Converse (Mrs. Samuel
lSS Baldwin), 1852-1 38.

Mrcus A. Hanna, "William McKinley as I Knew Him,"
mid: Mum xv (Jan. 1902), I+10. This and other
aCtualls attributed to Hanna in the same magazine were
rom sty ghostwritten by the editor, Joe Mitchell Chapple,
y Haminographers' notes. Afterward they were approved
land 1 - See Morrow interview with Elmer Dover, Cleve-

’ 905, Hanna papers.

a | .l
"“ .F. .| ‘fil- ..

p I ,
.zi —~O~‘o.‘-5 :l

'v- ..:.,.
T". :,.c .

- .l.._’~.'...

».u..e:.,c ": C '. ‘

a
I. so...y .... ..
o .p

 

Q
.o .,. o.,_._.' .
a. '.. .4
' 'u: I ,. .
N
‘ nOa, .'
' b
a

 

 

 

.§.'Qo.-'. . ‘ ‘-
~ ' o.
'L' '4' I... .
v
I
I
1
'. .-
“~ ”’0'“. t..
I “Ho
~~J .sa.
I
.
I. l
.. . a” \‘ .
.. ‘_ ‘
a. UV.‘ . .
O '9‘.“
. _.
"6 ’9
“E k.‘ ' a.
.. IO\~
| - .
. I * ‘
9‘ . ' ‘ , .' -‘
\“ . .
OA.‘
.. t
- «t
‘
'- ‘ "At A'-
."‘U.
i.‘
' a
I ‘..
V‘ n‘; ‘u .
“.. .‘u .
‘ o
. I:
'l I .-
... .n‘ .’
.
\ 'a.
. ,' .
... on... .
- I
\‘.
d
,.
.".l
e‘..- t :
§ .
a
2'0 .
D
h“ C,‘ I
.
‘.
.
. ‘ ‘
\_ 'a ‘
\_. .
‘ \
o
.9
- ‘9 .- Q.
‘ I
.
.-
Q‘ ‘ ~
.
.
.l
O, .
l‘. ”h
K
‘ ‘1.
r. ‘
TI'_.
-‘.
' a
.
\‘.

names are notoriously poor indicators of blood lines. A
conservative estimate based on what is known of his ances-
try proportions his nationality background at two-thirds
English, one-twelfth each of "Scotch-Irish" (i.e., Scott-
ish, via Ulster) and Welsh, and an undetermined remaining
sixth probably mostly Dutch and Huguenot French, the last
coming through the Converse line. Friends who remarked in
later years that as a man Hanna had the appearance of an
EnElish country squire spoke more wisely than they knew.

As a boy, Mark was a spunky one from the start, but no
rebel. His own home and those in his neighborhood com-
Drised a world that allowed him to grow, at least in the
aPIJroved directions, while it allowed him to be a boy and
get his face dirty. School could be tolerated while it
lasted. After the final bell rang, his teacher had no fur-
ther authority over his coming and going even if she was
his mother's first cousin. In any event, teachers came
and went, but the boys of the Sheep Hill crowd were a de-
Penf‘able lot who would stick together, so it seemed, for-
ever, There were his brothers, of course, but nearly as
c1039 as brothers were such pals as Joe Kelly, Alf Thomp-
son, Frank Roach, Andy McLain, Shed, Anse and Henry McCook,
hank Richards, Ed Pentecost and Jimmy Robertson. In the
Spring When chores were done they could get up a ball game

"handball: hatball or townball--any kind. 0r work up some

I‘I'A

stunts for a circus over at the McCooks' stable. When they
warmed up in the summertime there was the cool seclusion of
the Big Rocks pool down behind the old factory dam. When
it rained there were soapstone moulds to prepare reinforce-
ments in for the lead soldiers that battled across the
floors as Mexicans and Americans or Whites and Indians. In
the winter there would be another go at sledding down Mar-
ket Street hill, and more snowball fights with the crowd
from Carroll's school up on Green Hill. There was plenty
to do, and there were friends to join in. But when old

Chambers rang the town curfew bell at nine the day was
6

over.

The home Mark returned to was a comfortable, well-
ordered place that his father had had built the year the
my was born. It was a sturdy white frame structure with a
”Rh, four chimneys, and a style of trimwork that sug-

gested approval of the Greek Revival fashion. There were

Six small rooms on the main floor and additional sleeping

quarters above. The furniture had a polish that reflected

1‘38 eastern origins, and the fenced-in yard boasted
\

6
detailThe curfew was for children only. This and other
cCooks gr names and games in this paragraph are from
23,, 236-1142 Senator, pp. 200, 201, 218, 220, 228-230, 233,
p. 199 . On Hanna's conflicts with teachers, see ipid.,
, and Morrow interview with Kersey Hanna.

W r—r-SF" ”do? '

.—«
"I;

shrubbery that may also have come over the mountains.7 The

mistress of the house kept order. Though no tyrant, ac-

cording to all recollections she was a woman of consider—

able "executive ability." It was mother's firm New England

voice that most often set the bounds of decorum and duty in

the home.8

She needed to be firm with Mark. There is a daguer-
reotype of him at about the age of fourteen that illus-
trates graphically what his Uncle Kersey Hanna meant when
he said later that the boy was "very strenuous in the mat-
ter of having his own rights."9 He sits straight up in
his dark coat and plaid vest; his big bow tie is in place

over the wide collar of his white shirt. His thick light
\—

C 7An early painting of the house is reproduced in

roll” Ema, opp. p. 18. A photograph of it at nearly
Seventy Years of age is reproduced in McCook, m,
fipp. P- 118. See Croly's cements (Hanna, p. 1 and
Morrow interview with Mrs. Samuel Prentiss Baldwin and
’1'th combined store and dwelling on the public square
Ede ured in Croly, Ha , opp. p. 8. William B. McCord,
also History 9; Columbiag Comty, Ohio (Chicago, 1905)
and I‘ePI‘Oduced a picture of this building (opp. p. 117)

Points out the room.

8
See Citations in note 1, on Samantha Hanna.

9
MOI‘row interview with Kersey Hanna. The picture is

T‘.

igngguced in Smith, ed., Be 'ami Ha a, p, 160, and
besideogl-I’ IQ metal. OPP- P- , with the figure of Mel
Mark is In CI‘Opped away. The earliest known likeness of

an awkwardly handled painting of him with Mel re-
1n Croly, Hanna, opp. p. 22, and Smith, ed.,

or him at .. a, p. 159. The best collection of gictures
Glfferent ages is in ipid., pp. 159-16 .

PW‘ducec
e

188 Helen Converse. Hanna was not born in this house, but

 

 

9

brown hair has just been combed again. That much was posed
for him. The broad oval face that suggests more weight be-
low it than his slim body actually carried, the oversize
ears, the large, brown eyes like buttons, the straight,
broad nose and firm mouth--a11 these he had inherited from
his father. But perhaps the facial expression was one he
chose for himself, and if he meant it to say that he was a
boy who knew his own mind and that that mind was set on
becoming a man in short order, he succeeded.
By mid-century the world beyond New Lisbon was grad- *
ually filtering through to the boy's consciousness. Some-
times he could see it in the classroom, but it came by way
01" his father and through the local boys' debating society
as well. His schooling was a routine affair. It offered--
0? rather it drilled into him--the mechanics of reading,
Witins and arithmetic. Copy-book maxims from 292;; 333;— ' .
m Wm, Pope's Egg}; 9;; Man and the Book of Proverbs
gave it the prescribed flavor of moral training. The boy
kept up, but there is no report that he ever chose his New
LiSbOn c1<'=lSsroom as a place to display the full intensity
of his competitive spirit.10 Nor was he awakened then or
later to an interest in the abstractions of the intellect-
ually curious. The men he thought of as scholars were more

ak'
In to Ichabod Crane than to the Greek philosophers.
\\

10,
heCook, The Senator, pp- 205, 206-

 

 

 

 

10

Politics, however, was very much the concern of a boy
who aimed at becoming a man among men. The successful ora-
tor was a man to be respected in New Lisbon. Who initiated
the idea of a boy's debating club is unknown, but in Jan-
uary, 1850, the Polyadelphian (or "Pollydelphian," as its
first secretary spelled it) Society made its appearance
with a long constitution and a short debate on "Was the
Mexican War a justified one?" (They ruled it was not.)

Mark, at thirteen, was one of the younger members, but he
soon took his part and eventually was elected secretary for
two terms.11

Unfortunately, the available records fail to indicate
how his teams fared or to which sides he was assigned on the
following questions, but a listing of them and the Juries'
decisions may suggest something of the confidence and ser-
iousness that engaged these boys: "Should flogging be abol-
ished in the navy?" (yes); "Should the United States take
any part in the Hungarian struggle for liberty?" (yes);
"Will the conquest of Upper California and New Mexico re-
suit in more good than evil?" (yes); "Have the Negroes
more cause for complaint against the Whites than the In-
diaRS?" (On this question, Mark is said to have taken the

si
‘39 0f the Negro and won); "Should women be allowed to

\
11
1114., pp. 211-213.

 

 

 

 

 

11

vote?" (yes). It was probably at the conclusion of the
last debate that girls were permitted to join the club.12
Hanna was not the only name of later consequence among
the alumni of the Polyadelphian Club. Two of the boys men-
tioned earlier were of the family of "Fighting McCooks" of
Civil War fame. Thirteen of them served as officers, of
whom seven were generals by the War's end. Among Mark's
friends were Anson, who came out of the war a general and
later served three terms in Congress from New York; Roder-
ick Sheldon, who went to Annapolis; and Henry, who was a
Chaplain in uniform and later as a Presbyterian minister
wT0139 treatises on natural history and a book of reminis-
cences of his boyhood days with Mark in New Lisbon. The
I‘uture senator also knew two of the other brothers, one of
Whom became minister to Hawaii and governor of Colorado,
and the other a clergyman and professor of modern languages
in Connecticut.” The Hannas and the McCooks kept up their
early friendships to some extent in Later years, and Mark's
pride in their deeds may help eXplain his pride in his own

Scot"Ch-Irish background.
\

te 121.21%; CI'OIY: Liam, PP- 23, 21+, quoting from a 191;.
r 01' Anson J. McCook to W. N. Armstrong written in 1892.

“$0015 than owned the surviving portion of the minute book.
nry McCook also saw it, and reproduces two pa es from it
Hanna's hand. See his 111E Sggtor, fol. p. 0.

13M°C°Pd, edu Columbine. 99mm, pp. 246, 3+7.

12

His father also set the boy an example of concern with
politics. He was an anti-slavery Whig and a prohibitionist
when neither cause was locally fashionable. As a campaign
orator he had taken the stump in 1839 and later apparently
with some success. The family later asserted that he had
been compared as a speaker with Thomas Corwin, which was a
compliment, and that he went on tour once with Edwin M.
Stanton in a series of joint debates.l’+ He never ran for
Congress, despite his brother's later claims to the contrary,
but he may have been offered the nomination. If so, it was
a doubtful honor. Columbiana county elected Democrats in
Pre‘Civil War years. More than that, it was a seed bed of
"copperheads," for there would be no more daring opponent
0f the Lincoln administration in the North than New Lisbon's
native son, Clement L. Vallandigham, who twice represented
the county in the state House of Representatives in the
1”Mines.” In the late forties, Dr. Hanna took up the
cause of prohibition. For that matter, most of the family

did likewise. A reformed drunkard from Baltimore had passed
\—

C l“Morrow interviews with H. M. Hanna and with Leonard

of 1511211.; there is no record of his candidac in files
the Steubenville Am r a Union for 18k2 or 1 , which
2391‘ was located in he same congressional district. The
18%). known file of New Lisbon's Ohio £331.23}. begins in
- Election returns are in W. Dean Burnham,
W (Baltimore, 1955), pp. 680, 6 l.

 

13

through town in 18+? and left the Hanna's convinced. But
the Doctor's enthusiasm was less moralistic than medical.

His speeches on the subject were remembered above all for
their emphasis on the physiological damage to the imbiber.
Presumably it was about this time that his brother Levi shut
down the little brewery he had started shortly before. Cer-
tainly it was then that Mark was given the fear of alcohol
that he was to carry with him for much of his life.16

Mark's father was a dabbler in politics. He was neither

encouraged by examples in his own family nor was he emulated
by a11y of his sons until years after his death, when Mark
alone of the three began to interest himself in local Cleve-
land affairs. This was a family of business men, and at

the front of its collective mind throughout the forties was
the strictly business problem of making a success of the
Sandy and Beaver Canal ComPaDY, With Mark's grandfather

Benjainin Hanna as president.

‘

Cn16Morrow interviews with H. M. Hanna and Kersey Hanna.
“Hanna and alcohol, see Thomas Knight, Wum

mama mammal: offlexsiaaa (Cleveland
Ilil‘ivately printed 19 O , p. 59, and Morrow interview with

. A. Hanna, Hanna papers. Mrs. Hannam-Mark's widow--
said that his introduction to wine and whiskey was on phy-
:iciann 5 orders when he was about forty years of age, and
his received under protest. While these are admittedly

a39d witnesses, no contradictions to them have been noted

except in later political caricatures such as those noted

Y James Ford Rhodes MW}; and 1322.52.22]; Adminis-
mmn', 1897-1909 (161%., 1922 6. Rhodes, who was

th s brother-in-law and knew him pwell, also protests
e 1‘ untruth.

 

 

l‘+

The canal's history was a brief one and can be briefly
told. As it was planned when work started in late 1831+, it
would link the Ohio River at the Pennsylvania border with
the north-south route of the Ohio Canal, which in turn con-
nected with Lake Erie. In doing this, the Sandy and Beaver
would pass through New Lisbon and, hopefully, return to its
merchants some reward for their daringly heavy investments
in it. Then came the panic and Depression of 1837. Work
halted. The company had to be reorganized and refinanced
in 1&5, but work was resumed and the next year saw barges
loaded with wool and pork floating eastward on the completed
section between New Lisbon and the river. It was too late
to make any profits, however. Railroad competition was ap-
Peal‘ing on all sides and bypassing the town in favor of its
rivals. Though Benjamin Hanna was no longer its president
after 181+5, he and his sons were deeply involved in the
canal company--to the extent of $200,000 according to one
memory}?

New Lisbon never collapsed in these years just before
and aafter 1850, but its gradual sinking could be felt by
a“Voile who saw the increasing number of unrented stores

standing in decay along Market Street.18 The McCooks
\

17Morrow interview with Kersey Hanna, Hanna papers.

the 18McCook, The W, p. 238. Census statistics show
18melecline in the county's population: 181+0: #0,300-

We:- ° 33,600; 1860: 32,000. Revival came after the Civil

’ When a railroad did come to town.

n- o.

Q's _‘ fl

-. ‘ - ‘1
he. ~O C :

,.

' p.‘ ‘:
“-0-, u

: "to. .0:- ~-~

‘

o .. ' .‘f‘,
.L:-..,, “2.
. .' 0....
;,':- -: "A

*Hehu’

' a
.,.O'uu.~' '
‘IH'.’ :50.

h
u .‘gn {"-f
H .e.\ . ‘-_ .
n
q ‘u‘:O.-. :
\o‘ .bvb,.. ‘
w" A: '.
I
. .0 .‘ . g.
.,‘o ‘l
. -.-.' o I
I“. '34.... a
'n
.
O. .'
c
" '90 I.‘ ‘
~I I‘Oh‘15 ..= ‘
he. '
| I” 9--
.0 5.3:: “a
.. ‘.’ ‘ ‘\
..‘ ‘3.
a: b V‘:'_:
5‘ ‘
..“; " ‘0‘..-
v fig y..:
H.
. . .
let'ss f:‘ ‘
.I
o
'5 “‘6'.
O ‘-‘
‘ ‘0.
o:.'
"I v
VI '9: ‘p: -
5..
o
n
1111 ‘
N ‘ \“n‘r
‘_.’
u
.3. “‘0"
N u .
‘~‘.' d" '
4 .‘. I
u..‘..
‘|.- 0“. '
C ‘ V‘.,
.l
l I
"- II. t
. ‘ FA
H “"332 :.
.‘.
I.
h
v :Ac '
‘0 Q”
:,. .
‘I .L, '.“
i 3 ‘~.
0 . ' in:
:‘n. .‘ -
. q ‘
‘"‘~ ta... ‘
“0““ .
‘Q
a __,
'u ,

15

noticed, and departed for Steubenville. Vallandigham moved
to Dayton. The Hanna men, too, except for seventy-two year
old Benjamin, began looking for better prospects elsewhere.
Uncle Joshua, who had been in banking and insurance, left
for Pittsburgh.19 Next to go were Mark's father and Uncle
Robert, who formed a partnership with another Quaker grocer,
Hiram Garretson, and struck out to the north for Cleveland
in APril of 1852. They liked what they saw and stayed. In
the fall, Samantha and the children came up to their new
home.20

The Hannas had grown up with New Lisbon and helped it
HOW, but they had no desire to watch it die. They followed
prosperity to Cleveland.

Cleveland offered above all that one essentialto busi-
ness success that New Lisbon had lacked: good transporta-
tion. Its mushrooming population testified that others,
too, had seen the promise of the city located at the termin-
“3 0f a canal reaching all the way down to the Ohio River
at Portsmouth, and was at the same time both on the rail-
road route from Cincinnati to New York and in a position to

3““ With an increasing traffic on the Great lakes.
\

(pm 19Hmce Mack, mien 2:: 92111111111211: counter. tha . . .
11 Mheeiphia, 1879), pp. 112, 113; Morrow interview with
° . Hanna, Hanna papers.

1852.20McCook, The gem, p. 188, gives the date Oct. 6,

16

All this the new partners in Hanna, Garretson and Com-
pany could know as accomplished fact in 1852. As they
looked at the city itself, they saw the metropolis of the
Western Reserve, that great section of an earlier frontier
which had once been claimed by the state of Connecticut and
had been settled under its auspices. Cleveland was chosen
by nature to serve as the trading center between the New
York and New England sources of population and manufactures,
and the raw products of its own hinterland to the South
and West. Its people were typically transplanted New Eng-
lenders; its place names often taken from Connecticut. Re-
turns of the 1850 census gave Cleveland a population of
17,000 out of l+8,000 living in Cuyahoga County, but the
mm was rapidly outgrowing this figure. Its broad streets
laid out in a grid pattern gave it a Western look, com-
Pal‘ed to its ancestors nearer the coast. But Cleveland was
beginning to loose its‘mareless youth after 1850. Not long
before the Hannas appeared residents were reading a notice
p°Sted by the town marshal ordering them to keep their hogs
off the streets. In the'year following the Hannas' ar-
‘ri‘ml, a special vote authorized the council to begin con-
Stmction of a water works. And visitors were remarking on

the charm of the many trees that had been planted around

17

the public square and along the avenues. The "Forest City,"
proud Clevelanders called it.21

In politics, this was decidedly a two-party battle-
ground, although in the early Fifties the Whigs had been
badly hurt by defections to the new splinter groups that
were soon to join in forming the Republican party. Thus
when a Democratic Clevelander, Reuben Wood, ran for gover-
nor in 1851, he received twelve hundred votes from the city,
but carried it only by a plurality, since over seven hun-
dres votes each went to the Imig and Free Democrat (Free
S011) candidates. Again in 1852 protest votes from former
”1188 may have been decisive in allowing the Democrats' can-
didates to win a plurality in the city.22 Symbolically,
this was also the year that Henry Clay died and the year
When a Cleveland publisher brought out the first of many
editions of Mrs. Stowe's book, m m 93213. An old
anti-slavery Whig such as Dr. Hanna might feel encouragement
in this environment.

But for the children, life continued to center around
home, school and the streets and yards between them. Home

“W was a substantial brick edifice of the gothic variety

\

2(18ee William 6- Rose, mainland. the Matias of. a
$111( Cleveland, 1950), pp. 221-231 for an introduction to
his decade, and p. 2+5 ff. on events of 1852-1853-

2283
muel P. Orth, A s o 91‘, W 91119. (2 vols.
Chicago, 1910), I, 279, .2540. ’

'r‘ at a r."
oi. I so

.‘..: 9" .u.., ."
as. fluy“"j. .
C

I

 

.
(I.
II)
)
.4

“E“

‘D. 5
i

i l

D

LNJ. I

'1

a“! ..
1 - .

18

on Prospect Street between Cheshire and Granger.23 School,
at first, was a new three-story building on nearby Brownell
Street and later a high school-~the only one in Cleveland
at the time--on Euclid Avenue near Erie Street.2l* Here the
b0? was to meet a new group of chums that among other later
friends included the Rockefeller brothers.

John Rockefeller was two years Mark's junior, but the
two boys were thrown together in the small school and app-
arently grew fond of one another. It may well be that they
were attracted to at least a genuine mutual respect by the
Very contrast in their natures. John at that age was de-
scribed as a studious, reserved, sober young scholar whose
Preferred place in an afternoon ball game was as score-
keeDer.2s Mark was the virile extrovert, of "a daring and
spontaneous disposition," to quote from the recollections
of another schoolmate who in later years gave the press a
Story of the two friends in their high school days. He re-
called the time the boys were kicking a football around the

yard and John let it fly over a fence and toward a house

K

23Leonard C. Hanna interview, Hanna papers. Croly,
si opp. p. reproduces a picture. Cheshire has
nee become E. 3Zist St., and Granger E. 22nd St.

Ne 2‘3086.C91mland pp. 2‘15. 253, 276 2773 Allen
Bths’ W (2 vols., New York 19’+0), I
1: H9216} StBrownell St. is now E. 11+th St., and Erie St. is

25Nevins. mammal. pp. 75, 81+-

 

‘ ‘ “'_m+—

19

where a painter was working from a ladder. The ball nearly
sent the painter crashing from his perch. He came down and
rushed into the yard to find the culprit, threatening as-
sault and battery if he should find him.

Now I never saw John in a fight [he continued].

It was not his nature. He told the painter he

had kicked the ball, and that he was sorry it

had struck him, but the painter only flared up

worse. . . . Before he could say much, though,
Mark was on him like a tiger, and although he

:28 just a boy, he gave that paintgg one of the
rst whippings a fellow ever had.
This story was sixty-five years old when it first saw print,
but if it is not true, it surely belongs with those anec-
dotes that could and should have been true. ,
Mark's triumphs still seem to have been all outside
the classroom. Some examples of his school composition
exeI'cises dating from July, 189+, were reprinted soon after
his death in the W Magazine as part of a series on
the "Early Ideals of Great Men."27 Where the originals may
be today is unknown, but these printed versions were said
‘30 come from a notebook saved by the schoolmaster of Hanna
and Rockefeller. Each of Mark'sfour themes is under 700
“ms in length; all but the first are written as single

W‘agraphs. "The Nations of the Earth" was a discourse on
\

111A 262211., pp. 8’+, 85, citing Darwin G. Jones intenview

Alerts 92mm, Feb. 12, 1922-

”Frank T. Seari ht, "Earéz Ideals of Great Men,"
WW Auéo, l9 ), 39940)...

20

the fate of Rome and the contrastingly happy prospects of
the United States at mid-century. It began:

This earth although ruled by the hand of one

mighty agent is a continued scene of variety and

change, for during a brief Space of time we wit-

ness the rise and fall of mighty empires. For

instance, Rome in ancient days, which like a

soaring eagle rose with unrivaled speed in the

world of fame, scarcely reached the highest pin-

nacle of glory when she commenced her downward

course to ruin. And what is she now compared

with what she was in former days? . . .

He compares the present power of the United States with

that of Rome and attributes its safety from a like fate

to his country's dependence upon the "industry and perser-
verance of her citizens instead of the fame and distinction
Of her arms." In conclusion, he points with pride to Amer-
1ca's "great cause of 'Peace and Industry among all men. '"
C°U1d this last phrase have been an adaptation of the fam-
iliar line from the Christmas carol? Did "peace, good-
Will to men on earth" turn in the mind of the budding young
merchant to "Peace and Industry among all men?" Perhaps so.
If it did, the occasion suggests a merging of the heard and
the seen in his experience that is none too common in any
W's thinking.

The second, in the order printed, and possibly inspired
by the first, was called "England and the United States."
The mother country's claims to favorable comparison he dis-
Misses in the first few sentences. Then on the wings of a

w
e11 Vern image he rises to defend the homeland:

21

'Tis true that England has been for many years
the unrivaled nation of the earth; but the United
States has been like a soaring eagle gradually
but rapidly mounting on their upward flight to
fame. . . . [Nine sentences later:] well may the
proud Peers of England scratch their heads and
look.grave as they behold the upward flight of
the proud eagle of America, which, not content
with the common spirit of nations, is seeking

a wider field of glory. And now she looks down
from her pinnacle of fame with the utmost con-
tempt upon the degraded situation of Despotism and

Tyranny.
Theyoung scholarts third piece is "True Friendship," a
hnef QXposition on the rarity and value of thick-and-thin
loyalty, It is the least stilted and most persuasive of
thefbur. Finally, there is "Life," a 500 word reflection
Onthe deathbed agonies of a hardened sinner calculated to
warn of the "shortness of this earthly part of life and
t°lem1nd us of the punishment in the life hereafter if we
do not improve the short time given us by our Maker in order
that we may prepare ourselves for future existence."

It is easy to smile at such cannonades of rhetoric a
hundredyears later. But in a day when webster and Clay
“mm Still models of style it must be admitted that these
would have been highly successful efforts. They reveal no
Jinnary flair, nor do they expose much original thinking.
The senit-iments expressed were common currency in the Western
Reserve than. what they do indicate is that their author

was a cOrnpetent pupil who very likely succeeded in pleasing

 

—-—.—

22

Insnnster. If they give no clue to his genius, it is be-
cause his genius lay elsewhere.

When.Mbrk entered college, he had already passed his
twentieth birthday. What had delayed him is unknown. He
may have started late, or he may have been kept back. If
thalatter, it doubtless caused his schoolteacher mother
amihis college-trained father more grief than it did him.
Thibulk.of what is known of his college days is the story
hetmld on himself when some forty-four years later the then
famous senator was invited to speak in honor of an anni-

versary of the same school. He makes it clear that he still

had no regrets:

I am neither a student nor a scholar, and it is
with diffidence I address this audience. My con-
nection with the Western Reserve College reaches
back as far as 1857. I had finished my education
at the public schools, and I had a choice of going
to work or attempting a college course. My mother
Persuaded me to try the latter. Western Reserve
College at "Hudson" was near at hand, and there I
went. I entered what was called the scientific
chase, in which a kind-hearted professor made things
easy for me. There were five members of the class
uhenI entered it. Later the numbers dwindled to
hree, and when I left there was not any.
My environment was largely responsible for

my going. At my boarding house I fell in with a
nutuber of jolly sophomores, and they persuaded me
to help them in getting out a burlesque program
of the Junior oratoricals. In the division of
labor it fell my lot to distribute these mock
programs. I well remember when the iron hand of
Professor Young fell on my shoulder. "Young man,"
e said, "what are you doing?" "I am distributing
literature and education," I replied, "at the ex-
Pense of the Junior class." Well, it was near the
end of the term, anyway, and I went home. I told
mWmother that I thought that I would go to work,

23

and that I was sure the faculty would be glad of
it. A little while after I met President Hitchcock
on Superior Street. I was in jumper and overalls,
for I was working. He asked me what I was doing,
and I told him "working." He didn't say anything,
but has eyes and manner said very eloquently that
he thought I had struck the right level. And the
moral.of that gtory is, boys, "Don't be ashamed

of overalls."2

If Mark had missed something by his distaste for book-
1earning, he had begun to miss it long before he entered
college and would continue to miss it later. Hanna's was
in large part an education by conversation. Had his con-
versation been informed by the background that a habit of
wide reading would have given him, presumably he would have
gained more from it. But such a habit never developed.
Probably it would not have even if his formal schooling had
been received from more inspired hands than it was. He
seemed to have a natural immunity to abstractions, and he
kn“ it. Some of the better anecdotes from his later years
reflect this side of his thinking--or his non-thinking, if
it °°u1d be called that. In 1896, as Thomas Beer tells it,

an ac(lllfilintance who was thinking of his brother Mel's name
\V—

quot 28Quoted in Croly, m, p. 37; on pp. 38, 39 Croly
or a“ a classmate in support of the prank story. 13. search
clndli‘chival materials at Western Reserve University in-
heating catalogs and the faculty minute book, reveals no

on Of Hanna or the prank described.

21+

asked Hanna if he was related to Herman Melville. "What
the Hell kind of job does Melville want?" was his answer.29

John Leary, in his m with La“ recorded another
story as Roosevelt told it to him:

"Hanna," said the Colonel, "sent Bunau-Varilla,
the French engineer, to see me about the Panama
Canal. Later I saw Hanna, and told him I could
do nothing with the man.

"Why, " I said, "that man would instruct
Cosmos. "

"Never mind Cosmos, " said Hanna, "Cromwell's

fii‘is‘é‘incifiiei‘i‘i ,tfihi1§§3“y§$L"ia5§£‘f§3t "mi”
But a liberal education of the traditional sort was never a
Prerequisite for success in the nineteenth century business
and POlitical world. An aptitude that Hanna always seemed
to have, for meeting, judging and learning from the people
he met from day to day, has always been a useful asset. It
may not be without significance that a recent biographer
0f Ft‘enklin Roosevelt gave one of his chapters the skeptical
heading "Groton: Education for What?" and noted that the
future President as a Harvard student (with a C average)
had °°mplained that his school program was "like an electric
lamp that hasn't any wire." When he learned the language of

Politics he did it as Hanna had, by the conversational meth-
od,31
\

29Beer, m, p. 233.
BOJOhn J Lear Jr Talksw T.R,, Er gm Diaries
22.19131 1:. 1425.21.22. (Boston, 1919 : Po 256 m

Jallies MacGregor Burns the Lion and the
41‘1“- Y., 1956), pp. 10,18,8619, ’ '

25

In the spring of 1858, then, Hanna went down to the
Mervin Street docks in his overalls and started learning the
family business at first hand. Hanna, Garretson and Company
was still a wholesale grocery, commission and forwarding
firm still operating along much the same lines that the
partners had followed separately in New Lisbon. Prosperity
and the new location, however, had brought some modifica-
tions. Salt fish, copper ore (then shipped as "mass" cop-
per), furs and iron ore made up the major part of the in-
coming shipments from Lake Superior ports. The groceries
and hardware needed by the new settlers of Wisconsin and
Minnesota were outbound from Cleveland. Up the Ohio Canal
from DOints as far away as New Orleans came sugar and molas-
ses as well as the pork and wool from nearby counties.32

Copper ore was nothing new to the older Hanna men, for
their brother Joshua had promoted a mine on the Ontonagon
River in about l8t+5, and both Robert and Leonard soon after-
ward tOOk shares in other mines for themselves.33 They had

Visited Lake Superior in the forties and were aware of its

Possibilities when they moved to Cleveland.3lt Iron ore, on
\—
2
Ba 3 Morrow interviews with Leonard C. and H. M. Hanna,
m“ Papers.

33Morrow interviews with H. M., Leonard C., and Kersey

Hum" Henna papers.
u
undat3 Smith. edu Benjamin Hum. pp. Ila-153. prints an
9d diary kept on this trip by Samantha Hanna. Internal

ev
idence places it in the New Lisbon years.

26

the other hand, was a new departure; the first shipments
to come to Cleveland from the Marquette range date from the
year of the Hannas' arrival. But with the opening of the
Soo locks in 1855 and the relatively poor quality of com-
peting Ohio ores it was an item destined to grow quickly to
ranking importance.35

Another innovation for the firm was its direct invest-
ment in lake shipping. First was the M, which was
lost while entering the harbor in high winds toward the
last of the 1856 season. The following summer the gm 91
Mgr. was ready, but it was lost the same year. Their
third and fourth attempts were more successful. The m-
an Light, a 700-ton vessel costing $945000, made its trial
run in May, 1858, and is known to have been still carrying
freight and passengers to Lake Superior ports as late as
1867. The still larger _L_a_i_q _L§_ gel}; was built for the 186th
season and appears to have survived for at least three years.

Mark and Mel worked on these later vessels as pursers from
\

27

time to time studying the operations of the firm's floating
stock.36
Mark seems to have kept up with his new business re-
sponsibilities, but it is certain that he never let them
infringe on his after-hours career as a young man about
town. He clerked in the store, sailed on the ships, even
went on the road as a salesman--one of the first of the
"drummers."37 At the same time he met his social reSpon-
sibilities with a smile. There were athletic afternoons
rowing on the river with the boys of the Ydrad Yacht Club.
There were races with the Ivanhoe Club and the annual fancy
dress balls where they could show off their best girls. In
all this he must have excelled, for he was elected captain
0f the club for two successive years.38 On weekends there
were sailing parties, dinner parties over in Rocky River,

and when the snow fell, sleighrides and more dances. There

Were horses to be raced and cards to be played. One of his

\

A a :6Works Progress Adrginistrsétjion in Ohio, District t+,
JILL Clgveland, 18; -1235 9 vo s. multi raphed for
{331‘s 1filB-l 7 , Cleveland, 1337-19 8), l 6: O 1852:
her7, @3629, 3632, i§6tn1 1, 1 62:39 7. This series,
emzit-flier cited as m of Cleveland, is an abstract of
V01 c198 in the daily press, usually the Cleveland Leader.
or “hes are cited by year rather than number and by number
a stract, where given, rather than by page number.

Moft'row interview with H. M. Hanna, Hanna papers.

38
vie Anna; p; m, 1860:110 1861:108; Morrow inter-
" With A. B. Hough, Cleveland, i905, Hanna papers.

28

friends from this set was interviewed in later years and
recalled only that Mark "didn't care for horse races . . .
although he would go along with the rest of us to enter-
tainments of that kind."39 Hanna himself would doubtless
have remembered when his bay mare, "known as Cleveland's
fastest horse," according to the press reports, was stolen
in the summer of 1863.ho But with all the good times and
late hours, he stopped short of real debauchery. At no time
in his life was he known as a drinking or a wenching man.

No less prominent on his social schedule were Hanna's
drills with the newly organized Perry Light Infantry. Al-
most inunediately after its formation in the spring of 1861,
he was elected second lieutenant!“ That he was chosen for
his Personal popularity seems clear, for certainly he could
not have been commended on the basis of any military skills.
H13 Prominence as the chosen spokesman for his boys appears
in nearly every newspaper reference to the company in this
period, When their departing captain was feted at the end
01‘ 1861, Lieutenant Hanna made a "neat speech of presenta-
tion" to go with a pair of navy revolvers and sword. The

f
Ollowing May, when they celebrated their first anniversary
\_

3
9Morrow interview with A. B. Hough, Hanna papers.

“Annals. of 912m, 1863:1591.

x,
11mg” 1861:883.

29

in the armory, a‘ feature of the banquet was Lieutenant
Hanna's address on the state's defense system and its re-
cent neglect.’+2 Whether he was eloquent may be doubted,
but at least for his friends he was willing.

The coming of the Civil War coincided with the last
years and death of Mark's father. Dr. Hanna was reported
in the press as seriously ill in May of 1860. On December
15, 1862, he died. For the more than two years that elapsed
between these dates he was inactive in business and his
Place was taken by his eldest son. Mel, the next in years,
Joined the navy and served throughout the War.“3

Probably there was no argument over Mark's going to
war in those first years. He had been made a full partner
in the firm shortly before his father's death, and there was
no question but that he was the one member of the immediate

family who could make a real contribution to the business.“

“211219. , 1861:1277 . 1862:3228.
N3Smith, ed., W Hanna, pp. 170-172. He was
commissioned assistant paymaster, partly through his

{ather's political influence, as was customary. See Morrow
nterview with H. M. Hanna, Hanna papers.

ad MtCroly m, p. I+3, prints the text of the newspaper
gertisement of the firm as reorganized under the name
H: ert Hanna & Co. Partners were Robert, Leonard and M. A.
ouftlnaBaand'S. H. Baird. After the war, H. M. Hanna bought
fem ird 3 interest. Garretson had left the old firm after
118' to get agreement of Hanna men to deal in liquors,

escording to Morrow interviews with Kersey and H- M- Hanna,
nna papers.

 

   

- I; O
t
'u: I
an. e

 

 

30

He was twenty-five at the end of 1862; Mel was twenty-two,

Leonard twelve and the unmarried sisters were eighteen, six-

teen and ten years of age.

Young Mark had become young M. A. Hanna, family bread-
winner.

Despite his new responsibilities, when in April, 186%,
the Perry Light Infantry was called into active service,
Hanna was with them. Now he filled the post of first lieu-
tenant in Company C, 150th Ohio Volunteer Infantry. One

wonders what kind of a record he would have made had he been

mustered in earlier and seen his share of action. If cour-

389, energy and a capacity for gaining the confidence of

his associates had counted for much, the Union army missed
one talent almost completely. For the men of Company C

were never under fire. Seven days after their muster on

May 12, 1861+, they were given a grand send-off to Washington
in upholstered railroad coaches and disembarked at that

place to be greeted by a meal of sow-belly, hardtack and
c0ffee.

When General Early threatened the capital city

they were in the line but at the wrong point to meet any

rebels. Even if they had seen action then, their "Jolly,

antfilm-haired, freckle-faced youth" of a lieutenant had been

detailed elsewhere. Much to his chagrin, he was on an er-

I'end as escort for the body of a comrade being returned to

31

Cleveland for burial. A month later, the entire regiment
was sent back home in cattle cars and mustered outfits
This in outline was Hanna's career as a soldier. It
is to his credit that he never felt called upon to enlarge
upon it in his later years in politics. He Joined the G.A.R.

only in 1901, and then introduced himself at his first camp-
fire with becoming modesty:

In 1861 I might have enlisted, but circumstances
prevented me. My father was on a sick bed. I
did the best I could. I sent a substitute. Four
years later I had the honor to be drafted. We
did have a brush with General Early, but that

was all. For that reason I did not thin§6l was
entitled to become one of your comrades

With countless other young men who whiled away the war
in camp, Hanna made a temporary sacrifice to the gods of
war that propriety forbade him to mention publicly. In his
case, her name was Gussie--Charlotte Augusta Rhodes. He
had thought he was in love once before--at the age of fif-
teen, to be exact--when he had had to leave Mary Ann McLain
in New Lisbon.1+7 But this was more serious. They had met

socially two years before, soon after she had returned from

—__

MLSWilliam J Gleason o S
. 3151:1531 .katfih the. 1123.11
W thsz ’ no a l 992; we
Angel; land, 188%:2328. p ’

’
9.! Cleve

k6crOJ-Y9 m: p. til}.

1,
C 7Morrow interview with Mrs. Samuel Prentiss Baldwin,
leveland

plies “9,112.32? Hanna papers. Croly, m, p. 32, sup-

32

a fashionable young ladies' finishing school in New York}+8
Unquestionably, she was a lady--a tall, straight girl, re-
served, dignified and lovely to look at.)+9 They had a
"desperate love affair," to use her words, but what lent
it desperation was less their own behavior than that of her
father, a formidable old gentleman named Daniel P. Rhodes.
Mr. Rhodes was a successful businessman, a pioneer in
the coal and iron trade and a power in local politics. He
liked a good party, a good drink, a good laugh or a good
“81112.50 With his prospective son-in—law he chose to fight.
Partly, no doubt, he wanted to see whether the young man
would defend his cause. Then too, he saw a rivalfor. his
daughter '5 affections. "It wasn't just Mark; he would have
epposed anybody," Gussie said later.51 But the reason her
father eXpressed openly was on the high plane of political

-—__

LI'8Morrow interview with Mrs. C. A. Hanna, Cleveland,
1905, Hanna papers.

“Smith, ed., W Hanna, pp. 63-68, reproduces a
number of photographs of her. Characterizations of her by
those who knew her in her youth are not to be found, so 1
Mave relied on conversations with her niece, Mrs. Malcolm
chride, Cleveland, her granddaughter, Mrs. Garvin Tankers-

GY, Bethesda, Md., and friend, Mrs. Alice Roosevelt Long-
Worth, Washington, D.C., all in 1959.

t 'Morrow interview with Mrs. C. A. Hanna, Hanna papers;
an hor s conversation with Mrs. Malcolm McBride, 1959; M31“

3:3 A. DeWolfe Howe, a 3 £219 32292;: W
. Y" 1929), PD. 15, 1 a

Morrow interview with Mrs. C. A. Hanna, Hanna papers.

33

principle. Here it must be admitted he had arguments.
Stephen Douglas was a cousin of Mr. Rhodes, and Rhodes was
executor of the fallen party leader's estate. He became a
bitter and much defeated local Democratic politician of

the strenously anti-war Vallandigham type.52 Hanna, on the
other hand, was not only a Republican, but had been elected
secretary of the Union Young Men whooping it up for Lin-
coln.53 '

Somehow, love conquered all. The suitor had been kept
away from the house, insulted and harangued, but that
"damned screecher for freedom," as Rhodes called him,5‘*
managed to win his case and his betrothal before he left
fer the wars.

Throughout the summer a stream of letters crossed one
another between Cleveland and Washington. Only a few of
Han1151's and none of hers have been preserved. The surviving
“min-98, however, illustrate more graphically than any
later recollections could possibly do the qualities of
Charm, Passion and persuasiveness the man could muster when

he set his sights on an objective.

\

. George Fort Milton, 519...: o
259933—1153, the. Needless .21: (Boston, 193 fit, . W61, 5,1
3522,377 863.52 hm 2i 9312111151 1861: 2662. 1 62 3u29,

53mg“ 21; Cleveland, 1863:22tt6.

°Prow interview with Mrs. C. A. Hanna, Hanna papers;

Croly%o
’ Hem, p. 1+7.

31+

Not long after his arrival in Washington, Mark became
ill. He arose from bed to keep a dinner appointment with
Mrs. Douglas, the senator's widow, and later in the evening
went for a drive with her and others out past Fort Stevens.
There they visited with Gussie's brother Robert, and then
wandered on to the Montgomery Blair estate, Silver Spring,
a "fairy scene" in the moonlight. The small talk in the

carriage dwindled away after awhile and soon "Miss Cameron

accused me of being pensive, m and everything else

and then Mrs. Douglas joined in about loved ones at home--

the effect of the moon on lovers ec. ec., until I was forced
in self defense to be as noisy as possible. We did not get
home until almost ten . . ." and then chatted and drank

tea till twelve. "Now don't scold when I have been so
honest to tell you about my dissipations. I knew it was a

late hour for an invalid to be out--but I made up for it by

lying abed this morning. ."55

A week later he had recovered and regained his stride:

You ask me if I will ever get tired of W
my darling-~what do m M? Have you ever seen
any 911m of my disposition to do so ? My
only fear is that I shall wear you out w you
so much. . . . I am counting the W as they
Pass and fairly panting for the time again to come
when I shall fold you to the heart that worships
you as its idol--to feel again your warm kisses
and Your arms aroundmy neck. . . .

\

5
SHEIIna to Rhodes, June lt+, 186%, Hanna papers.

35

Then there follows his only known essay on "the place of

women: "

You ask me darling if I would wish to have you
acquire more self-reliance and not be so entirely
dependant upon me for everything. As regards
everything pertaining to your happiness--if I can
always make you perfectly ha nothing will give
me greater pleasure than to ow that you will
always look to me for it. It will be a holy duty
to always protect and shield you. . . . I would
have my wife in all things pertaining to hg£_sphere
feel her ability to act upon such matters as con-
cern it with judgment and decision-~to show a self-
reliance as regards her woman's duties towards
others and an independence that will entitle her
to the respect of all. I am not an admirer of

- women, but when prompted by good
sense and well applied I would not respect a woman
that lacked enough spirit and independence to give
her influence and command the respect of others.
But 196this point I have no fear of you darling.

This patriarchal view of his wife's place in the home was
not something freshly conjured up. He had been accustomed
totming the man of the house since his father's last ill-
ness. Family responsibilities still lay heavily enough on
him that he asked his bride-to-be if she would object to
living with his family at first. Finances made it "almost
°ut0f'the question" for them to set up housekeeping for
themselves right away, and he felt he was still needed in
the home on prospect Street. After she had given her con-

sent he elaborated on this latter motive:
\

6
5 Same to same, June 21, 186%, 112.12.-

36

For in fact but a short time before our intimacy

I had made up my mind to devote many years of my

life (if they were apared me) to my Mother, broth-

ers and sisters. Several of them are now at that
age when it is all important for them to have such
an influence as mine over themsand for that reason

I felt that my duty was there.

Toward the end of their separation it becomes clear
that a recurrance of parental opposition is no longer any
threat. In his letter of July 28, Mark inquires how she
likes the new dresses her father has bought her, and asks
that she "give my love to your Father and Mother and tell

them how happy I shall feel when I shall have the right to
call them so."

There are bits of camp news scattered through the let-
ters: he reports on visits with her brother Rob and with
Jay Morse and George Chapin--both of them friends who would
later become his brothers-in-law. He passes on war rumors
that have come to him, examining each of them first for in-
dications of further delays in his release from the service.
Never does he get more than a few sentences away from his
theme Of love.s8

At one point he is without word from her for several
days, He becomes so anxious that he finds himself threat-

ening desertion:
\

”Same to same, June 22, 1861+, 3.22....

588
GVeni Same to same July 28, 1861+, and letter dated Wed.
“3 (11113., 186M, gm.

 

37

Oh.’ darling, I don't know what to think at not
hearing from you again today. The idea of your
being 392 sigk to Ell-5.2 almost drives me wild.
Can it be? I ask myself every moment. Oh, if
you are so sick, my own pet, what shall I do so
far away from you. I certainly thought I would get
a letter today and perhaps two, and when I looked
through the mail in anxious haste and saw none for
me in that well known address, my heart went down-
down- down. A sickening feeling came over me

and I must own that my heart is filled with such
a gainful anxiety that it almost unmans me. . . .
I can only conclude that you are ym £13k- And
oh Gussie you can better imagine my feelings than
I can describe them. There comes the thought
would not your Mother write me at least a few
lines and then again I ask the question what can
the reason be.

This anxiety of feeling may seem childish in
me but I cannot help it darling for are you not
dearer to me than my m 11:23,. . . . Would that
the next 2% hours were past. . . .

Oh, Gussie, Gussie-~my heart is so full I
cannot write tonight. Do not I beg of you let a
day pass if you are sick without letting me hear
from you in some way. Certainly your Mother or
Jimmie will write a line or two for I cannot live

in this state of uncertainty. I would not stay
here. . . .59 .

The happy ending came on September 27 in St. John's
Chm'Ch, with Mark's Ydrad rowing club friend "Allie" H0118h
standing up as best man. All went smoothly, with hardly
even a grumble from the cousin of Stephen Douglas. All he
said was, "Well, Mark, it's all over now, but a month ago I

would like to have put you in the bottom of Lake Erie."60
\—

5988.me to same, dated Wed. evening (Aug., 1861+), 1mg,
Hanna6OM0rrow interviews with A. B. Hough and Mrs. C. A.
and ’ $1214. The wording of Rhodes' comment seems awkward,
S Perhaps Croly was justified in revising it slightly.
ee his M, p. L#8.

CHAPTER II
M. A. HANNA AND HIS COMPANY

Augusta Rhodes chose a husband who resembled her father
in a number of ways. She found the same blunt masculinity,
the sometimes brusque insistence on his own way, and the
familiar love of high-spirited company in the younger man
that she had known in the older. She also found that both
of her men wanted to take care of her, each in his own way.
Mark Hanna would do it by carrying forward his own career as
a merchant and, presently, as an oil refiner. Daniel Rhodes
would do it by establishing his new son-in-law with a part-
nership in his thriving coal and iron business. The issue
between them was decided only after more than two years of
skirmishing.

Rhodes won the first round when he talked the young
couple into living with his family in their mansion on
Franklin Street rather than with Mark's family on the east
side. They stayed there for over two years before moving
into a small rented house on Prospect Street.1

Even there the would-be patriarch was not forgotten.
In December, 1866, a son was born to the Hannas, and soon

afterward he was christened Daniel Rhodes Hanna.

1Morrow interview with Mrs. C. A. Hanna, Hanna papers.
38

39

But Hanna balked at accepting a place in the firm of
Rhodes and Card; neither did he wish to limit his activities
to Robert Hanna and Company. He must try his hand at some-
thing new--something his. The oil industry was booming in
Cleveland: he would try that. Without leaving his old part-
nership, he formed a new one, taking a quarter share for
himself. His Uncle Robert took an equal share; the remain-
ing half was held by another man remembered only as Doher-
ty.2 Hanna, Doherty and Company got under way in April,
1865, with $100,000 capital and a good location along Wal-
vorth Run near the junction of two railroads. When in Jan-
uary, 1866, the Cleveland Leader surveyed the achievements
of the local 011 industry, the Hanna firm seemed well es-
tablished. Although less than a third the size of the
leading producer, Rockefeller and Andrews, it was employing
nine hands and in the last quarter of 1865 had refined
91+,'+00 gallons of burning fuels and 15,000 gallons of ben-
201, as well as lubricating and paraffin oils.

Their seven buildings stood fifty to a hundred feet
apart to eliminate fire hazards. One served as a cooper
shop and gave storage space for 1,500 unfilled barrels;
another held a thousand full barrels. There was a 3,000
gallon iron tank for crude and another of equal size under

construction for refined oil. Four small stills were in

g

2Morrow interview with H. M. Hanna, inn.

_.-—-. .4

_.__ .

l+0

constant operation. Altogether, the Hanna, Doherty plant
compared well with most of its thirty local competitors in
those first years.3

Into the oil business many were called but few were
chosen to survive. It seemed entirely possible that Hanna
would survive. Without the intervention of a timely fate
he might well have joined in the building of the Standard
011 Trust, as Henry Flagler and Oliver Payne did, and fol-
lowed John Rockefeller to New York. But after what hap-
pened at about 2:30 in the afternoon of February 8, 1867,
such a course was out of the question.

How the fire began was not explained in the next day's
papers, but its progress was recorded in lurid detail.
Originating in the treating house atop the steep hill that
rose from the banks of Walworth run, the blaze quickly con-
sumed wooden oil tanks and Spilled their burning contents
down the slope toward the buildings and stream below. A
flow of oily lava hit the eighty-foot long storage building
filled with empty wooden barrels and passed on to find the
benzine stacked in barrels on the ground below. Orange
flames and black smoke hid the burning cooper shop above
and slowly approached the creek below as volunteers rushed
to dam the water and organize a bucket brigade. Sixteen

hundred feet of hose were stretched across from the railroad

 

391212111111 Lesser, Jan. 8, 1866.

__.——-—-. Julian—*9. .

'11-'3-

\

1+1

reservoir to save the cooper shop from total destruction.
Meanwhile firemen tried to halt what had become literally

a stream of fire below. Floating oil soon burned the wagon
bridge and headed with the current toward a waste dump

along the banks downstream. There two dozen firemen,

starting work well ahead of the oncoming blaze, finally
stemmed the tide with a hastily built dam. It was over in
two hours. The partners estimated their losses for report-
ers at $15,000 to $20,000, and added that they were insured
only to $6,000 with a New York company they had no faith inf"

Back in the city Daniel P. Rhodes heard fire bells
and looked up to see black clouds of smoke. rising in the
southwest. He chuckled, "That's probably Mark's damned
refinery." Soon, he felt sure, the boy would lose every-
thing he had. Then he might listen to sense.

At two in the morning the "boy" came home covered with
soot. He was exhausted. A recent bout with typhoid fever
had left him pale and weak at the end of an ordinary day.
But now, "Well, I've got to the bottom," he admitted. And
he had. He was worth several thousand dollars less than
nothing. Any capital he might once have had was lost with
the 1&9. Lg 52.1.19. when she had collided and sunk in the St.
Clair river in five minutes one night the previous November.

And now the refinery. "If I had my health I wouldn't feel

-—‘

“m” Feb. 9, 1867.

1+2

so badly about it," he told Gussie, "but now I don't know
where we're going to land."5 While the baby slept, they

sat up until almost dawn.
In fact they must have known very well where they were

80mg to land. Certainly Daniel P. Rhodes did. He was at

the door before they had dressed in the morning, booming
out a hearty greeting: "Now I guess you two fools will
come home!" They would. Gussie even tried to look cheer-
ful. Mark could hardly manage that, but his father-in-law

was all consolation. "Now, Mark, your money is all gone

and I'm damned glad of it," he cheered.6
There was real consolation, however, in the terms

Hanna was given. Done with his badgering, the father-in-

law proposed to let him take a share in Rhodes, Card and

Company with a view to replacing him, at least in part.

Old Jonathan Card wanted to retire too. Hanna, with

Daniel's son Robert and an older partner, George H. Warm-g

ington, could carry on by themselves. Further than that,

he announced that he and Mrs. Rhodes were going for a long

vacation in Europe. Robert would stay, but otherwise the

 

SMorrow interview with Mrs. C. A. Hanna, Hanna papers.

6m.

—._,‘

43

big house was all theirs. It was a confession of confi-
dence--unspoken, perhaps, but nonetheless real.7

Breaking ties with Uncle Robert brought little grief,
for here too the younger generation had never been at ease
with the older. Robert Hanna was a highly respected busi-
nessman and a good salesman, but to Mark and his brother
Mel he seemed "old-fogyish" in his attitude toward new op-
Portunities. Mel remembered him later as "a large, heavy
man . . . not as energetic as he should have been." The
brothers argued the importance of going out of the store
to get customers. Mark had occasionally gone on the road,
but with little encouragement from Uncle Robert.8

Mark's departure was followed by a general dispersal
of the old firm. Mel was left in charge of a much reduced
business and shortly afterward sold the firm's stock to a
competitor. Uncle Robert Hanna took up banking. Before
long he was elected president of the newly organized Ohio

National Bank and from that vantage point continued to

m

7This account of the fire's aftermath follows that
given ihid, Leonard C. and H. M. Hanna, as well as Robert
R. Rhodes, when interviewed by Morrow, said they felt cer-
tain that the inducements offered by Rhodes rather than re-
verses in his own business brought Hanna to make the change.
But Mrs. Hanna's recollection was specific as to details
and is supported by what is known through the press (gim-
mm, Feb. 9, 1867) of the sequence of events. Loss

Of the has %% Bella was reported in the flmland Leader,
Nov. 26, 18 .

8Morrow interview with H. M. Hanna, Hanna papers.

1+)...

wield influence in the business community for more than a
decade.9

Brother Mel picked up what was left of the refinery
business. After rebuilding, he operated it for a few bleak
Years with new partners. Finally, in 1872, the plant was

sold for another but final loss to Rockefeller's new Stand-

ard Oil Company. 10

Rhodes and Company, as Mark's new connection was
called, had grown to prosperity during more than twenty
years of mining and selling Ohio coal and iron. Daniel
Rhodes had started in the days when he had to persuade
steamboat captains to try using coal instead of wood as
fuel. He owned a mine in Youngstown and later added prop-
erties in Massillon and Canal Dover, including a furnace at
the latter place. But primarily he was a middleman. The

 

91121.10, and Morrow interview with Leonard C. Hanna,
1nd,; Orth, Ml of Cd,leve1an xe67; Allen Nevins,

mm mm d
W<¥tis.,‘wétu’ L, 19 3). I 130. 59’

1C)Morrow interviews with H. M. and Leonard C. Hanna,
Hanna papers; Nevins, my Poger, I, 135, 136. Nevins
gives the purchase price at 5, 000 and says that H. M.
Hanna was dissatisfied. In any case, he established a
connection with Standard 011 that was profitable later.

See Nevins, 1mg., p. 152; and below, note 32.

 

*5

Rhodes partners would sell on commission as readily as on

their own account . 11

This, plus the opportunities that lay ahead, was the
material Mark Hanna was given to work with. Opportunities
were plentiful for those who could see and grasp them.
Mark's brother-in-law and business partner, James Ford
Rhodes, in looking back on this period, concluded that the
Civil War had found Cleveland a commercial town and left it
a manufacturing town.12 There was exaggeration in this,

f for the city's diversity of functions has long been a key
to its economic health. But Rhodes did emphasize an im-
Dortant point. With the passing of the war the railroad
If, network across the northern states was extended and per-
fected to the point where Cleveland's location between
canal and lakes no longer sufficed to assure her future
growth. It was not enough that she hold her place as
broker between the provinces, the forwarder and distributor
of others' products. Cleveland needed manufactures.
Fbr a time, as has been seen earlier, oil refining

became a leading enthusiasm. With two competing railroads

llJames Ford Rhodes, "The Coal and Iron Industry of
Cleveland," Magazine of Western Histgry II:’+ (Aug., 1885),
338, 339. This was written while Rhodes was still a part-
ner in Rhodes 8: 00., but beginning to wind up his affairs
with an eye to launching a career as an historian. His
retirement came in 1885, after eleven years with the firm.

1 lzIbid. , p. 337

 

1+6

reaching into the oil fields, haulage to and from Cleveland
was relatively inexpensive. Overexpansion, rate wars and
then monopolization gradually quieted the boom. A share

of the new industry did remain in Cleveland, but a share

of the profits from it also followed the Rockefellers to
New York.

More firmly tied to the city was a group of flourish-
ing ventures in iron and its products. Cleveland lay close
it" the Ohio coal fields on the south and was convenient to
the Lake Superior iron ores to the northwest. By the mid-
dle of the 1880's it was apparent that Cleveland men had
seen their fortune in iron and taken it. Their city was
the largest market for bituminous coal on the lakes. It
was headquarters for the largest investors in lake Super-
ior iron ores--those rich red diggings from the Marquette
Range then, and later from the Gogebic, Vermillion and
Mesabi ranges as well. It was the largest builder of the
ships that carried these ores. It was the home of over
130 iron, steel and related product firms employing more
than 17,000 men. Besides ships, they made rails, loco-
motives, boiler plate, wire, screws, stoves, wheels, pipes,

sewing machines, nuts and bolts, forgings and assorted
tools.13

g

13112151. , pp. 31+0-3I+l+.

47

Population figures, meanwhile, leaped higher with each
census. From roughly l+3,LI~OO in 1860 the total rose in the
next thirty years by 600 per cent, reaching 261,1+OO in 1890
and claiming tenth place among the nation's cities. Cleve-
land had still not overtaken Cincinnati, but it had passed
its eastern rival, Buffalo, and was gaining on the Queen
City to the south rapidly enough to pass her in another
decade. In short, Cleveland during the years Hanna knew
it was setting a "broadjump" record over its population
rivals throughout the country: from thirty-seventh position
in 1850 to seventh in 1900.3“

With progress came greater extremes of wealth and pov-
erty. Much of the new population was attracted from Europe.
Added to an already substantial foreign-born population of
Germans and Irish in the postwar years came first the B0-
hemians and then a sustained wave of Russian Jews and south-
eastern Europeans--the "Slav invasion" that manned the mills
and fact'OI‘ies and crowded the slum areas on Whiskey Hill or
Wherever railroad tracks and drifting smoke made living
least desirable.”

At the other end of the social scale were the stately
Mansions that first made Euclid Avenue synonymous with

13+
R(Dee, glgvelang, pp. 600, 679-

15
has pp. 500, 501.

H8

conspicuous wealth. For if the Hannas came to new fortunes
in the last decades of the century, so did a great many
others. The Rockefeller men have been noted before, but
there were also men like Henry Chisholm and Charles A. Otis
of steel-making fame; ironmaster Fayette Brown and his in-
ventive son Alexander; Charles F. Brush, another inventor
and the developer of the are light, dynamo and central
Power station; Jeptha H. Wade, pioneer telegraph promoter
and ubiquitous financier; the Mathers, father and son,
whose distinguished New England ancestry was less well re-
membered than their steadily growing fortunes in the same
line that Hanna was to follow--iron, coal and ships; Captain
Alva Bradley with his fleet of ships and his son Morris
with his real estate and industrial investments; and Dan
Parmalee Eells, banker and railway promoter.16

A8 fortune builders, these men set a rapid pace. The
Hanna bI'Others outdistanced some, perhaps-~estimates are
difficult to judge this 1ate--but they remained a part of
the same formation. This is not to deprecate Hanna's busi-
ness achievements, or to suggest that "everybody was doing
it“. Indeed, the rate of business failure was never low

1
n this period. It does suggest, however, that as Hanna's

1
Avery 6B1Ographical sketches are available in Elroy M.
Chicaéog 1:1 or 91, Cleveland and its Environs (3 vols.,
: 91

L+9

partner Robert R. Rhodes observed later, "We took over the
business at an opportune time."17
If there was money to be made, and if Hanna made it,
it remains to be seen how. He expanded the business, of
course. The full story cannot be told for lack of avail-
able documents.18 Basically, however, it seems clear
that the firm grew in three different but closely related
w3Y8. First, it extended its interests geographically.
Second, it enlarged its own production of iron ore, coal
and Pig. And finally, it became involved in the related
functions of shipping and shipbuilding and dock management.
There was more in this than a simple response to op-
Dot‘tunities for making money. Competition demanded it. A
gradual process of vertical integration, bringing together
all the steps that led to the finished steel product, was
taking Place elsewhere. The middleman's function was being
taken over by his old customers. To survive, Hanna's firm
and its rivals--main1y Pickands, Mather and Oglebay and
Nortonr-were obliged to imitate. All of them became more

than sales agents in order to compete even as sales agents.

That all three firms would grow and prosper was a tribute

l
1905 7MOrrow interview with Robert R. Rhodes, Cleveland,
’ rIna papers.

and co The bulk of the records accumulated by M. A. Hanna

Years bpany are reported to have been discarded in recent

1 it V its successor, the M. A. Hanna Company. One use-

Sioh ten does survive, but the author was refused permis-
° utilize its contents for publication.

. I2..-

50

to their foresight and adaptability. Their alternative,
however, was not a stagnation in the status quo of the early
Seventies, but eventual elimination.19

Hanna had learned something about the Lake Superior
iron ore trade in his earlier career. It was as apparent
to him as it was to others that the trade had an important
future. The problem was one of entering his firm in com-
Petition profitably. Nothing sudden occurred. Beginnings
were made in the middle Seventies with commissions for the
sale of charcoal-forged iron. Gradually all of this pro-
duct, considered essential at the time for making car
wheels, was brought east by Rhodes and Company. Mining
investments became an important assurance of trade for the
firm. They are difficult to follow in detail, for as pros-
pects in the several ranges varied, individual mines changed
haedS- In 1880, for example, the West Republic mine in the
Marquette range was purchased in the hope that the high
quality Ores found on neighboring properties would extend
t” within its boundaries. Ten years later that hope was
given up, Production had fallen off so drastically that
the $500,000 investment was sold for one-fifth of its par

19
See Walter Havishurst lain sf. Lien: lbs Blakanda
0n the (Cleveland, 1958) on the history of that firm.
Morrow itltegrating trends in each of the firms, see the
Paper:.int erview with Andrew Squire, Cleveland, 1905, Hanna
Y., 19,; Gary 0. Evans, Lynn P LP 91m (N.
(July 223; “"Cre, Ships and Gentlemen' m XXII: 1
a 19%)), pp. 3 ff.

'_~_1__’._'~'Ah'

51

value. Not long after this the Hanna firm took control of
the great Chapin Mining Company properties in the Menominee
range. This was the second largest active producer in the
iron regions and even under the depressed prices of the
summer of 1891 it was employing 900 men.20

In 1879, the members of Rhodes and Company bought con-
trol of a furnace at Sharpsville, Pennsylvania. In 1892
they undertook to rebuild an abandoned furnace at Buffalo,
New York. Pig iron was the most nearly finished iron prod-
uct the Hannas produced on their own account.21 By the
time they were in a position to consider entering into the
““38 0f finished steel products the field had been ef-
fectively closed to newcomers by the success of those who
had started earlier.

The few furnaces mentioned, together with the coal
mines already owned or controlled by Rhodes and Company,
‘10 not constitute an exhaustive list of the Hanna firm's
intereStS in these areas. No complete list can be made,
but even if it could be it would not be a simple list of
items owfled or controlled outright. Here was a

20
(131m, OMOrrow interview with Leonard C. Hanna, Hanna papers;

ai Dgnler May 31, 1890 Marine ngiew IV:1
Cleve]: 91 . This atter publication was a weekly

ceeded ljournal devoted to lake shipping news. It sue-
the unripe Rgggrd in 1890.

21
magnorrow interview with Leonard C. Hanna, Hanna papers;
w IV: 3 (July 21,1892).

52

characteristic arrangement: a mine or furnace whose owners
needed financial help would be accommodated by the Hannas
acting individually or in various combinations; in return
came not only the interest on the loan, but a contract for
the exclusive right to supply, carry or sell the product,
as the case may be.22 Thus an assortment of outside agree-
ments were made for the purpose of feeding business to the
Parent firm of Rhodes and Company--or M. A. Hanna and Com-
pany, as it was renamed in 1885?3 Because the parent firm
"33 8 Partnership, and therefore subject to unlimited lia-
bility in case of failure, there was sense if not simplic-
ity in having its members compartmentalize their risks in
this way. Failure, if it came, would come piecemeal.

One important extension of the firm's business, how-
ever, was made directly. Beginning in the early Seventies,

according to Laonard Hanna, the parent firm leased the
\w

2
auth fMorrow interview with Andrew Squire, Hanna papers;
8 m” S conversation with Ralph Perkins, Cleveland, 1957.
b3. :1? “as a close personal friend of Hanna and Senior mem-
Hmna, Squire, Sanders and Dempse , the law firm that handled
is a Cf legal work from about 187 to his death. Mr. Perkins
eveland attorney long acquainted with the Hanna fam-

1

ly and local business history.
2

brothQBThe change of name followed the retirement of the
’3 Robert R. and James F. Rhodes. Leonard Hanna had

to
“2:130 the fir-m in 1875 and was made a partner in 1879-

Served . Saunders, a younger cousin of the Hannas who

Charla aS secretary in the office for many years, and

early 18C. Bolton both were partners for a few years in the

been a 90's. Howard Melville Hanna seems never to have

active partner during Mark's lifetime, though he was an
leader in allied enterprises.

53

Pennsylvania Railroau's ore docks at Ashtabula. They added
to their equipment and soon, by grace of the railroad, came
into complete control of the major dock facilities in that
important harbor. Profits from ore handling went to the
Hannas, and in return they protected the railroad's posi-
tion as carrier. Rhodes and Company became the Pennsyl-
vania's loyal partisan against local or other railroad
interests on the lakeshore. It was a partnership conven-
ient for both interests but of greatest importance to the
Hannas, for they were already dependant upon the railroad
for carrying their ore to the furnaces of western Pennsyl-
vania. That there were no significant quarrels between
them is suggested by the fact that Mark Hanna became a dir-
ector in a railroad leased by the Pennsylvania, the Cleve-
land and Pittsburgh. Besides the Ashtabula docks, the
firm leased facilities at Cleveland and Erie from the Pen-
nsylv"7“13|-8., and owned docks at the head of Lake Superior?!"
As has been noted, there was an element of necessity
in the growth of the parent firm in the years Hanna was as-
s°°1°ted with it. All the more fortunate, then, when an
oppol‘tnnity such as is found in shipbuilding presented it-
self in 1886. John F. Pankhurst was a veteran shipbuilder
who was having some differences at the time with his

2
mug-Morrow interview with Leonard C. Hanna, Hanna papers;

Eerie! 1:1t (March 27, 1890).

51+

partners in the Globe Iron Works Company. He approached
the Hannas with the suggestion that they might buy control
with him. Brother Mel had been making a thorough study of
Ship construction and took the lead in accepting. He,
Leonard and Mark Joined Pankhursb and one of his earlier
Partners in a reorganization with Mel as president and
Pankhurst as vice-president and general manager.25

A sample of what they could do was not long in coming.
We, launched in February, 1887, set a new standard in
ore freighters. She was 300 feet overall, boasted the
first triple-expansion engines ever installed and set speed
records wherever she went. Valued conservatively at
$160,000, she was all steel and iron--the second such de-
Darture from the conventional wooden bottoms to go into
service. In October, one sister ship, 902L132, was
launched, and the following June came another, m. The
three ships were unequalled in capacity, valuation and
Speed, and all were made part of the Hanna ore fleet?"6
These were not the Globe Company's only products; other

freighteps were being built regularly on commission, and

25
Hanna MOrrow interviews with Andrew Squire and Leonard C.
- buildi Hal'lna papers; Richard C. Wright, "A History of Ship-
1957) “$1111 Cleveland, Ohio," inland sgag x111:2 (Summer,
3

0, 111.
26

1887. Jamming P ai page; Jan. 31, July 15, Oct. 21,
3185’00‘1118 9, l , 1 . Ca ria' insurance valuation was
’ 0. See ipid., July 11, l 7.

55

the yards' output soon passed all competitors.27 Firsts
in technical innovation continued to add prestige--in 1890
the first steel masts on the lakes; in 1892 a patent steam
steering engine, and others. In 1891 the company submitted
low bids on two large light ships to be used by the govern-
ment on the coasts. Contracts were made for entire fleets.
Five ore carriers for Ferdinand Schlesinger of Milwaukee
in 1890 and 1891 were followed by six passenger and freight
ships for James J. Hill's Great Northern fleet. These
last, begun in 1892, were estimated to cost $600,000 each
and featured quadruple-expansion engines. By this time,
Globe had a subsidiary yard in Chicago and later it bought
the rival Ship Owners' Drydock Company in Cleveland.28
While it was Mel Hanna who took the lead in this area
0f the brothers' enterprises, both Leonard and Mark made
contributions. Shipbuilding challenged and developed
Mark's unusual mechanical aptitudes. Here he worked with
his partners and with Panlmurst, as at the docks, coal and
ore Mines he attended eagerly to the workings of the hoist-

ing and Processing machinery. While never qualified as an

27
Human-Q", June 19, 1890; Morrow interview with H. M.
’ Harina papers; @1129. Reflex, II:2’+ (Dec. 11, 1890).

Mannwright, "Shipbuilding in Cleveland," pp. 111, 111+;

Wieview 11:2 (July 10, 1890) Ilzzh (Dec. 11 1890),

%(Nov. 3, 1892), VI:2‘+ (Dec. 15, 1892)' 9.1M 21.8.1.1;

Hanna {JaApril 2%, 1891; Morrow interview with H. M. Hanna,
Ders.

56

engineer himself, there is testimony to suggest that no
small part of his success and enjoyment in his work came
from his flair for the logic of machinery.29

However successful the Globe Iron Works, became, it was
only one more means to the end of greater self-sufficiency.
Those great steel ore carriers must be used to carry Hanna
01‘9 ‘50 JOin Hanna coal in Hanna furnaces. For years the
bl‘OtheI'SS had controlled a wooden fleet known as the Cleve-
land TranSportation Company. Then in September, 1887--just
as mils; was launched--Mel placed an advertisement in the
papers offering to sell all but one of the fleet's eight
shiPs. The one exception was the old schooner Leonard 9_._
Home. built in 1872 and doubtless kept now for sentimental
I‘easons. Apparently unaware of the distinction it had been
given, the ship went astray in a fog less than a month
later and had to be abandoned after running aground.30 In
place of the old wooden fleet there appeared the Mutual
Transportation Company, a million dollar concern headed by
Leonard Hanna and completely controlled by members of M. A.
Hanna and Company. Competitors began to fear the dead hand
of monopoly, if the Elfin W marine editor Spoke for

t
hem,‘ He wrote of the danger at some length in one October

\\_—-

2
Hanna 9Morrow interviews with Andrew Squire and A. B. Hough,
Papers; Beer, Hanna, p.'130.

12387.30an Elainoealei, Sept. 29, Oct. 10. 13. 17,

57

column, pointing out that the carrying capacity of the
Mutual's three new ships would more than exceed that of the
entire wooden fleet being offered for sale, "and the time
which will be gained from the speed of these new boats

cannot be estimated." The Hannas already had an ore busi-
ness equal to that of any company on the lakes, he asserted,
"and the ships are built by that monster concern, the Globe
iron works company, in which they are also the controlling
owners." What portended evil days ahead, however, was not

high monopoly prices but the lower prices that would squeeze
out the smaller vessel owners.31

It would be inaccurate to say that this road to wealth
had no rough spots. One in particular stands out in the
recollections of Hanna's friends. It has already been
noted that the firm at one time owned the Chapin Mining Com-
Pany, and that the Globe Iron Works built a fleet for Ferd-
inand S<‘:hlesinger of Milwaukee. Behind these transactions
was a story that involved both. Schlesinger was an immi-
grant hardware dealer who had a yen to promote great mining
enterprises. After one speculative failure in the Gogebic
range, he persisted until in 1889 he made news with the
purChfiSe of $2,000,000 worth of non-Bessemer ore properties

i
n the Menominee range. He hoped to build a 200 mile rail-

ro
ad fI‘om the mines down to Escanaba, where he would

311213., Oct. 3, 1887.

58

construct a new group of docks and ship out his own ore. He
asked Mel Hanna if Globe would build him five large steel
ships in return for a contract to carry his ore at a price
favorable enough to pay for the ships within six years.
Arrangements were made through a separate company, organ-
ized as the Menominee Transit Company, incorporated in
December, 1889 at $2,000,000 by the three Hanna brothers,
an associate of Schlesinger, and Andrew Squire. Unfortun-
ately, Schlesinger was unable to place his railroad bonds
and soon Vent into receivership. The Hanna brothers had,
3’ M91 Put it, a "lively winter" bailing out their friend
and cuSolionier from Milwaukee. They attracted help from the
Vanderbilts, who took mortgage bonds on the ships at six
per cent and joined Mark and a group known as the Twombly

Syndicate in refinancing the mines under Mark Hanna's man-
agelllezit.

bilts'

The railroad and docks they sold to the Vander-
Chicago and Northwestern Railroad. By the Spring of

l

892’ Schlesinger was propped up again and ready to move
a
head, though at a somewhat slower pace.32

The Schlesinger story is only one of several that il-

l
“hates the teamwork with which the Hanna brothers oper-

at
98° Yet each of them had his own career. Both Leonard

32Morrow interview with H. M. Hanna Hanna papers;
1891i}

me! 1:17 (June 26,1890), III: il (March 12,
20, 2:, IV8£139(July 2, 1891); leland Elam Dealer. Dec.

59

and Mel were shrewd and successful entrepreneurs in their
own right.

Leonard differed from his oldest brother Mark in a
number of ways. He was quieter, more of a student and more
of a family man. When his education at a private academy
in New York State had been completed in 1867, he had re-
turned to Cleveland and a place in Mark's oil refinery.
MOVing from there to his uncle's business, he continued
learning his way in the business world while he made a
name for himself in his free time as an athlete. A pic-
ture of the first professional baseball team in Cleveland,
The "Forest Citys," shows Leonard 0. Hanna as second base-
man. But the ball field was not the place then for a car-
eer that it has become since the coming of the Cleveland
Indians. This second-baseman soon moved to St. Paul, Min-
nesota, and entered the coal business for himself. By 1875
he had returned to a position with Rhodes and Company and
by 1879 had been made a partner. It was Leonard who took
0V9? the reins of M. A. Hanna and Company when Mark left
buIiiness for politics. "Doc," as Mark called him, stayed
Out of politics. The brothers remained close, however,

both as friends and neighbors. They built adjoining homes

60

on the lake west of the city and their children were con-
stant playmates}3

Howard Melville Hanna was his "rich brother," ac-
cording to Mark. There was truth as well as compliment in
this, for "Mel" probably became the wealthiest of the three.
He had been the only one of them to spend much time in col-
1i‘386--Union College in Schnenectady, New York--and the only
one to see much active service in the Civil War. His ven-
ture in oil refining has already been touched upon. He lost
a career in that line by selling out to Rockefeller's
Standard Oil, but he wisely kept his investment in the com-
pany, Later investments in the American Tobacco Company
were equally profitable. His own career, however, was in
shiDbuilding and management. As much as any man in the
buSiness, he spoke for the vessel owners. Letters from him

to be found in the papers of the political leaders of his

“

33 Wallace H. Cathcart Emigggegn
Pu . 100 Cleveland, 1919 ,

m,
DD. 22-2 Avery III, 13 Rose vel
PD- 315,}; 55, 356; CRalph Perkins, 11.9%? s as
(Cleveland, privately printed, 1937, pp. 2, 3, is good on
echildren and family life of the brothers. Morrow in-

terView with Elmer Dover (Washington, D. C., 1905) mentions
nich‘iame "Doc. "

61

day are almost invariably prompted by matters directly con-
cerning his shipping business.3l"
There is more to be said of Mark Hanna's career in the
business world,35 but this may be an appropriate place to
look at him at home, in society and as a fledgling in local
POlitics. After a few years with Rhodes and Company--by
about 1878--he was definitely established as one of the
Wealthy young men of the city. Socially, his business suc-
cess meant only that he could maintain the position that
he had been accustomed to. Both he and his wife now became
second generation successes in their own right, rather than
mere legacies of their fathers. There was no need to ad-
Just to a new social status. When Hanna conformed, he
seemed to do so naturally rather than from any timid aware-
ness of the social necessities. His own self-consciousness
"“53 of his self-confidence. If he could be arrogant and
thielm-skinned in occasional moods of truculance, his usual
afi‘ability was lively with good humor. Nor did he save his
run for a select group of intimates. Indeed, he had no

intimates; he had long lists of hearty friends and welcome

3‘+

wallace H. Cathcart
3mm 1 Pub. 10'83S:E;CLl:elve1and192Emlg,

WW
913- 17-19.8Ra1ph1and Muriel E. Hidy, W mug

aim A Meteor. 2111312 23.11...“ dar 911 Some:
(N. Y., 1955 p. 722, note 8, lists H. M. Hanna

igggne of the forty-one stockholders of that company in

 

H
C47

35
See Chapter I II .

62

acquaintances. There was the story told by Lucius F.
Mellen, an older friend of the family who had been a com-
missioner to the 1867 Paris Exposition. The elder Rhodes'
had also been to Paris for a visit at the time, and on
their return they invited Mr. and Mrs. Mellen to a dinner
party at their home. Mark, meanwhile, had come across a
copy of a press agent's pretended telegram that was being
sent wholesale to Clevelanders in advance of the appear-
ance in town of a glamorous young actress. It read, "I
"111 meet you in Cleveland next Tuesday," and was purport-
edly signed by the actress. He found an envelope for it,
addressed it to his father-in-law, and in the middle of the
diliner party pulled it from his pocket. "I have a telegram
for you, father. Forgot to give it to you when I came
home," Daniel P. Rhodes fumbled for his glasses, tore open
the envelope and read. Then he read it again, aloud. "Who
in thunder is this woman? I don't lmow her!" he sputtered.
"What," the son-in-law pursued, "a telegram from a
“Oman making an engagement to meet you? That's a pretty
State of affairs!" Nobody else understood the telegram all
evfining, but Mark enjoyed making the most of it in repeated

1‘8 f erences . 36

 

1 36Morrow interview with Lucius F. Mellen, Celveland,
905’ Hanna papers. 0n Hanna's sense of humor . F. Rhodes
Observed that he was "rather undiscriminating in his response
0 humorous fancies and, though some of his intimates found

a dhim an amusing companion, it was mainly his whole-hearted
fiery that made them laugh." See his Male: and Roose-

., p. 8.

63

This was the boisterous boy in Hanna, the boy who
still organized sleigh races down Euclid Avenue with his
friends on cold winter nights, and who a few years later
would star in an amateur production of "Mr. Pickwick and
his Friends."37

A bout with malaria when he was vacationing at Nar-
ragansett in the late Seventies probably marked as well as
anything else the entry of middle age.38 In any case, by
roughly 1880, Mark Hanna had evolved into the citizen M. A.
Hanna. He grew heavier, more sedentary, and still more
Prosperous. Now he was more than another partner in a lead-
ing 10081 firm; he was, as will be detailed later, the pub-
lisher of a daily newspaper, the proprietor of the city's
leading opera house, a large investor in a street railway,
and a director of the Huron Road Hospital.

Then, too, he was the father of three growing children.
When he saw them in the mornings, scampering among guests
in the evenings, or playing through the house on Sundays he
tried to do his part as a trainer and guardian of Dan and
his young sisters. But the patience and imagination that
brings father and children together were never his. Mrs.

Ha
nna found him gruff and authoritarian with them; he found

\_

3
Vere 1.73311? play was produced Dec. 30, 1873; sleigh races
Rose a“""’1’1lonable through to the end of the century. See
’ 19 , pp- 3 8. #3».

3
8MOrrow interview with Mrs. C. A. Hanna, Hanna papers.

 

.—
H.‘ em

 

 

61+

her overindulgent.39 Dan was a homely, friendly, fun-loving
boy of no outstanding talents that have been remembered.
Mabel, the older girl, was in some degree mentally retarded.
While she was as sociable and amiable as any, she lacked

the intelligence ever to grow into responsible adulthoodfio
It was Ruth, the youngest, who showed her father's temper-
ament. Ruth was slim, bright-eyed and spunky. When she
liked something as she liked horses, nothing stopped her
from riding. When she disliked something as she disliked
school, there was no forcing her to study. She was sent to
expensive eastern academies and found them dull. At six-
teen, her formal education was dismissed as hopeless and

she was put to work briefly in a mine office in Michigan.
FPO!!! there she apparently returned to a life more of her own
choosing. She entered Cleveland society and then Washington

SOCiety, and meanwhile developed an intelligent interest in

‘

39What is said here of Hanna's relations with his
ghildren is the author's conclusion based on Ralph Perkins,
Wit "W, pp. 2, 3 author's conversations
Ta *1 Ralph Perkins, Cleveland, 1657, with Mrs. Garvin
"kersl BethesdaigMd” 1959, and with Mrs. Malcolm

ey
"Wide 3 Cleveland , 59.

i,
01‘ Ha oMabel is not mentioned at all in other biographies
but bnna- The family seems to have been protective of her
Y 110 means reticent to admit that she existed. In
d1ed’pshe was married, though there were no children. She
Six p ec- 29, 1932. The author's information came from
690 (gsons who knew her. See also Harper's a a XXXIV:
D&Ss1 1‘Crh 16, 1901), Cleyeland Press, Feb. 2 , l9 0, and

"111128 Imention of her in Hanna to McKinley, June 10, 1899,
Cone“In M(:Kinley papers, Manuscript Division, Library of
339 Washington.

65

her father's political career that would continue through

her life and eventually bring her own election to Congress.“-
Hospitality was a part of life at the Hanna house.

The mistress of the household never knew how many guests to

expect for dinner from one night to the next. The dining

room table would seat twenty-four and often did. As soon

as she had learned to count that high, little Ruth was given
the task in the evenings of watching at the front window for
the dust of the approaching caravan and report to the cook

the number of guests before they reached the door. The un-

expected arrival of whole platoons of new faces was an al-

most daily event, but Mrs. Hanna eventually learned to bear

it with a smile. She was a good manager and a gracious,

attractive hostess, a lady of dignity and presence. The
cooking was in the sure hands of Maggie, a transfer from

the Rhodes household."2 It may be that for company the menu
was more elaborate, but when the head of the house had his

preferences he avoided fresh meats in favor of corned beef

_‘

i,

tion 1'This sketch is based primarily on author's conversa-

See slwith her daughter, Mrs. Garvin Tankersley, in 1959-
nda so Joseph B. Perkins, 57 B, '5 Final Bullgtin (Cleve-
0'; fiivately printed, 193 , p. 63, and her sketch in

Mt,” ~9. Jail Wig; under the name Ruth Hanna McCormick
“1811 1932 and

her death in lnguth Hanna Simms between that date and

fl

author'Morrow interview with Mrs. C. A. Hanna, Hanna papers;
With 3 conversations with Mrs. Garvin Tankersley, 1959,
1959. J Ph Perkins, 1957, and with Mrs. Malcolm McBride,

’ “11‘ 13. Foraker, 1 Wguld Live Lt Again, p. 91.

66

hash, creamed chipped beef (alias "doonkey"), bacon, fried
pickled pork or little deer-foot sausages. And equally
plain vegetables-~roasting ears, succotash, limas--with
cornbread and a helping of "smear-case." Maggie's rice
pudding, hot gingerbread or plain cookies were all he would
ask for in desserts. There might be a bottle of claret on
the table, but Hanna himself drank little of that or of
coffee and tea. His preference among drinks between meals
was plain Vichy water, and in the summers he would take on
great quantities of it. But his most noticeable excess was
the fine Havana cigar. No one knew him long without seeing
him light up; his cigar became a standard prop, pointing
out from his face like a smoking cannon.M3

Downtown his habits were equally gregarious. He would
have a late lunch at the Union Club and then, if the whim
came on him, sit down to an afternoon of whist. His brother
Leonard thought he was "w‘hist-crazy," at times. He "used
to ~ - . make fellows neglect their business to play; stay
Over for supper to play." On Saturdays he might keep on
till midnight, though at other times he might suggest ad-

ment to his house for the evening sessions.1W While

*

#3
EM, gfcggk, 1:19. We PP- 2’+1, 211-2; Knight, 11m-

Hannfinxorrow interviews with Leonard C. Hanna Mrs. C. A.
’ OTIS]. Hough, and William J. McKinnie, a l in Hanna
e

pa
Susiisgt last two mention that the game was played for

akes

 

" ‘-

v“
a

v‘

in

3..
III

 

 

 

67

he spent less time at the game in his middle years than
later, his style was probably the same. A partner for many

years remembered that

Mark was a very good player for a man who talked
as incessently as he did. He would discuss
everything that was going on in town and was
fond of getting any kind of a rig on some one.
He would pounce on me pretty often. I am not
much of a whist player and if I was clumsy or
stupid and made a number of mistakes he would
jump on me like a lion and act as if he meant to
eat me up. He would say "that is the damnedest
play I ever saw," or something like that. Those
who were acquainted with him paid no attention

to what he said; lthey knew he was having fun in
the way he liked.

This love of masculine company was an end in itself,
however well it might serve other ends. Because he was in
business and politics, most of the men he brought home were
useful contacts in his work. But if he calculated his
visitors' usefulness, it was as much for what he could
learn from them as for what he could impress on them.

People were his books. His dinner table was a kind of cir-
culating library. Books of the printed variety Hanna found
Web less stimulating, perhaps because they offered no

chance to talk back. Out of family pride he read his

brother-in-law's histories as they appeared, but for the

K

‘

Morrow interview with w. J. McKinnie, Hanna papers.

68

most part he confined himself to topical pieces in the mag-
azines and newspapers. Above all, he read people.’+6
Religion he approved of from a distance. He would
agree to become a vestryman in his wife's church, for ex-
ample, but never a member. Had he not been the son of a
Quaker married to a Presbyterian and himself married to an
Episcopalian, he might have been less diffident. As it
was, he gave up on theology. If he got into heaven at all,
he once said, it would have to be on his wife's coattails.'+7
Meanwhile, he lived by the moralities he felt sure of, and
hoDad to be Judged by his works.

As a door of good works he proceeded in his own style,

spontaneously and unpretentiously. He enjoyed doing a

favor, but to be known as a philanthropist was never among

his ambitions. There was no hesitating to await the results

of a thorough investigation after the manner of a Rocke-
feller. He preferred to take a ragged newsboy under his
"1‘18, seeing him through college and into the Methodist

mi“1""31'3'. The streets were full of ragged newsboys, but

‘

DOVer ”0113 213 reading, see Morrow interviews with Elmer

. B. Hough both in Hanna papers° Beer Hanna
31156325? Rhodes, W, and W’Am’ . ’
’ g .

l+7
See alsMorrow interview with Mrs. C. A. Hanna, Hanna papers.

JOhn 51:21.3? With Leonard C. Hanna, 32151., and Hanna to

D1v1 a Jan. 6 1893 John Sherman papers Manuscript
81°“, Library of’Congress, Washington. ,

 

69

this one delivered his own paper at the office.""8 Occas-
ions like this caused him some trouble to dissemble a senti-
mental streak that embarassed. Displays of kindness made
him nervous. They invited the fuss and flattery--"taffy"

he called it--that only the full-blown hypocrite could en-
joy. A shield of brusqueness served to keep the sycophants
away and to discourage appeals to sentiment. When, for
example, two Sisters of Charity called at his office one
rainy day to ask for a contribution toward the purchase of

a horse, he curtly told them that he had exhausted his
charity fund for that month and they would have to try
another time. When they were beyond the door, he summoned

his coachman. He was to take them back to their convent.

When he arrived he would leave the horse with them as a
present.l“9

Inevitably, Mark Hanna is remembered for his politics.
Because he became so closely identified with the political
interests of the business community in Later years, it is
sometimes assumed that his interest in the Republican Party
developed only as a sideline of his business--that it

‘.

1,
land 8Morrow interview with Rev. John s. Rutledge, Cleve-
’ 19051 Hanna papers.

1+9
Morrow 1
1905, Hanna papreltgrview with Frank M. Chandler, Cleveland,

70

became an extension of his business.50 In fact, his life
in business and politics ran parallel to one another from
the start. He was the son of a Republican merchant and was
raised in the party as much as in the business. Chance
might equally well have made him a Democrat, as his father-
in-law and other prominent Clevelanders were. Neither
party was without its support in the business community. 51
At no time was Hanna merely passive in his politics.
It will be recalled tint he was active in the Union Yoxmg
Men's Club for Lincoln as early as 1863. In 1869 he was
elected to a term on the city Board of Education.52 But as
a businessman it was not always easy to abide the ways of
3 Party organization run largely by professionals who lacked

the merchant's appreciation of efficiency and economy in
their affairs.

y

In common with many of his kind, Hanna was

soSee e.g., Philip D. Jordan, tha gem of. Age, Vol.
2,” Carl Whittke. ed., m Him 21: the aim 21‘. ohm

Olumbus, l9h3) . 208° Harry Thurston Peck, m
with: 322221;; (N. Y., 1905), . L+71; William Allen white,
Mattias Banana (N. Y., 1928?, pp. zoo, 201.

part 51William J. McKinnie, cited above as a frequent whist

actiner of Hanna at the Union Club, .was a coal merchant and

Cleve]: Democrat throughout his life, even serving a term as

(June nd Collector of Customs. The Marine 321121 V:21+

tion 9a 1892) singled out three congressmen for commenda-

theseas loyal supporters of lake marine interests. Tw0 of
a T0111 L. Johnson and Calvin Brice, were Democrats.

52
CPOIY. Hanna, p. 112-

71

unwilling to agree that skill in the demogogic games of
Waving the Bloody Shirt or Twisting the Lion's Tail quali-
fied men for office. Government was serious business, and
if the better men--he would think of Sherman, Hayes and
Garfield--were to lead the party they must be assured the
active support of the "better element," in the community.
Too much of this "better element," including the business-
men especially, had come to regard politics as a racket
operated by worthless but dangerous men from whom they must
buy protection. To the degree that he set himself against
this notion of government as a racket, Hanna was not only

a useful citizen, but a reformer as well. Not a lonely re-
formeru-he never tried on the hairshirt of the prophet. He
simply allied himself with the local followers of what for
a while was called the Liberal Republican movement national-
1y, Whether he voted for Horace Greeley for President in
1872 is unknown and of little importance, for the issues
were sufficiently confused during the campaign that he may
well have voted for Grant and still have protested the
power of the local rings.53 What is known is that in 1873
he joined a 81‘0“!) of like-minded businessmen to bolt the

party's maVoralty nomination and support instead the

 

f 18530n the Liberal Republican Movement and the confusions
o 7 see Earle D. Ross, m L. $21.11 a WWW
(N. Y., 1919), esp. pp. 190, 191, and Malcolm Moos, The fig,-
1 1 A Elam of Their. 2am (N. Y., 1956), pp. 13 -

72

successful Democrat Charles A. Otis, a steel magnate in-
nocent of any strong party ties.5l"' Only one other symptom
of Hanna '8 "mugwumpery" appears on the record, and that
dates from nine years later. His brother-in-law, James
Ford Rhodes, wrote that Hanna had been attracted to the
Civil Service Reform movement to such an extent that in
early 1882 he had hopes of being elected chairman of the
local executive committee. But when the crucial meeting of
the group was over, he found he had been denied even mem-
bership on the committee. This was not the kind of exper-
ience he was accustomed to taking graciously. Rhodes was
probably correct in concluding that "from that night, Hanna
must have argued, there is a ring of reformers as well as a
ring of politicians. I think the politicians will suit me
better."55 I

In any case, he clearly never considered himself ser—
iously as anything but a Republican. Friends who survived
him remembered him as an active worker in his ward in the

Seventies. He supported Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 With

_\
Crol Elinorrow interview with Andrew J. Squire, Hanna papers;
y, Hanna, p. 112. Rhodes, 325191.91 m P°°§§l£§13 81'

thirt§_p° 2, say also that earlier, in fact 'before he was
prism two , he made an informal alliance with an enter-
mashing Young man of Cleveland to break up the Republican
een berthat dominated city politics." As this would have
for we Ore Sept., 1869, it would have been a tall order
the pro3§°un8 men, and it is not surprising that news of

5 ct failed to reach the daily press.
5
“‘09“. mania}: and W Admins... pp. 3. l*-

73
enthusiasm, though since he node no speeches his work was
largely" ignored by the press. He appeared in the local
limelight only once in that campaign, when he presided at
a ninth ward rally in Septeml.~er. Soon after Hayes' inaug-
ural, Hanna seems to have paid the President a visit in
Washington. One Linus Austin {fave a letter of introduction
for Hanna and then wrote Hayes sepa etely that he had done
so reluctrntly but that Mr. Hanna seemed “to 7L "net‘i'n
ecszcjz’: .11:- tc sir his Em." Unfortunately, nothing;
is recorded of the interview itself. It was probably in
the late Seventies that he joined the Tippecanoe Club, a
long established institution that occasionally aspired un-
successfully to make itself a local Tammany Society for Re-
Publicans. In the presidential campaign of 1880, Hanna was
one of the guiding spirits in the organization of a novel
businessmen's committee for Garfield, and at about the same
time was elected to memhership on the state party's finance

committee .56

so,

01,01 JOI’row interview with Andrew J. Squire, Hanna papers;
Rust}: w, p. 112; Cleveland Leader, Sept. Li, 1876; Linus
Hayes “to Rutherford, B. Hayes, June 29, 1877, Hayes papers,
that Ahemorial Library, Fremont, Ohio. There is some chance
name igstin was referring: to another Hanna, for the first
Omitted in his reference. James A. Garfield, then s

a and Lawrence Barrett to the White House to intro-

Harpy Jem to Hayes. (Diary transcriptions in possession of

I‘EanuScpj: Brown, East Lansing, Michigan, from Garfield papers,
p Division, Library of Congress, Washington.)

7t
Little can be learned of the Hanna-Garfield relation-
ship. They saw one another socially, and the future presi-
dent dined once at the Hanna table in 1878. They were
friendly, as party leader and loyal constituent, but not
friends. The most frequently reteld stor}r of 2101'; their

paths crossed is one that must be unlearncd. Tl s is the

Ho

.-

"xfie will go to l-Ientor” story:

Garfield's nomination in 1560 had left the party wing
led by Grant's friends disconsolate and bitter. Their dis-
affection had become so public that it became urgent to
disavow it by some show of unity. But even when a {great
rally was scheduled in late September for Warren, Ohio, in
Garfield's part of the state, the candidate was excluded
from participation. Senators Cameron of Pennsylvania and
Conkling of New York were there, and ex-President Grant
came with Senator Logan from Illinois. All were committed
to several ap,earances in Ohio, but none was including; the
nominee himself in his itinerary. Before the ‘.'.arren meet-
ing, the two guests from Illinois stopped over in Cleveland,
and apparently Hanna was delegated by the local politicos

to . , .
take charge of transportation. The schedule was not a
firm one.

the

COnklinfg had to return for a speech in Cleveland
day following: the Warren meeting. Grant told the press
he Via ° . "’

' S inclined to return directly to his home in Illinois}?!

Hanna, the story continues, sought for a V733" t0 brine
\
570

Wild Herald, Sept. 28, 1880.

75

Grant and Conklinr: to Mentor to pay; their respects to

Garfield- Thus when the Marren meeting; was over and the

guests vu'ere being; entertained at lunch “y a local politi—

cian, Hanna appeared in the dining; room. Loudly enough to

be heard by the others, he addressed Grant: ”General, it

has been arranged that we return to Cleveland by way of

Lientor, and if you propose to stop and see General Garfield,

we shall have to start in a very short time.” There fol-

lowed a tense silence while all but Hanna stole a glance at

the gathering scowl on Conl»:ling's face. Then Grant spoke:

"We will go to Mentor." So it was done. Garfield received
his callers and the newsnren could dispatch their stories of

the gre at shaking: of -hands.58

The first correction called for here has to do with

Garfield's ”exclusion." He had been invited, but declined

on the {SPQunds that his acceptance would revoke his decision

¢.
to do no stump-speaking: during: the campaign. He preferred.

the tradition of the dignified front-porch candidacy. Then '
too, he explained, Senator Conkling was to be the party's
9493‘? in the state and should not he put in competition with

another- star attraction.
\\
KenneZBBaSed on Croly, W’ p. 117, citing James :.
Herald 3 Who was reporting; the harren meeting; for the
\° The story as told, however, was not used in that
(3098 ° Beer, Hanna, pp. 97-98, claims to follow Croly and
refepso except for misnaming Warren as Warsaw. He also

8 to "Charles Foster's version" (p. 303). Donald Barr
Conklin’ The Gentleman From New York: A Life of Roscoe

309_310 (New Haven, Conn., 19353 also—uses the story (pp.
: but with caution.

76

Second, it appears that Grant's decision to go to
fc’entor was not made in the dining; room as lunch ended, for
Garfield's diary shows that he received a tele'j'rat“ at 11
a.m. informing him of Grant's fortl'zcoming visit. Later, he
recorded, notice came that the ex-President would arrive
with a larger party. Thus Hanna's words become the report
of a mission accomplished as instructed and a reminder of
why it was important to watch the time. It is entirely
Possible that Conkling had not heard of Grant's decision
before Hanna came in. That would account for his scowl--
Conkling scowled easily-~and the second telegram to

Garfield . 59

It was a good story, and not an incredible one at the
time. But Hanna's debut as a manager of presidential
futures had no such early or dramatic opening. He would
learn the business, but slowly and. thoroughly, not in a
flash of atavistic genius.

Hanna's services were not of the kind that drew atten-

tion in those years. He ran for no more offices--that stint

with the Board of Education seems to have been an unhappy
one,60

He got out the vote in his ward on election day, col-
1 o o 1 o

ected contributions locally, and occaSionally played host to
s , . ,.

Peakers at his Opera house. As a merchant he was a man of

so ’ . . . - . .
me substance; as a politician he was nobooy in particular.

\_—

(Browngarfield diary, Sept. 25, 28, 1680, Garfield papers
1880 r1.1335'Elnscripts); Garfield to Harmon Austin, Sept. 23,
’ Am.

at litggroly, Hanna, p. 112, finds that Hanna was present
e more't'ha‘n' half of the meetings.

 

CHAPTER III
WORKS AND WORKERS

If Mark Hanna's marriage to Gussie Rhodes brought him
eventually into the coal and iron business, it also put the
challenge of an entirely different enterprise before him.
Probably Mark had thought little of it when he learned that
his father-in-law was president of the West Side Street
Railroad Company. It was a primitive little horse-car ser-
vice that plied up and down the slopes of the river valley
between the Public Square and the west side. His awareness
of its existence increased as he moved to a house located
on its tracks and had to ride to work in its decrepit cars
every morning. Then in 1876 his wife inherited 500 shares
in the company. Whether out of embarassed pride or ambi-
t1OnyHarma bought a few shares for himself and in 1879
mined the board of directors. For three more years he
Studied the business in his spare time, watching and eval-

uating the management of Elias Simms, the elderly sea-cap-

tam and dredging contractor who held controlling interest.1

\

Side :See note by J. B. Morrow based on minute book of West
Mulhentlreet Railway Co. in Morrow interview with George G.

a Cleveland 1 05 Hanna papers- Tom L. Johnson
altar): (N. Y., iéii , 13p. 17, 18. ’ ’

77

 

 

78

By 1882 he decided the time had come either to sell out
or buy control himself. Simms had done nothing to improve
the system and now had been outmaneuvered in a city council
fight by a young promoter from Indianapolis named Tom L.
Johnson. Hanna gave Simms a price per share at which he
would either buy his interest or sell his own. Simms grudg-
ingly chose to sell.2

Thus began a twenty-year battle of wits and wallets
between two of the most powerful personalities that ever
came to Cleveland. Johnson was a hulking big, handsome
Kentucky boy from a down-at-the-heels but genteel southern
family. He had had less formal schooling than Hanna, and
"as no more inclined to stay up reading books to compensate
for it than was Hanna. The first thirty years of his life
he threw his tremendous energy into the business of making
a fortune. Working for the DuPont family-owned Louisville
street railway company, he attracted the attention of his
employers with his invention of the first coin fare box.
With their support and a rapidly increasing capital stake
°f his own, he went to Indianapolis to reorganize and ex-
pend a Street railway company there. Without giving up
these interests, he moved on to Cleveland and Detroit look-

i
ng fol‘ new fields to conquer. Meanwhile he was also

2Johnson, My Story, p. 22; Croly, m, p. 76.

79

active in steel, helping to establish mills at Johnstown,
Pennsylvania and Lorain, Ohio. Consistently he chose enter-
prises that were protected by favorable laws--the tariff-
shielded steel industry and the natural monopoly of the
street railways safeguarded by exclusive franchises. Yet
when Johnson entered politics seriously in the late Eighties
he did so as a Democratic free-trader and a radical advocate
of municipal reforms that included public ownership of
utilities.3

These apparently self-accusing political views were
based on the Single Tax theories of Henry George. It was
not long after Hanna took over the Sims interest in the
West Side company that Johnson allowed himself to be talked

into reading one of George's books--§ggigl Wuduring
a dull train trip. This, followed by a large helping of

2:93:15; and 2212111, and then a meeting with the author
himself , converted Johnson for life. At George's suggestion,

he 1Warned to politics, and was elected to Congress as a
DemOCI'at from Cleveland in 1890 and 1892- In 1901 he began
t

he first of four terms as mayor of Cleveland. It was dur-

1
ng his reign that the city was described by Lincoln Steffens
\

Sket 3Unless otherwise noted material on Johnson is from
91; Ach in Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone eds., Di
31.51513an Biography (20 vols., N. Y., 192849th tifsrmom u:
151‘1 Whitlock, £52m Essie. 2f. Lt. (N. Y., 1925 ed. 5, pp.
57 et passig, and Johnson, My Story, pa___§__sim.

80

as the best governed city in America. Johnson, with another
renegade businessman in Toledo, Samuel "Golden Rule" Jones,
gathered together and trained a number of disciples--Newton
D. Baker, Brand Whitlock, Frederick D. Howe and Peter Witt
were the best known of these. Johnson as mayor was a re-
former of bosses and a boss of reformers. He admitted to
being in control of his political machine, insisting only
that the public controlled him. There was nothing of the
hairshirt fanatic about him despite his conversion to a de-
manding social faith. He kept his sense of humor and con-
tinued to live like the successful man of business he was.
His home on Euclid Avenue after 1899 was a huge castellated
stone mansion that stood toe-to-toe with the mansions of
his nabob neighbors--the Mathers, Hoyts, Chisholms, Hark-
nesses and others.

These two men kept up their running war for so many
years that it would not be surprising had they developed a
hearty Personal bitterness toward one another. Apparently
they never did. Johnson later said that he always "had
Perfect confidence in Mr. Hanna's keeping his word in any
transaction and he never disappointed" him.” Hanna, who
was verbally on the defensive much of the time, would call

J
Ohnson a "socialist, nihilist and anarchist," on occasion,

\
1..
Johnson, Ml elem, p. 21.

 

81

but never descended into personal abuse. Doubtless he hon-
estly believed Johnson was all of these in some way, though
he could hardly have thought about the matter seriously
for long without realizing that such a combination of creeds
is impossible. At any rate, Johnson was clearly some kind
of a radical and Hanna paid him the compliment of taking
him seriously. He "was never," Johnson said later, "one of
those who professed to believe that I did not mean to do
what I said I would do."5

In their first encounter, Hanna lost on what he must
have considered a foul if he ever learned of it. Johnson
was seeking a franchise to allow him to build lines across
the east side connecting with his Pearl Street and Jennings
Avenue lines on the west side. He proposed to offer a sin-
gle fare of three cents across the entire system. Hanna
and the owners of the other lines fought Johnson in the
at? cOuncil on the grounds that it was economically impos-
sible to operate or compete with such a plan. After all
the arguments had been rehearsed over the council table for

months, Johnson discovered to his surprise that two council-

m
en "110 always before had voted against him were beginning
to
°°m° Over to his side. Seeking an explanation, he paid
a Visit

to the home of Elias Simms. Johnson recalled the

5
Em, , p. 115.

 

82

"Come in, Johnson, come in," he said, showing no
signs of surprise or any other emotion at the
sight of me.

He gave me a chair near the stove, and tak-
ing another, sat down to listen to what I had
to say. I cans to the object of my visit at once,
asking him about Crowley and Smith. He was im-
passive, non-committal, almost silent for a long
time, but finally in disjointed sentances I got
the following from him:

"Your're a smart young feller, Johnson.
Beat me, didn't ye? Yes, ye beat me. Folks might
say I ain't very smart. Everybody knows Hanna's
smart, though. Takes more'n a fool to beat Hanna.
If you beat Hanna, nobody'll say that any damn
fool could bgat Simms. Ye beat me; I want ye to
beat Hanna."

With these votes so cordially presented to him, John-
son won the battle that he would look back upon as the
b188est of his street railway career. His new venture did
produce a profit and the young promoter was soon ready for

another fight. For his part, Hanna was in a mood to con-

ciliate their differences in a merger. Johnson refused to

consider it. Their first exchange on the question had been
by telegraph, but when they next met in Cleveland, Hanna

a
Sked why he had refused. He thought they would made a good

t
can. "My answer," Johnson said, "was that we were too much

a]. .
“‘9: that as associates it would be a question of time,
and
" Short time only, until one of us would 'crowd the

0the
r clear off the bench;' that we would make good oppon-

ents
’ not good partners." And, he noted, he never had rea-

son
t: mOdify that opinion.7
13211., pp. 22, 23.

7
M., p. 25.

 

 

 

83

Throughout the decade after 1882 Hanna poured money
into his street railway business in the faith that it was
his "savings bank." George G. Mulhern, an experienced hand
from the old West Side company, was given wide superintend-
ing powers early and remained with Hanna throughout. In
1885 the Hanna lines were consolidated into a $2,000,000
company that served the city from east to west. In 1889,
the Cleveland City Cable Railway Company was formed to run
cars of Payne, Superior and St. Clair. These noisy and
cumbersome vehicles gripped an underground cable that pulled
them along at speeds up to twelve miles per hour. After two
years, it had to be admitted that electricity was better.8
Conversion of these and other lines brought the street rail-
ways into the category of big business by any local stand-
ards. A growing and spreading population added revenues to
Justify the mounting capital requirements and keep all but
the cable car stocks at a premium price.9 The final con-
s°lidations under Hanna and Johnson came in 1893. Johnson's
new Cleveland Electric Railway Company was nicknamed the

It
318 Con, " and covered 100 miles of track. Hanna's new
\

3°58 8Morrow interview with George G. Mulhern, Hanna papers;
’ . pp. “9%, #97.

9N°t atypical was the stock report in the W
at 20 , March 9 1890, which showed Cable common bid
mon at’; Preferred at 9i, and Woodland Ave. & West Side com-
compani 0. All were par 100 stocks. Two of Johnson's
at 175 98 were also reported bid for: E. Cleveland (par 50)

a and Broadway dc Newburgh at 200.

8%

company, the "Little Con," was the Cleveland City Railway
Company, with sixty-three miles of track. It was composed
of the Woodland Avenue and West Side and the Cleveland City
Cable companies, with additions in 1893 and later on Erie,
South Woodward, West Madison and Willson.10

Johnson sold his financial interest in the Big Con
soon after its formation.11 His personal and political
interest in local transportation continued unabated. In
fact it was after the turn of the century, during his mayor-
alty, that Johnson's force in this direction was greatest.
He became more than ever then the local nemesis of Mark
Hanna.

For his part, Hanna stayed with the new Little Con as
its president, retiring to the role of noncombatant major
Stockholder only in 1903, when the two companies merged into
what was called the "Con-con." At the time of his death
these Shares were valued at only 75, but Hanna's holdings
still came to almost $1,200,000}2

1
0Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, W of Street
W W, Re 9.2m Co ittee. lea. 2.1.
leveland, 1901 , Exhibit K. The trackage given ex-

c
eeds the street mileage, as most of it was double track.

llJohnson, My Sign, p. 88.

12
G. MulhRo Se, W, p. 637; Morrow interview with George
A. Emir“, Hanna papers; Arthur Young & Co., comp., "Marcus
the Estaz Report Covering Transactions of the Executors with
iod fro e of the Mrs. Ruth Hanna McCormick Trust, for Per-
Ohio Hi: February 15, 1904 . . ." (typed MS.), copy in Ohio
Hinna E tOrical Society, Columbus. Hereafter cited as
state Report.

 

85

Each man's attitude toward his business affairs re-
flected his social and economic views as a politician.
Johnson was a dualist: he must take either the side of
Privilege or the side of the People. Hanna was a monist,
as it were: an underlying bond of mutual interest united
seemingly opposing groups; no conflicts were inherent in
the nature of society; conflicts were the result of men's
drive for individual power or simply of their ignorances
and fears. When Hanna and Johnson locked horns as rival
Party leaders in the late Nineties and after, Hanna's
street railway connections seemed even to his friends to
weaken his political standing.13 But he held on, indiffer-
ent to such considerations. To withdraw would have been to
adult a long-standing conflict of interest and to imply a
confession that he was unable to free his notions of the
public good from his notions of his private interests. And
final”, it would in a sense ruin his amateur standing in
Politics. He still had no desire to become the profes-
Siona1, full-time public man. He was a businessman in poli-
tics, and proud of it. All businessmen should be in poli-
ties,

on his way to lunch with friends one day in early 1879,

Ha
nna bought the Euclid Avenue Opera House. It happened

13
papers.889 Morrow interview with James R. Garfield, Hanna

 

86

almost that quickly. As he later told the story, he and
his friends were walking past the huge $200,000 building at
Euclid and Sheriff and heard a commotion inside. One of
the friends remarked trat it was being auctioned off that
day. They stopped in to watch the proceedings. When the
auctioneer seemed to be unable to find a bid higher than
$0,000 for the elegant, four-year old structure, Hanna im-
pulsively called out a small raise. From that moment on he
was the sole owner of the Euclid Avenue Opera House.1l"
As a business proposition there was little hope in
this acquisition, Hanna's only real estate investment. Its
Previous manager had been the popular actor John Ellsler.
He had been responsible for building it, but was unable to
keep his company from sliding into insolvency and finally
bukruptcy. Hanna's first manager was not much more suc-
ceSsi‘ul in his four years at the helm. This was cousin
L- G. Hanna. Until Hanna discovered it, he even departed
from his orders to show only first-class dramatic produc-
tions and began booking wrestling shows. The best managed
theater in town was run by a Jewish ex-magician named Augus-
tus F- Hertz. When Hartz' theater burned in 1881+, Hanna
quickly offered him a lease on the Opera House. From that

year until after Hanna's death, Gus Hartz maintained a
\_

1
Hanna HMOrrow interviews with Mrs. C. A. Hanna Leonard C.
H'lnna’ 33d with Augustus F. Hartz, Cleveland, 1905, all in
ers.

 

87

showcase for the best in legitimate theater that came to

the Midwest. One season was lost after the building burned
in the fall of 1892, but a new structure was soon ready and
Richard Mansfield was on hand to open it with his sensa-
tional M m. In the ensuing years the investment
provided a business-like return and at Hanna's death was
appraised at $100,000.15

Probably he would have held on to the theater with or

without a profitable return. It brought other rewards.
There was the pleasure and prestige--especia11y while he

was still a young man just becoming known-—of being pointed
out as the owner up there in his private box with his dis-
tinEllis-shed guest the governor or the senator. There was the
pleasure of having entre’eto the travelling companies of
Plfiyers themselves. Edwin Booth, Joseph Jefferson, Henry
Irving and others would be his guests at dinner, his visit-
ors from a livelier and fresher world. As his acquaintance
grew, so did his affections. Daughter Ruth was given her
“me by Edwin Booth. Lawrence Barrett was a frequent house—
guest and constant friend. There is evidence that Hanna
contributed substantially to Barrett's business success.

He intI‘oduced him almost forcibly to the fashionable Cleve-

1a
nd audience by distributing tickets to friends in
\

1
Orth SMOrrow interview with A. F. Hartz, Hanna papers;
’ d, p. 1&2; Hanna Estate Report.

88

wholesale lots for the second night of a Barrett Produc—
tion that had opened poorly. He loaned him money and helped
to guide his investments. A few surviving letters,
friendly and rambling accounts of his travels in Europe,
testify to the ease of understanding between the artist and
the merchant.16

Publishing a good daily newspaper can be profitable or
not as a financial investment. It is almost certain to of-
fer prestige and some power within the area of its circul-
ation. Hanna's adventure into publishing brought him some-
thing of the last two rewards, although alone among his
business undertakings it proved a financial failure.

The W 1121313. in 1880 was the oldest surviving
nW‘spaper in the city and it was having circulation trouble.
Its editor and publisher at the time, Richard C. Parsons,
“3 tiring of the struggle against the popular morning
2am. A syndicate of businessmen agreed to attempt a
cure, Hanna was among them, but with him was a group of
Cleveland's wealthiest men: Henry Chisholm, Jeptha H- Wade,
John D. Rockefeller, Henry M. Flagler, Amasa Stone, Sylves-

EELT- Everett, Dan P. Bells and Elias Simms. These men were

Mrs 16Morrow interview with A. B. Hough, A. F. Hartz, and
Nov. E"- . Hanna, all in Hanna papers; Hanna to Foraker,
re“; 0, 1886, Foraker-Hagna Corr-ssh, p. 81 ("Lawrence Bar-
I wouj‘fill be here Thanks iving week and sta at my house.

‘3 be delighted to ave you andagour w fe come up.

a . I
bath-1') ; Barrett to Hanna, Dec. 6, 1 8, and Feb. 15, 1890,
nna papers. Barrett had shown an early flair for
e, 3 management, however: see Charles E. Kennedy, Fifty
9£ Cleveland (Cleveland, 1925), pp. 93, 94.

89

well able to lose money; it was only a question of how long
they would be willing. Only Hanna was willing to take an
active role in the management. He was named publisher.17

This renewal of the struggle brought five years of in-
tense journalistic warfare with the more profitable £629.21
under Edwin Cowles. Cowles was a Republican even as his
rivals were. He was an older man whose career had begun
among the abolitionists. Now his favorite cause was anti-
Catholic nativism. But whatever his quirks, he published
a lively newspaper. When he found some of his best staff
men enticed away by better salaries on the W, his
editorial counterattacks grew even livelier. Despite the
We financial backing, it fought an unequal battle.
Cowles was a far more skilled newspaperman than Hanna and
he gave his full energies to the work. Hanna was out-
genera led . 18

March 11+, 1885, saw the final issue of the germ.
1'33 assets were divided between the m, taking the name,
SOOdwill and circulation lists; and the 21.33; 22.3.1211: which
““8111: the plant and fixtures. According to one story, the
tOtal valuation was $100,000. Probably the 2131.3 QM

 

17
A. H. Shaw T 22.13. D r- gnaw Year; 1
“flame (N. 2,1519%), p. 2 o. .a

18
pp. 6-1%., p. 2'+1; Kennedy, Fifty Eggs; 9; Cleveland,

H 0. Kenned had been advertisin mana er for the
mg— under Hannlar. g g

 

90

profited the most from this arrangement, for it immediately
used the M plant to issue a new morning edition of its
own. So ended Mark Hanna's only unsuccessful business in-
vestment. He had tried to compete in the newspaper busi-
ness with a newspaperman.19

Banking came more naturally. Cleveland's rapid growth
required money. The businessman who had to borrow fre-
Quently did well to take a share in the banks he borrowed
from, for competition could be keen and credit at times ex-
Pensive. Hanna learned something about banks as a customer
and in 188% applied what he had learned by taking a leading
part in organizing a new institution, the Union National
Bank. He began as president, a convenience that made it
unnecessary for him to work up in the ranks. For the first
few years he devoted a good share of his time to the enter-
prise, but thereafter, although he remained in office, he
delegated the active management to others. Hanna's bank-
ing investment as of 1886, when a record is available for

comparison, was exceeded by only two other Clevelanders--
Jeptha H.

VOIVed ’

Wade, Jr., who was by far the most heavily in-

and Charles A. Otis, son of the pioneer steel
Mikel-.20

\—

l
93m“, Elsie. Dealer. pp. 241, 242.
20
Vithmw Herald, June 7, 188+; Morrow interview

He Bourne Cleveland 1905 Hanna papers: Cleveland
ml, Dec. 9, 1886. ’ ’ ’

 

91

Vice-president was Sylvester T. Everett, an old friend
with long experience in finance. Everett was a questionable
asset to the bank in some respects. His career had been and
would again be clouded over by alleged lapses from honesty.
To James R. Garfield, in reminiscing about Hanna's unwil-
lingness to believe anything evil of his friends, "Ves"
Everett was an example. He and others who were "really
scoundrels," according to Garfield, were always given a
second chance. "I stand by my friends whether they deserve
it or not," another friend quoted him saying.2zL

Both Hanna and Everett worked strenuously at the pre-
11minaries of organizing the new bank. It was a delicate
matter, for it involved choosing the necessary allies and
the inevitable enemies with care. It is to their credit
that they were able to find most of their stockholders among .

_‘

1 2lMorrow interview with Charles F. Leach Cleveland,
6905’ Hanna papers; see also his interview with James R.
Earfield; and Joseph Perkins to Sherman, Feb. 9, 1881+, and
Verett to Sherman, Feb. 26, 1881+, both in John Sherman
papers. When Everett pocketed some party funds and double-
csl'ossed him in politics in 1899 Hanna finally dropped him.
99 Hanna to McKinley, June 5 l899, McKinley papers. On
Everett 's death, another politician wrote privately,"S. T.
tzerett was buried yesterday--a varied career and one best
M envelope with the 'mantle of charity. '" George A.
A379? to James Ford Rhodes, Jan. 17, 1922, quoted in 301111
adarraty, ed., The Barher egg, hhe Hietoriah, The gerres-
Waffle A me 5 grime 8 ____Ford Bhosssilfllo;
ippea Columbus, 19567, p. 13 . Myers, whose name will re-
his or’ was for many years Hanna's barber proprietor of
thouggn barber shop in the Hollenden Hotel, Cleveland, and,
Negro by choice never an Officeholder, a power in the
Republican community in Cleveland.

 

, _.g _—._.-—-—-'— "w "'

 

92

old business associates and family friends who probably had
no prior interest in financial companies. Hanna himself
owned one-tenth of the 10,000 shares issued. Other sub-
stantial shareholders were Jonathan F. and H. P. Card,
Hanna's brothers-in-law Robert R. and James F. Rhodes, W.
C. Scofield, J. C. Weideman, Everett, and the bank's cash-
ier (and president succeeding Hanna), E. H. Bourne.22
Shares could be bought at below par for the first few
Years, but their value increased steadily. By March, 1887,
Union National's capital was worth $112 per share and its
deposits were reported to be over $1,600,000. By mid-1890,
shares were being bid at $133 and at the time of Hanna's
death his shares were worth $170 each.23

Hanna's business success depended in part upon his
“9““)? for managing money, but equally important was his
capacity for managing men. Thousands of workers were ulti-
Mtely responsible to him as their employer. How well he
handled this role not only affected his business career
but influenced crucially his political life. The degree to
which he might dare to bring his name before the public as
a party leaderuespecially as a senatorial candidate-~was

o
p Sitively related to the record he made in dealing with
\

22% Leader, Dec. 9, 1886.

23
1890. HE d M Dealer, March 10, 1887; June 22,
’ nna Estate Report.

 

 

um —

 

\‘— “"‘5IV-\An'o‘W

 

 

93

his labor force. Men whose names were linked with the great
labor upheavals of the time--the Pullmans, Fricks and
Baers--m1ght aid the party in a limited way covertly but
any open display of political ambition on their part would
be the kiss of death on election day. It should be noted
that what to twentieth-century thinking is an extreme con-
servatism in the Republican Party of that period did not
type it as ghe conservative party. In the years of Grover
Cleveland '5 ascendancy the Democratic Party was far more
conservative in its attitude toward business than it later
became. Ohio Democratic leaders probably included as many
“Wars and businessmen as their opponents. Democratic
senator Henry B. Payne (1885-1891) was a Standard Oil mil-
lionaire, and his successor from the same party, Calvin S.
Brice (1891-1897), was a conspicuously wealthy railroad
promoter. Neither party was assured of the labor vote and
neither could afford to alienate it entirely.

Hanna, dealt with, among others, coal miners, long-
Sh°r°men and seamenm-tough, hard-fisted men who worked hard,
drank hard and shared the high risks of dangerous callings.
They lived with the violence of nature and the foreboding
uncertainties of heavy machinery. Their leaders were typ-
ically men who reflected their admiration for physical stam-

ins
and bI'avery as well as their respect for the verbal

 

91+

talents most of them felt lacking in themselves. Dealing
with such men and leaders required a firm, even hand.

Hanna's experience came piecemeal over a span of years.
It can only be summarized here. In general, his failures
came early and were covered by a remarkable history of suc-
cess built on their lessons.

When the Depression of 1873-1877 came to the coal in-
dustry it demoralized what was already a highly competitive
business. Prices, wages and production seemed to melt away
uncontrollably. Concerted action to reverse the trend was
first undertaken not by the operators but by the miners.
John Siney, a veteran of the once-successful anthracite
miners union in Pennsylvania, was elected president of the
new National Miners Association with headquarters in Cleve-
land. He and a fellow officer, John James, visited the of-
fices of every coal operator with headquarters in that city,
1°°k1n8 for agreement on a proposal for the arbitration of
future labor disputes. Only Hanna was willing to try it.2‘+
hter the same year the agreement signed was given its test
in ‘ dispute over tonnage rates in the Tuscarawas Valley.
The area of disagreement lay between ninety and seventy
cents P91“ ton. The arbitrator awarded seventy-one cents.25
skim E‘EEEXJS‘JhW", pp. 132% r” “- m m

2'5
LEL. , p. 165.

.o-D" .
t

T]

95

Although the leaders were able to win reluctant acceptance
of the. award, other issues arose one after another. To fol-
low them in detail would be tedious. Their consequence was
a bitter strike in the early spring of 1876. Rhodes and
Company sought to reopen two of its mines with strike-
breakers brought down from Cleveland. Violence at one mine
near Mas sillon that almost cost manager George Warmington
his life was followed by the arrival of militia guards and
scattered outbreaks of arson. When it was over, and the
“89 reduction that had caused it was made effective, in-
dictments were brought against twenty-three miners in the
county court at Carnal-1.26 Their defense was volunteered by
the county's outstanding young lawyer, William McKinley.
His able presentation of their case brought acquittal for
all but one, who was sentenced to three years in prison.
The Popularity this case brought him in heavily industrial-
ized Stark County doubtless aided in McKinley's first nomin-
ation and election to Congress later the same year. Hanna's
observation of McKinley in action probably increased his re-
Spect. for him rather than otherwise, for there is no reason
t0 believe that he was seeking vengeance on the accused men.

In
fact. the story that the two first met at this trial may

26
or at thLLmieu pp. 168-173. Boy was a state mining inspect-
see S 9 time and had first-hand knowledge of the strike:
“001.1% mm M, May '+, 1876' for a contemporary
of the strike see same paper, April 20, 1876.

s‘fi‘39'
e
i

, .5:“

 

 

96

have originated in comments made later by Hanna that this
was the first time he took more than passing notice of the
Canton lawyer. This may well have been his introduction
to the "real" McKinley, but it does not appear to have been
their first meeting.27

There were other labor disturbances in the mines, but
none to compare with the strike of 1876. The Hocking Val-
lay in 1881!» and 1885 saw strikes and some violence. In gen-
eral, however, Ohio was ahead of competing states in de-
veloping unionism, operators' combines and protective legis-
lation for miners. Gradually, the industry was stabilized
the only way it could be--by labor agreements extending
thl"3'181‘1011t the soft coal regions. Hanna's company could

never make a record entirely distinct from its competitors,

—.__

2
(2 7Char1es 8. Olcott, The. L s: vanish Messier
V013- Boston, 1916), I, 79, 0; Morrow interview with

Eiétc‘ . Hanna, Hanna papers. Both say this was Hanna's
McKi 1meeting with McKinley. But see Croly, H , p. 9%;
to tit: 9y to Hanna, Nov. 12, 1896, Hanna papers referring
and H211" "friendship through more than twenty years");
book 3nna to R. w. Taylor, Jan. 27, 1903, Rice Collection,
in re a Ohio Historical Society: "Replying to your inquiry
canno%‘rd to the time I first met President McKinley-~I
year laremember the exact date, but it was sometime in the
Congre 71. I became intimate with him soon after he entered
year (333 and our friendship ripened with each succeeding
“ring his life."

 

-~ afl’a‘ A.
c
I

97

but from the available testimony it did seem to have stayed
in the vanguard of progress.28

Labor policy on‘the docks and vessels of M. A. Hanna
and Company was similarly keyed to the policies of other
firms, and. for the same reasons of competition. Wage rates
on the lakes were determined as early as 1878 by local
branches of the seamen's union. They announced changes with
little or no notice according to the freight rates pre-
vailing at the time.29 Vessel owners, like mine operators,
were slower to present a common front than their employees.
A Cleveland group was formed in 1881, however, which hired
‘1 tough ex-prizefighter and policeman named Al Rumsey to
“89 a running battle against the unions and provide a sup-
ply 01‘ non-union labor.30 While Rumsey was not Hanna's em-
ployee more than that of the others, he shared his unpopul-
arity with Hanna when trouble was brewing.

In the summer of 1883, for example, Rumsey was charged

wnm srusoting at a man during a scuffle at Ashtabula that
\

9911. 280m the Hocking Valley strike see ORoy, Chistogy 9f hhe

e 2s, ch. 19, PhilipD. Jordan, Ohig nges enge ,

p“12.3 On this and the broader problem see #Arthur
8%ffern, W8 (3 Arhipratieh JIM
317% Boston 3‘ N. Y., 19058, especially ch. andgu pp. 1&1?"

Henry E. Hoagland, Wage W1 fihe Vessels; e:
“89122.1; lakes (Urbana, Ill., 1917 , p. 3‘?

0
3 11211., p. 15, John H. Farley to J. B. Morrow, June 8,
' copy in Hanna papers.

 

1905

 

98

grew out of strikers' resistance to being replaced by
"scabs." Other brawls over the same issue had occurred in
Cleveland with one fatality. According to Mayor John
Fbrley's recollection-~the story never reached the news-
papers--the seamen's union called a special meeting.

. . the most sensational ever held, the ses-
sion lasting until 3 a. m. Copies of the film-
iege hegald were exhibited wherein that paper
Justified the shooting at Ashtabula. Mark Hanna
was denounced as the owner of the Heme, also
that he gave employment to the party who did
the shooting, and that he was an enemy of organ-
ized labor, and the country would be better off if
he was removed from it.

A motion was offered that a committee be appointed
to throw "A1" Rumsey in the river. This motion
was not formally accepted by the chair but was

debated for hours and amendments were suggested

to include Mark Hanna, the hour and place being
mentioned.3

Nothing was attempted then or later, but this would not be
the last time Hanna was involved in an anti-union campaign
on the lakes. In 1885 and again in 1890 the Vessel Owners‘
Association renewed its struggle against the labor organi-
zations and gave them a setback each time.32 Yet the P011'
0198 of the association agreed to by Hanna's company do not
fair13! describe its particular attitude. It was always

vi
111118, for example, to submit to arbitration of disputes.

lF‘a

I‘ley to Morrow, June 8, 1905, copy in Hanna papers.
32

M13 H°a818nd,haza Esraglnina, p- 16; 9.1M Klein
, July 15, Aug. 2 1 9o.

 

 

 

99

The typical arrangement at the time was for the selection
of an ad hoc three-man committee composed of one man chosen
by each side and a third man agreed upon by these two. De-
cisions were by a vote of two against one. An example of
the use of such committees may be found in the dock workers
strike of May and June, 1891.

As usual, the early part of the season was marked by
relatively low wage rates. Higher piece rates and wages
might be expected as trade increased later in the year, but
this time the ore handlers were impatient. Instead of ap-
Pearing for work on the morning of May 28, they sent a no-
tice:

To M. A. Hanna & Co.: We, the ore handlers, have

come to the conclusion that we will not return to
work until we get last year's prices and all the

old men are given places.
ORE HANDLERS33
Similar notices were sent to other companies. Another but
uncoordinated strike at the Cleveland docks was already in
effect. For almost two weeks, neither side made any move.
30319 business was being lost to other ports, but the com-
Danies preferred this to violence. Then an offer to arbi-
trate was made. The engineers accepted but the shovelers
Voted it down. Delegations were sent to Mayor Rose of

C
19Velarid. There was talk of resuming operations and

\___
33 A
21mm Elem Dealer, May 29, 1891.

 

100

requests for police and militia protection if needed. Then
it was reported that the Cleveland strikers had reached some
still unannounced settlement. The engineers were given a
Prompt decision and prepared to resume work. At this point
the Hanna company took the final step toward a showdown.
Its notice "To Our 01d Employees" was skillfully phrased:

We are about to resume work at our docks with
new men who are glad to accept the wages we have
repeatedly offered to you. We believe a great
many of you, our old employees, would also be
willing to go to work again at the wages offered
if you were not bulldozed by a few agitators and
walking delegates. We much prefer to keep our
old men than to get new ones; therefore, when we
resume, we will not begin work with many men,
because we hope our old men will think better of
it and return to work. But those new men who
do begin work for us will be fully and amply pro-
tected against interference. We do not want any
trouble, but if any riotous and lawless persons
attempt to interfere with our right to operate
our own property, and try to drive away our work-
men, they will be resisted and arrested. If we
are disappointed in our hope that our old men
will again apply for their old positions, we shall
gradually get new men until we have a full force.
None of our old men, however, who are misled so
far as to offer violence, will ever be employed
again by us. Those of our old men who decide to
work will apply to our superintendent, Mr. Raser,
and will be kindly received.

M. A. Hanna 8: Co.

This, together with the sight of twenty loaded ships in the
hub", had the intended effect. Soon afterward it appeared
that the Cleveland ore handlers had not settled as reported.
The? 38111: a committee to ask the Ashtabula men to 30111 them
in 7t‘enewed strike. The committee returned with a message

fr
°"' the Ashtabula men that they had "fished and eaten

E ..w,—..

101

grease for five weeks, and that was long enough for them."

In a few days, the Cleveland ore handlers were ready to ac-

cept arbitration. 31*

Hanna could never have read everything written about
his early misdeeds as they were "discovered" by political
opponents in later years. The mere fact that he was a
large employer become powerful in national politics suf-
ficed to stir the imaginations of radical propagandists.

For an extreme example, a few passages from the lunatic-
fringe Populist "novel" called Ewing F9; the Sign}, may

serve 3

"Mr. Rumsey announces the fictional hero , the
gold of Mark Hanna has no attraction for me. I
am only a sailor, and not versed in the ways of
landsmen such as you. My sympathies go out with
the wronged men. . . . If Mr. Hanna will call a
:meeting, and arbitrate our differences, all
trouble can be avoided. I will meet your offer
of bribery with an appeal to you to induce Mr.
Hanna to agree to arbitration, promising you
that I will use my influence with the sailors
to meet your terms half way. Will you do it?"

"Not much," replied Rumsey; "we are too well
Pleased to get a chance to show our power.
Arbitrate! Humph! I call that rich. I will
Siva you thirty minutes to call your men away
from our docks, or the Pinkertons will force
them Off. a o o"

"I will do my best," replied John Stearns [hero],
and he left on his mission of peace.
\

non 3km” June 3, "h 10-12, 13+, 15, 17-21. The company's
°° was printed in issue of June 12.

102

When he had gone, Mr. Hanna came out of an inner
room, where he had overheard the conversation,
and, addressing a beetle-browed stranger, the
captain of the Pinkertons, who was sitting in
the office, said:

”Hawkins, you saw that fellow?"

"Yes sir."

"Wel, Dawkins, he is a ring leader, and if
something should happen to him, I should not
grieve. All this stuff of inducing them to leave
the docks don't go with me. The mutinous dogs
deserve a lesson; the law is on my side. Make
a good day' 3 work of it, and I will double the
pay for all of you. . . .'

' Crash] _ing}--A flash of flame from a
hundred rifle barrels, and Mark Hanna's ruffians
came charging down the dock. At the first fire,
John Stearns threw up his hands and fell face
domwarde e e 0

When the smoke cleared away eighteen lay
dead, dying, or.grievously wounded. The air was
filled with gasps and sobs, the awful gurgling
sounds of strong men in their death agony. . . .

As the Pinkertons dashed over the prostrate
forms of the slaughtered men, those in the rear
hastily placed old revolvers and knives in the
stiffening fingers of the corpses--an old trick
practiced b detectives and deputies to deceive
the people.

fflmre is more in the same vein, though Carnegie, Rockefeller
andOthers are brought on to assist in the villainy as the
case for the author's hypothetical class revolution is built

\

189 35Henry 0. Morris, m in; the film]. (Chicago,
Mi). pp. 15—17. Published by the Schulte Publishing 00.,
1share. of Ignatius Donnelly' s Qg§§g;_§,_glgmn, Henry M.

and James H Teller s In: 22511.9. 21‘. m2 53mm and

zygfiar‘W©rks. Fbr an extended discussion of 'The Folklore

Hofszpulism," see the chapter with that title in Richard
““9? m. Axe 9.1 m (N. Y., 1955).

 

 

103

up. The scurrilous subliterature of Populism gave Hanna a
kind of g; m position as labor crusher extraordinary.

Hanna's street railway labor force was very nearly in
that happy position of having no history. Not one strike
occurred in all the years he was actively associated with
it. There were temptations, however. The best remembered
Of these came in the mrly summer of 1899. Hanna was plan-
ning to go to Europe for a vacation and some treatments for
his arthritis at the mineral baths. Employees of the Big
cm, which company was no longer in Johnson's hands, were
threatening to call a strike momentarily. Hanna invited a
group of representatives from the various lines and shops of
the Little Con and put it up to them whether he should carry
out his vacation plans or stand by to await a strike. To a
man they pledged him their willingness to stay at work, and
accordingly, he left. Despite the length and bitterness of
the strike on the rival line the Little Con continued in
Operation on schedule. On his return, Hanna showed his ap-
plInflation by enclosing in each man's pay envelope a five
dollar gold piece.36

What accounted for the success Hanna achieved in his
lab” I'elations? For it was a highly creditable showing,

1
n the long run, and it was not made by a man who was either

36
MOI-row interview with George G. Mulhern, Hanna pap-

ers; Rose, 912122411, Po 597.

 

10k

inclined or free to experiment with startling innovations
in the art. His approach might best be described as a modi-

fied benevolent paternalism. Clearly he was paternalis-

tic, especially in his relations with the street railway
men. He knew most of them by name; he loaned them money;
he provided free medical care, and he showed unusual pat-
ience in hearing out their grievances in his office or when
he met them at the terminals.37 For a variety of reasons,
his personal relations with the miners, dockworkers and

seamen were less close. Perhaps aside from his less fre-

Quent contact with them, the fact that his competitors were
not Tom Johnsons in their own labor policies accounted in
part for the difference. Paternalism, no matter how bene-
VOlent in its intention, was less appropriate in these
areas. In its place, Hanna was obliged to substitute some-
thing of the contractual approach. Union recognition and
arbitration agreements came in.

These were important steps, and not to be taken for
granted. Like the good conservative politician he was be-
°°m1ng, Hanna usually saw room for compromise and he moved
into it. Nonessential prerogatives could be bargained away.

Inherited "principles" must be re-examined and discarded
\

Brai 37Morrow interviews with George G. Mulhern, 0. D.
all :1an (Cleveland, 1905), and Peter Cox (Cleveland, 1905),
11 Hanna papers. Brainard had been a dispatcher and

C
0:: a mOtorman on Hanna's lines.

-o~n- -

105

unless absolutely essential to the operation of the business.
Power, more than principles, must be relied upon for a plat-
form in such rapidly changing times.

On the question of his street railway men forming a
union, Hanna's one-time superintendent George Mulhern re-
collected that

. . . a year after the strike [of 1899] ended our

men formed a union of their own, after asking

Mr. Hanna if he had any objection to their doing

so. He told them that they ought to have a union.

‘ "but," he said, "have it among yourselves; don't

go in with the other fellows and then be compel-

led to stop work every time they get into trouble.

I am in favor of your having a union; you must

protect yourselves. But you must leave it to

me to say who shall be employed and who shall be

discharged. Wages and treatment are matters

which can be properly considered by a union of

yourselvei8 You will never have any trouble
with me."

The suggestion might be raised that his welcome of an in-

dependent union betrayed a desire to disarm and dominate its
leadership. Other quotations might be added to support such
a view, for Hanna seldom refrained from expressing his judg-
ment of labor leaders.39 Some he liked and could work with.
But these-~John Mitchell and John Siney of the coal miners'
“111011, for example-~worked with him at the peril of their

careers, for the very openness of his manner with them gave

x

38Morrow interview with George G. Mulhern, Hanna papers.

3
10 19:“ least in private. See Hanna to Roosevelt, Nov.
’ 1’ quoted below.

106

rise to fears among the rank and file that Hanna was using
"chloroform . "1+0
While he might be expected to be cautious with his own

employees--after all, he was not their union organizer--
Hanna's reputation for constructive leadership in labor-
management relations cannot be dismissed on the grounds
that he was merely playing a confidence game. To do so is
to assume falsely that he shared the image of some great
abyss of class fears and hatreds dividing his fellow busi-
nessmen from the masses of labor on the other side. If
such an image ever came to his mind it included a bridge.
The bridge was his concept of the working man as business-
“no He had seen the miners join forces to attempt to
stabilize the coal industry in the Depression of 1873 be-
fore the operators did; he had seen the lake seamen teach
the Vessel owners how to exert their combined economic
Power. And he had seen the effectiveness of the employers'
coEnter-moves. With the growth of stability and responsib-
ility on both sides he saw hope for a new community of
large units that would hold one another in a tense but viable

contractual relationship. It was not a question of passing

*

Wit koThe best documented period in Hanna‘s career dealing
Nath labor begins about 1901 when he became active in the
hisional Civic Federation. Then the clash of opinion over
h activities became audible on a nationwide scale. See

6 excellent dissertation, Marguerite Greene, .11” 1%

the American Labs; Masai...
washinston, 1956?,nespecially Chapter IV.

 

 

107

laws. He did not say that the workers needed laws to pro-
tect them, but "you need a union to protect yourselves."
He expressed himself hurriedly but lucidly in a letter to
Theodore Roosevelt when he was asked for comment on the
new President's first major message to Congress:
The fact is that today organized labor is not
opposed to combination of capital as they argue
that it justifies their position and demands for
recognition. I am in close touch with nearly
all of the responsible leaders of labor organi-
zation and am working with them to establish
. . . a community of interest which has for its
object closer relationships between them making
it possible to settle differences without strikes
and secure better man for reSponsible positions
In their organizations. I have the cooperation
of the M of them now. We can hold our power
in politics as long as we can retain the confi-

dence of this element. They are not worried over
the "Trust" question. . . . 1

When it is understood that by the "best" element he was re-
ferring to men like John Mitchell and Samuel Gompers it be-
comes clear that his ideal union leader was not the company
"Weatheart" but the advocate of legitimate business union-
ism.

Nowhere is there a straighter line in Hanna's education
than between his own experiences with labor and his mature
Views on national labor policy. He had accumulated more
than tWenty-five years of experience by the time he offered
this advice to Roosevelt. It had not always been pleasant

1+1
paper Hanna to Roosevelt, Nov. 10, 1901, Theodore Roosevelt
s, Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress.

 

 

 

 

108

experience, but it had left him confident and optimistic.
For the inflexible doctrinaires of the old paternalism he
had nothing but contempt. "Any man who won't meet his men

half way," he was quoted saying of George Pullman, "is a

goddamn fool. "1+2

\\_
i,

2
Beer, Hanna, p. 133.

CHAPTER IV
POLITICS: SOME POWER AND NO GLORY

The Honorable Richard C. Parsons was a man of wide ex-
,mwience and considerable standing in Cleveland Republican
.mflitics. He had been chosen president of the city council
at twenty-six, and since then had held a succession of of-
.fires: speaker of the state house of representatives, Cleve-
Ihnd internal revenue collector, marshal of the United State
Supreme Court, and member of congress.1 In the spring of
188% he was still not an old man, nor was his ambition be-
yond his deserts. He wanted to be elected delegate-at-large
UJthe forthcoming national convention to represent there
‘Um presidential aspirations of his friend Senator Sherman.
How he was defeated and Hanna chosen in his place he tells
hie letter to Sherman written just before the state con-
Vention opened on April 23:

Insofar as your friends in Cleveland are con-

cerned, we have lost the fight. . . . The Satur-

d'ayconvention nominated 39 delegates to the state

convention . There was not a vote against me, &

I supposed there would be no opposition. The

tate Journal, Toledo Telegram, Dayton Journal,

nearly every paper on the River, the Akron Journal,

Allen.Co. papers, & a dozen others were for me,

they announced my nomination by the state con-

Vention was assured. Mr. Everett (your professed
fFiend) said to me yesterday that I could have

13086. 91.219.19.311. 9. 2+7.
109

110

the County Delegation if I would Egghigg to use
my influence with you to keep Tom Jones P.M., Eg-
gleston Dist. Atty. (both Arthur men) & urge you
to take away the Gov't. Deposits from the Mer-
chants Bk. & the 2d National & give them to h;§
new Bank. I declined absolutely--flat--Then this
a.m. he, John Huntington, Jones & Eggleston, after
working all night, brought out HEB g,as a candi-
date & got George Gardner to present him as a
Hezalg condidate. They carried the delegation

20 for Hanna to 15 for me. So I have withdrawn
as a candidate & the result you will know before
this letter reaches you. I consider my defeat a
great blow to your interest, & am mortified for
myself. . . . Had Mr. Townsend said one generous
word for me--used the smallest influence in my
favor, & say he was honorably committed to me,

& that his friends must sustain me, I could

have . . . secured the place. But he would not
do anything. . . . Everett is simply an atrocious
fraud. . . . Hanna will probably be defeated to-
morrow. . . . He is a quiet, intelligent business
man with us political acquaintance or political
influence.

thus was probably the only time in his life that Hanna was
described as a "quiet" man. Presumably it referred to his
shyness as a public speaker.

The fuller story of Hanna's first candidacy goes back
u>the district convention referred to by Parsons. There
‘fim middle-aged novice in politics had tried to win a seat
as a district delegate. There had been two seats open, but
‘Um first went to a young Blaine supporter and the second
‘u>Hanna's publishing competitor, Edwin Cowles. As a last

resort,jEverett then suggested taking Hanna's name to the

h.—

2Parsons to Sherman, April 22, l88h, Sherman papers.

111

state convention for the delegate-at-large races.3

In view of later developments, some notice must be
taken of the character of the state convention of 188+.
Parsons may have been bitter as he watched its proceedings,
but the rest of the delegates romped through their chores
in the best of spirits. To one seasoned politician it was
"as near a good natured mob" as any he had ever seen in
convention.L+ Candidates for secretary of state and the
minor offices were chosen with dispatch. There was some
division between Blaine and Sherman men, but Foraker, an
°ut3p0ken Sherman partisan who was not even present, won
the first seat as delegate by acclamation. As nominations
were made for the other three places, the proceedings were
interrupted by an inspiration from the floor to elect the
presiding officer--Congressman William McKinley-~by accla-
mation. It was done forthwith. McKinley protested, ruled

the Vote invalid, was overruled, then replaced at the rost
mm, and promptly voted in a second time with equal unani-
mitYo Doubtless many of the delegates neither knew nor

cared 1" OI" whom he would vote in Chicago. At the front of

their minds was his magnificent tariff speech on the floor

\—
3
Croly, m, p. 120; Parsons to Sherman, April 3,

18
“2:; Sherman papers. On the district and state conven-
’ See also Morrow interview with Theodore E. Burton,

Cl
Wei-ind, 1905, Hanna papers.
H- C. Jones to Sherman, April 21+, 188%, Sherman papers.

112

of the House two days before; and the sight of him pre-
siding now, "prompt, clear, firm, pleasant and not only
pleasant but embellishing the entire administration with a
kind of pleasant wit which kept everybody pleased," as a
Sherman follower recalled.5 McKinley won his own seat.
That his seat was on the fence mattered little. He was
“‘0‘“ a Strong Blaine district and was claimed by that fac-
tion, while at the same time such astute Sherman men as
Grosvenor and Bateman helped to push him into the election
in the belief that he was their friend. One Sherman dele-
gate who had helped initiate the draft explained privately
that he understood that McKinley had been defeated previous-
1? in his district convention because he supported Sherman.6
Hanna won the third seat over a field of five others.
H9 ”is introduced by George A. Groot as his county's first
Choice, "a business man and not a politician," and not

f’Jl‘mally committed to any presidential favorite. In the

VOting, however, the Blaine men stayed away from him. They

 

knew that Hanna, as the L331}; hesitatingly put it, “3
Slain We:
.. v April 2.- 188%. Malena.
m, April 2 , 1 o , /, ,
6

H 0 Letters to Sherman from H. 5. Neal, April 21+, 188%,

ages; Jones, J. K. Rukenbrod, both April 25, 188%; c. H.

“11 ienor, W. M. Bateman, M. Churchill, all April 26, 1881+,

Shem: Sherman papers; v m, June 3, 188%.

indican 1tic-Foraker, May 1 , 1 , copy in Sherman papers

favorsgefiith“ Sherman was still being advised that McKinley
m.

113

"alleged with some degree of plausibility to be quite
kindly disposed toward Senator Sherman." As they saw his
vote pile up, however, they let him have that seat in trade
for the election of Judge William H. West to the other.7
Neither side seems to have known its own strength or cared
to test it. This fact in itself was an omen of Sherman's
weakness, for if any important fraction of the Ohio dele-
gation considered him at best their second choice, he would
lose even that leverage customarily held by a favorite son
from a pivotal state.

Why then was John Sherman taken seriously as presiden-
tial timber? He was a prospect not only in 188% but had
been Previously and would be again. The reasons were suf-
ficient, if not compelling. He had served a strategically
located state in the House and, after 1861, in the Senate,
“king a constructive record as a legislator for twenty-six
Years. He had served effectively as Hayes' secretary of the
Trefisury. He had an asset in his brother, "Cump," one of
the most popular Civil War generals. He was a capable ora-
tor, but never a master of the arts of the back-slapping,
Whispering confidence men of political intrigue. In com-
De“3“’-0n, he had an immense reserve of dignity that inspired

the Gen 8
ddence of voters year after year.

7% insider, April 25, 1881+.

8
Se
and Ske t:thiirelodore E. Burzciné ,1th Sham (Boston, 1906),

 

 

1

11%

Readers of his memoirs are asked to believe that Sherman
never lifted a finger to seek his party's nomination in
188%. On the contrary, as Foraker proves in his memoirs,
Sherman was very much in the race.9 He was running quietly,
but nonetheless purposefully. His strategy was that of the
would-be compromise candidate. If Blaine, with his grass-
roots popularity, and Arthur, with his great bloc of pa-
tronage-controlled delegates, were to deadlock, a break
toward the long-deserving Sherman could be looked for.10
It was not an unreasonable hope. Sherman was, to use a
more recent label, "Mr. Republican" for a great many party
regulars, and he was in at least a sentimental way the
1°Sical successor to Garfield. On the other hand, it has
been just such bright young men as Garfield, with short
records and few enemies, who have usually won this kind of
a compromise nomination. Old soldiers, too, often win, but
Veteran senators have rarely been nominated and never

elected.

9John Sherman. Bmllsatianaaf magma
ghg,gghih§§_ 2 vols., Chicago, 1 95), II,

Egg, 885 ; Joseph Benson Foraker, _9_t_e_§ 9.2 g. m 11.22
(2 2vols., Cincinnati, 1916), I, 151-157.

10
Sherman to Foraker, May 31, 188%, in Joseph B.

3103“)!" , We: siih Senator. Skim (n.p-.
' DD. 10 ll hereafter referred to as F e -
Mn 15ng Sherman

s .); Hanna to Sherman, June 10,
Papers.

3.7-..-» '

115

In fairness to Sherman's recollection of the affair,
it should be added that he did write Foraker just prior to
the convention that he would not want the nomination if he
could not have the solid support of the Ohio delegation.
He never had that support, and doubtless knew quite early
that his chances were extremely slim. Even with this
knowledge, however, he made no move to reinforce the strength
01‘ any other candidate. Sherman's attitude toward Blaine
was one of restrained jealousy. He confided in Hanna after
the convention that while "I think I know him as well as
a”YOIIe, I never have estimated his services as highly as
his numerous friends. Still, he possesses qualities at-
tractive to the masses of men, and naturally has a place
in their regard higher than those who have rendered greater
Serv1ce to the Republic. This seems to be the rule under
our System, and we should not repine over it."11

For Hanna, the importance of the Chicago convention of
188% lay in what it taught him of politicians and what
p011ticians learned as they watched him. He made an auspic-
ious beginning by arranging with McKinley to share a room
wGrand Pacific Hotel.12 If he failed to secure his

 

both lJ'Sherman to Foraker, May 31, 1881+ and June 3, 1884-,
to Kain WW. pp. 10, ll, 13; Sherman
nna, June 12, 1 , copy in Sherman papers.

1881+ laHanna to A. L. Conger, April 28, 188% and May 1,
both in A. L. Conger papers, Hayes Memorial Library,

t
“Wont, Ohio .

116

friend for Sherman, he could at least expect to learn some
lessons in convention tactics by watching and listening to
a master talent. Once arrived in Chicago, he was intro-
duced to others who were to be leading actors in the play
of his political future. Charles L. Kurtz of Columbus, who
had been scouting for Sherman support since February, was
one. Another was Joseph Benson Foraker, Sherman's floor
manager. Then a once-defeated gubernatorial candidate
thirty-eight years old, he was Just beginning to make his
reputation as one of the last and most effective of the
bloody-shirt-waving orators in the Midwest. In part, his
role was to be that of a party cheerleader. His ambition
was unlimited except by the requirements of party loyalty.
The tall, commanding figure of "Fire Alarm Joe" Foraker
"Ould reappear frequently along Hanna's path, first as his
friend and later his factional enemy. He seemed better
cast as an enemy, for his impulsive courage and shrewdness
were best seen when he played a lone hand against the odds.13
Hfitnna, Kurtz and Foraker no sooner met than they began
plotting their first move. They consulted with the "Indepen-
dents" from the East: Henry Cabot Lodge, Theodore Roosevelt,

‘_

1
3See Everett Walters, 112352211 W, an un-

W W (Columbus 1 pp. 27 at main
alters' biography is a useful guide through many phases

of Republican factional quarrels in this period.

 

117

(morge William Curtis and others, all of whom favored Senat-
<n~George F. Edmunds of Vermont. Together they agreed on a
inst olelaine's strength against the field. Senator Powell
(nayton of Arkansas had been selected as the Blaine mana-
yns' choice for the temporary chairmanship. The Sherman-
Rands . bloc opposed him with John R. Lynch, a widely re-
qmcted Negro from Mississippi. The plot succeeded, and if
itiailed to "frighten the Blaine men out of their wits," as
Ihnna recalled later, it satisfied all concerned that

fiwre would be more than one ballot. The vote also re-
vealed at last the seriousness of the flaw in the Sherman
camPelign. Twenty-two of the Ohio delegates, led or at least
heartened by McKinley's example, voted for Clayton. From
this POint on, any expectations of a substantial vote for
Sherman were based less on the science of convention behav-
ior than on a loyal conviction that his undisputed claims to
party Preference would eventually be recognized.“

Foraker next moved up his oratorical artillery. This
Wasthe first national convention he had taken part in, and
this little wonder that he aimed wide of the mark at some
DOint in the battle. It happened in the middle of his nom-
inating Speech, sometime after midnight. Thundering along

at high speed, he dropped a complimentary reference to "that
\_

1H
Hanna t Sh J 10 1884 Sh °
F o erman une erman papers
oraker, Egtfifi, I, 159. , ’ ’ ’

 

i}

 

 

118

brilliant genius from Maine"--and was immediately drowned
out for more than ten minutes by cheers and shouts for
Blaine. Surely he admired Blaine too, but he must have
found such reSponse as this beyond anything he had looked
for. It was embarrassing. "Never holler until you're out
of the woods," he ad-libbed when he was finally able to
make himself heard. But repeated calls for Blaine were
noted by reporters throughout the remainder of his speech.15
Foraker was justly criticized for inviting such an in-
terruption. Suspicions that he deliberately scuttled his
leader's cause are difficult to credit. He was no latecomer
*0 the ranks of Sherman's partisans, and had everything to
83111 by a sincere effort on his behalf. If he made a good
Showing and was defeated, he had hopes of the vice-presiden-
tial nomination for himself.16 He could hardly expect to
get it by disgracing himself before his own friends. Poli-
tical betrayals are planned and executed, but rarely with
the clumsiness credited to Foraker by some of his critics

at the time. He was not that stupid.

‘

1881+ lSForaker, Notes, I, 162-166- 919M 11:33.15}, June 6,

Y . Julia Bundy Foraker, L We £1.28: LL Again New

so“: 1932), pp. 79, 80, gives a lively account of the

hgeech, but where it differs from press accounts the latter
V9 been followed here.

 

 

16
Foraker mates. I 1M6 1h7- C. L. Kurtz and A. E.
Eatemn ‘10 Sherman, telegram,,5:10’p.m., June 6, 188+,
erman Papers.

119

Such was probably Hanna's verdict, for he continued to
work with Foraker in the convention and courted his friend-
ship in the months that followed. As the balloting com-
menced, the two novices kept in close touch. Their failure
to win more than thirty votes on the first ballot was eased
by the sight of a close race between the leaders, Blaine
(332%) and Arthur (278). More important, they had promises
from Edmunds men in Massachusetts to swing to Sherman on
the second or third. ballot. (The easterners had mistakenly
assumed that Sherman's vote would increase on later bal-
lots.) Finally, they saw hope in the South, once Arthur's
forces weakened.l7

Instead of gaining, both the Sherman and Edmunds lead—
ers began losing delegates to Blaine on the second ballot.
The Massachusetts men feared additional bolts to Blaine if
Edmunds released them. Sherman had still won nothing sub-
stantial outside Ohio, and within that state's delegation
McKinley's example was continuing to furnish the backbone

01‘ 8 Elaine faction, now twenty-three votes strong.18

_*

17
ngfiglang Herald June 6 1881su Kurtz to Sherman,
3:119 6, 1 ; Hanna to Sherman,’June 10, 1881+ both in
F erman papers; Foraker to Sherman, June 9, 188%, copy in
Draker papers.

180 .
June (3,an Herald, June 7, 188+, Foraker to Sherman,

, copy in Foraker papers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

120

On the third ballot the clouds darkened still further.
Blaine had reached 375; Arthur held on with 27%; Edmunds
had been reduced from an initial 93 to 69; General John
A. Logan of Illinois kept only 53 of his original 66; and
Sherman had wilted down to 21 votes from his Ohio friends,
or less than half of the delegation.19 Foraker said later
that only the fact that he already had the tally in his
hand when called upon kept the 21 votes for that ballot.
Hanna remembered somewhat more sanguine hopes at that
stage. He wrote Sherman a few days later that

. . . when on the third ballot some of your dele-

gates wanted to go over I held them back because
Lodge & Roosevelt came begging to me to hold on
for that ballot and promised Mass., New Hampshire,
the Edmunds vote from N. Y. and Rhode Island and
all they could control outside on the ch ballot.
Then I knew Georgia & Virginia would come almost
solid and a large number from the southern states.
I felt that I could not in justice to you neglect
that chance. And Fbraker yielded to me. . . .

F”alter was soon ready to yield to anything. He was bitter
at Lodge, Roosevelt, Hoar, Curtis and Long. In his view
they had made the "fatal mistake" on that third ballot.2o
But this may have been too harsh: they were indicating only
that; they preferred defeat with their first choice rather

than their second .
\

19W Easels. June 7. 188%.

2
pa oForaker to Sherman, June 9, 188%, copy in Foraker
pars; Hanna to Sherman, June lo, 1881», Sherman papers.

 

121

The Ohioans for Sherman had one small triumph in their
surrender. At the end of the third ballot, Foraker moved
that a recess be taken, hoping for time to decide what to
do next. The motion was lost, but during the balloting
news arrived from friends in the Illinois delegation that
a telegram had come from Logan asking his delegates to
switch to Blaine. If a new roll call started, Illinois
would be called upon first and would have the honor of
casting the decisive votes. “Therefore," as Hanna de-
scribed it to Sherman the following week, "Foraker and I
decided to steal a march on them and he got up in his chair,
"38 lucky in being recognized at once--and made the motion
to Suspend the rules and nominate Blaine by acclamation.
TheI‘eby heading off our Logan friends--Were they mad? I
should say so. Then we would not let McCullom [Shelby

M~C\1£l.ll;om_.( read his telegram. So I think we lost noth-
ing. ”21

School was out. Hanna, Foraker and others sent in
their final reports to the senator in Washington. Hanna's
was Written in an assertive, almost cocky style that be-
traYed his enjoyment of the game while it related his de-
feats. In his concluding lines he flirted with a most be-
aming modesty, but quickly recovered: "This was my first

”Mention and if I made any mistakes it was of the head and
\

21Hanna to Sherman, June 10, 1881+, Hanna papers.

 

122

not the heart [.113 For I have a way of going in with both
when I undertake anything. When I see you I will tell you
w m. n22

Sherman's reply was a gracious one. "You are both
honorable, disinterested men," he wrote, referring as well
to Foraker. "I assure you that, although my acquaintance
with you is brief, you have made me your grateful friend."
After the few condescending remarks on Blaine quoted
earlier, he concluded with a wish that he would come to
know Hanna better in the future, ”for I shall always remem-
ber your conduct in the convention as deserving both my
gratitude and respect."23

The senator's estimate of Hanna's performance was based
in large part on comments offered by others in the delega-
tion. Of the surviving letters written to Sherman follow-
1ng the convention, there are five, from four different
men, that include appraisals of the Cleveland businessman
‘13 a convention politician. Charles Kurtz noted even before
the proceedings got under way that Hanna was scurrying about
busily and “is surprising me by doing most effective work."

captain J. C. Donaldson, a veteran observer of court house

‘A

22Hanna to Sherman, June 10, 1881+, Sherman papers.

233

Papers, herman t0 Hanna, June 12, 188‘}, copy in Sherman

 

123

and convention crowds who had long been close to Sherman's
interests, reported at the end of one day's work that "Mr.
Hanna has perhaps done more good aside from Judge Foraker
than anyone else." Kurtz' enthusiasm came out at greater
length two days later, when writing from his home he as-
serted that this "Mr. Hanna of Cleveland . . . is worth 50
of Cowles kind. Active, able and aggressive, he surprised
us by knowing men and measures--what to do and how to do
it.“ S. L. Johnson of Columbus singled out Hanna for
praise, and a Cincinnati lawyer, E. E. Wood, gave it as his
opinion that "Hanna of Cleveland in my mind was the trump
of the delegation.”2l+
Foraker, while more had been expected of him, was also
generally praised within the ranks as well as by Sherman.
The slip in his nominating speech was dismissed as an un-
fortunate bit of carelessness. Though he was offered sup-
port for the vice-presidential place, he showed a proper

25

deference to the claims of older men.

_‘

2“Letters to Sherman from Kurtz June 1, 1881+ and
Jane 8, 188%; Donaldson, June 6, 1881+; Johnson, June 12,
1 3h: and Wood, June 13, 188%; all in Sherman papers.

25Sherman to Foraker, June 9, 1881+, -
J , p. 20; Hanna to Foraker, June 11, l , in
nogephnB:i Forakei z correspondence with Senator Hanna
- . . . , p. hereafter cited as MEL-1.13m 9.0.1.:-
°3§ and letters cited in note 21+ above. See also

5:21;” to A. McCurdy, June 11, 188k, copy in Foraker pa-

 

121+

McKinley's role, however, aroused real bitterness. At

the state convention six weeks before it had seemed he could
do no wrong. His own popularity won him a place as dele-
gate-at-large with no questions asked. At Chicago, the
Sherman men were suddenly dismayed to find him on Elaine's
side. As he eased himself off the fence he promised his
friends on the other side that he would scout up some po-
tential Sherman support among Elaine's followers and lead
them back at the proper time. Meanwhile, more than a dozen
other Ohioans followed his example and dared to speak out
for Blaine. McKinley even went so far as to tell Sherman's

Eroup that what he was doing was with the knowledge and

consent of their leader.26 How he felt able to say that is

not clear. Considered as a bit of Sherman tactics it was

so obviously a self-defeating move that the senator could
never have consented to it if he had been given any choice.

A- L. Conger, an influential Akron businessman who was

also for Blaine, was reported to have told Kurtz after the
first ballot that "McKinley and I have talked this matter
We? and if Mass. comes we will make the break to Sherman."27
But Massachusetts did not come, for the split in the Ohio
delegation gave it the best of reasons not to. While

 

26
Sherma Kurtz to Sherman, June 6, 188+; S. L. Johnson to
11, June 12, 1881+, both in Sherman papers.

2?
I(Ilrtz to Sherman, June 8, 188%, Sherman papers.

125

McKinley had every right to vote as he wished, his efforts
to be all things to all men in this case justified doubts
of his candor. Yet the disappointments he aroused were for
the most part muffled or swallowed. His more prominent
fellow Ohio Republicans were unwilling to allow themselves
the luxury of open recriminations against the popular young
congressman. For all that they blamed the Massachusetts
men, both Foraker and Hanna concluded their reports to
Sherman with veiled references to treachery they preferred
not to describe on paper. "If the Ohio delegation had been
solid," wrote Foraker, "we would not in my Judgment have
had a particle of trouble to have nominated you. But it
“3 not so. And the men who were trying to 'play the double-
horse act'were the men who did you the most harm. But those
irritating matters we will talk over instead of writing
about." Hanna's promise to tell Sherman "m M” when
he saw him next has already been quoted. If it does not
refer to the conduct of McKinley, Conger, and their group,
it is difficult to guess what it could refer to.28

Men with less at stake were more open in their criti-
°18m. ”I should not cry to see his wings clipped," wrote
the senator's trusted lieutenant in Allen county after he
Eflflgwatched McKinley at Chicago.29

J 28Foraker to Sherman, June 9, 188%; Hanna to Sherman,
me 10, 183+; both in Sherman papers.

2
pa 9George P. Waldorf to Sherman, June 11+, 188%, Sherman
Pers.

126

That Sherman himself expressed displeasure is not on
record, but is implied in letters to him from McKinley's
own district that appear to reply to inquiries as to the
chances of preventing McKinley's renomination to Congress.
One "angry and disgusted" correspondent wrote two weeks
after the convention that he feared it was "too late to‘
stem the tide that is now in McKinley's favor" in Medina
county. Another letter from nearby began, ”I found your
letter here. I have long known McKinley's unreliability.
His conduct toward you is dastardly." He would like to see
him unseated as soon as possible.30

For all this, McKinley had little to fear. If he re-
pented anything, he could afford to do it in private. In
Public he remained safe.

That the differences between Hanna and McKinley at the
convention brought a temporary cooling of their relation-
ship cannot be demonstrated, though it quite likely did.
That the collaboration of Hanna and Foraker initiated a
warm alliance is evident. "I assure you, my dear fellow,"
"We Hanna on his return, "that it will not be my fault if
°“1' acquaintance does not ripen, for 1 shall certainly go

121 mm whenever you are within reach." In return, he

‘_

0
Jun 3 W._H. Williams to Sherman from Wellington, 0.,
l88:.19’ 1681+; A. S. McClure to Sherman from Medina, 0.,
9 both in Sherman papers.

 

127

mnfld ask no political favors for himself. "I want you to
kmve all the glory," he insisted.31 For to Hanna, power
and glory were distinctly separate entities, the second of
which he cared little for.

Hanna's attraction to Foraker was predominantly a mat-
ter of politics rather than personal affinity, at least to
begin with. The two men found themselves useful to one
another, in agreement on their political loyalties, and
{mend of one another's part in the Chicago convention. It
mmfld have been remarkable had they not become friends. It
was Hanna, the elder of the two, who usually fed and en-
couraged the friendship. And it was he who sought to broad-
en it beyond the scope of politics. He made himself a fav-
orite with Mrs. Foraker and the children. Little Benson's
visit to Cleveland in the spring of 1886 made him a "hope-
less Hanna man," according to his mother. Judging from his
hoSt's report, the attraction was mutual:

Benson is having such a good time that I have not

the heart to send him home. He said his wardrobe

was a little scant for a long visit, so he and I

‘went shopping this morning for collars and stock-

ings and my wife says she can keep the shirts going,

as our laundary runs all the week. So you see we

can keep up his personal appearance. We are grow-

ing so fond of him that we will not want to lose

him (he takes after his mother). Therefore, if

you.are willing, let him stay as long as he is
contented. The weather is moderating and will

31

Hanna to Foraker, June 19, 188%, in prgkggrflgnng
993%: Po 2.

‘g

 

 

 

r I _ __ ._ _ , __,"_rv .. ____
w -. W.
a. . .1 .3

128

soon be pleasant. Ruth has commenced flirting

with him and wants most of his attention. So 32

there may be a chance of a family alliance. . . .
By this time Foraker had risen to the governorship. In
doing so he had received Hanna's active support from the
start. The Cleveland merchant became, if not a "hopeless"
Foraker man, at least a loyal one. He had been flattered
as early as December, 1881}, by a suggestion from Sherman
and others that he consider himself a prospect for the gov-
ernorship. His reply was an endorsement of Foraker.33 In
the nominating convention the following summer his own
county's delegation had unanimously supported Cleveland's
mayor, William G. Rose, and there were other prominent can-
didates he might have considered. But he had chosen his
man and he stayed with him. "I feel that you will mount the
ladder rapidly," he wrote Foraker after his election, "and
I will always be glad to stand at the pottom to help keep
it from slipping."3)+

“‘

o rGBZHanna to Foraker, May 27, 1886, in Foraker-Hanna
EMF , p. 1+6. See also the entertaining ch. V of Julia
a. Oraker, ;_ 2122153. Live it Again; its minor inaccuracies
1‘9 doubtless those of an unacknowledged ghost-writer.

Ha 33Hanna tn Sherman, Dec. 12, 188k, Sherman papers;
nna to Foraker, April 10, 1885, Foraker papers.

31+
_C_1§veland L ad r June ll 12 1885' Hanna to
Foraker, Jan. 1 , 188%,,Fgrgker-ilggné CorréspH p. 32.

129

Foraker may well have been puzzled by this, and a lit—
tle skeptical. His new friend was being the soul of polit-
ical modesty. At the same time he was the least bashful of
men socially. In every letter there was a chuckle, a slap
on the back or another invitation to dine. "As my regular
breakfast hour is nine o'clock, my carriage could meet you
at the Yiadngt depot and bring you to my house in neat
time--see? I will certainly claim you for dinner at six
o'clock and will invite Amos and a few fellows to meet you--
'Stag party. '" Followed by a postscript: "Tell Old Bushy
[Asa Bushnell, a future governor], next time you see him
that it's a Mutual Admiration Society. You can come in as
the jackass did and make it three of us."35 A few months
later there comes a note on a forthcoming G.A.R. parade in
Cleveland that ends with a request to "let me know what
time you will come and how many brass hands you want." In
June, 1886, after a fishing trip had to be canceled: "When-
ever You feel like running away telegraph me and I will be
“NY, . . ." and the following month, after Foraker had
thanked him for a visit: "I only wish you could find time
t0 come for a longer time and bring the family. Whenever
you “’6 troubled about sleeping, telegraph me--take the

first train and come up. . . . Our garden is smiling all

N

3 5Mann r - r -
g F O 886 F

’1'

130

over. Tell Benson that the boats will be around here the
20th to 2lst and it will take four or five days to unload
and load them." Foraker's dictated replies, while cordial
enough, seem reticent beside these autographed letters
with their greetings to "Dear Gov."36
If Hanna declined substantial support for the gover-
norship, perhaps he preferred something honorific--a title
in the militia, for example. The single fact that he was
entering state politics clean shaven in a generation of men
still asserting their manhood with handlebar moustaches if
not full whiskers might have been taken as a sign that he
was not seeking votes for himself. If he refused an op-
Portunity to attach a military title before his name the
sincerity of his protests would have to be granted--at
least for the present. Whatever Speculations may have ac-
comPanied it, an offer was made of an appointment as chief
°f enEineers with the rank of brigadier general on the gov-
ernor's militia staff. But "I don't like public office and
one of that kind would not be to my taste," he replied.
"Then there are so many who do like that sort of thing that
you Could make one of them happy, besides doing good for

Yourself. I am very MY. much obliged for the preference
\—

6
3 Same to same, April 23, 1886, and June 3, 1886,

bOth in .
m2.1:‘°;akejg.papers, and July 15, 1886, Forakez-gm

131

and will take the will for the deed."37

As plans were being drawn up for the state campaign of
1887, Allen Brinsmade asked Hanna if he would serve another
term on the state executive committee. "It seems almost
absurd," the merchant complained to the governor. "But if
m want me on that committee,.on I go. Only it occurred
to me that you could get someone more efficient and I would

do just as much on or off. That you can depend on." For-

 

aker granted as much, but insisted that Hanna could perform
a service by taking one place "and thus prevent Ling] some
other fellow being put on who may not be wanted." So on he
went. "Anything to please you, old fellow."3'8

All this was glory, not power. Hanna's ambition was
clearly not that of the conventional politician on the make.
A Politician creates obligations to himself in the party
and the public. Hanna's pleasure was in remaining one of
the Public, but obligating the politicians to himself. The
power of office could be shared by those with a power over
the Officeholders.

pOver may be too strong a word for the mere influence

01‘ one man among many. Hanna's political influence in the

——_‘

 

Co 37F'OI'aker to Hanna, Nov. 23, 1885 in Foraker-Hanna
r 3 9 p. 27; and reply, Nov. 2%, 1885, Foraker papers.

1887 38Hfilr1na to Foraker, June 22, 1887; reply, June 23,
1

Jul F rak ”3.33.9.2: 9522.922.” PP- 73, 71+; Hanna to Foraker,
y 7’ 1 7, Foraker papers,

ai

132

years of Foraker's administrations (1886 through 1889) can
be roughly determined by measuring his success in a variety
of related undertakings. What voice did he have in patron-
age matters, what contribution did he make to the party as
a local leader, and what degree of confidence did he win
from established party leaders-~these questions comprise
the larger ones of Hanna's influence. Each of them will be
discussed separately.

No sooner had Foraker won his first term as governor
than he telegraphed Hanna cautioning him against hasty pa-
tronage commitments. In reply he received a cheerful let-
ter of reassurance and counterwarning--"Only do not commit
yourself if any way without seeing me." The governor-elect
could see trouble ahead on Cleveland appointments and in-
Vited help in smoothing it over. Hanna wrote that he under-
stood the situation fully and when the time came wanted to
see him personally. "As I wrote you, I am not disposed to
cause You any embarrassment, but virtue and not ghee}; must
be rewarded." What he particularly had in mind, it devel-
Oped, Was that the incumbent state oil inSpector, Iouis
SmithniSht, should be dropped at the eXpiration of his term
in favor of Hanna's friend William M. Bayne. "You will
have a Petition for Smithnight as long as an orthodox

 

133

sermon, but shut your eyes," he urged.39 Despite this and
later pleadings, Smithnight was reappointed. Two years
later, Bayne was again presented for a term in this lucra-
tive position. The chief state inspector, it might be ex-
plained, controlled the appointment of a number of deputies
and shared with them a fee for every barrel of oil in-
Spected at the refineries. As before, there were other
candidates, including one pushed by McKinley, but this time
the position went to George B. Cox of Cincinnati, the local
boss there who had given Foraker his first majority in his
home county. Hanna was disappointed, but hoped to salvage
a deputyship for his man and one for McKinley's man, Hart-
Shorn. He soon learned that Bayne was again left out.
Still hoping that he could help McKinley, he sent a final
Plea to Foraker to "fix it up" with Cox. "I am going west
too-night and if Hartshorn is also left I think I will not
I‘ti'turn to Ohio again." He was not left; the governor re-
POI‘ted him "reasonably content" on his return from Cincin-

man a few days later.1+0

¥

18 39Foraker to Hanna, Oct. 22, 1885; reply Oct. 23,
fl 85 (italics in original ms., Foraker papers}; Hanna to
i'oraker, Oct. 30, 18 , Nov. 21+, 1885; all in Fgraker-
mm, pp. 2 9 25, 29-

1888 LN)Hanna to Foraker Nov. 28 and Dec. 3, 1887, Jan. 17,

1888’ reply, Jan. 19 1888; Hanna to Foraker, Jan. 20,

Ma , Feb. 20, 28, 1888, May 2, 1+, 1888; Foraker to Hanna,

Ge: 10, 1888; all in Foraker-M C r es , pp. 85 ff.;

b06186 E. Cox to Foraker, Feb. 21, 1888, March 27, 1888,
in Foraker papers, box 32.

 

131+

Foraker, in reminiscing years later over his relation-
ships with Hanna, stressed the significance of the oil in-
spectorship case for what it showed of "his spirit of in-
sistence at that time about small matters which was to be-
come such an important factor when, later, he applied it
to larger matters." In his memoirs he said that Hanna
wrote him eight letters concerning the plight of Hartshorn
after having agreed late in 1887 that "everything has been
arranged to suit the old cuss. . . ." But the letter he
quotes to support his point was written prematurely. Noth-
ing finally had been arranged, then, and would not be until
MW, 1888. The significance of the conflict was rather
that it showed the gracefulness with which he was able to
retreat from a position strongly taken, and console him-
self with the crumb that Hartshorn's acceptance represented.
His advocacy of "Old Hartshorn," as he called him, was given
reluctantly from the start and entirely as fulfillment of
sOllie obligation to McKinleyfil

If Hanna was disappointed, he bore no grudge. He under-
Stooe the pressures on the governor and sympathized. His

last letter in behalf of Bayne is prefaced with a note that

\_

1Foraker Noteg pp. 321-323° letters dated after
Hanna's of Dec: 87, cited in note ’+O, above.

‘_.. ..—u 'W*

 

135

"I know that this is like a nightmare to you and I am sorry

to be the one to be continually bringing it up."h2
Although the oil inspectorship was the most important

patronage question he tried to influence, there were

others, and in the majority of them he was better satis-

fied with the outcome. His letters of recommendation were

by no means so urgent or frequent as the series just re-

viewed would suggest. Some are quite'diffident in tone.

When Andrew Roy sought his help as an applicant for a mine

inapectorship, he wrote Foraker that he had known Roy a

long time and thought him qualified for the position. He

knew that John McBride, president of the Miner's Associa-

tion, was against him, but thought too little of McBride--

a Democrat--to let that influence. When Foraker found

other reasons to hesitate, Hanna shrugged. There was

another man who spoke to him later that he would have recom-

mended in preference to Roy anyway had he announced himself

earlier.l*3 To take one more example, the following letter

is not unusual:

‘—

thanna to Foraker May 2, 1888, F a e -_H§Qg§. 99;;-
It? , pp. 101, 102; Walters, Foraker, Po 29 agrees that
e affalr left no grudges.

1+
F 3Foraker to Chas. Foster, Nov. 1“, 1887, COPY in
oraker paper's, box 28; Hanna to Foraker, Jan. 25, 28,

aE-MKGJ-Hagna Corresgn pp. 90, 92.

 

136

I am asked by a good young Republican to write
you a letter asking for an appointment on the
Penitentiary Board. I tell him that I will write
you and ask if there is any such vacancy that you
can give to a Clermont Representative (consistent-
ly) and I don't want you to think of it on my ac-
count unless you can do it just as well as not.
mi would want to find out all about him. I

now monly know him as an active young Republican.
His name is C. P. Mallony.

Granting that Hanna could be "strenuous in the matter of
asserting his own rights" when he chose, the overall im-
pression given by his patronage correspondence in the
Eighties is not one of an "insistence on small matters."

It would be fairer to generalize that he tried to restrain
his personal and local preferences. The image he wished to
foster was that of the disinterested, confidential advis-
or who had no career of his own to attend to but could think
clearly on matters of the party's highest good in his cor-
ner of the state. As he put it, he would be the ”dove" in
party quarrels. There is no reason to doubt his sincerity.
Doubtless he saw himself in such a role. But neither can
it be doubted that such self-effacement served another mo-
tive than the obvious one of personal popularity. He could
haraly have forgotten his taste of power at the national
convention of l88’+. Did he want to win the leading role of

Sh€«‘T‘Illan‘s manager for the presidential nomination in 1888?

h

in,
., gengafo Foraker, March 1, 1886, Egr arkg -I_i§m__C_gl-

 

‘s

an-

-. n.

w

‘5'.

 

-
.‘~

 

 
 

137

Thulhe must avoid the traps of local factionalism and win
the confidence of mutually suspicious contenders for state-
idde prestige and influence. He must be the dove.

At the same time, Hanna was dependent for larger suc-
cmsses on his standing in Cuyahoga county politics. In the
Enghties, that standing was by no means as certain as it
mnfln later become. Although he was labeled a "boss" by
the Democratic Elain_Dgaler as early as the fall of 1887,
neither that newspaper nor any other source furnishes the
evidence to excuse the use of the term at this time. On the
contrary, Hanna's prestige at state and national party lev-
els grew only in Spite of difficulties at home. Cleveland
Republicans were neither safely in a majority as against
the Democratic party nor were they able to refrain from
quarreling among themselves.

While the story of intraparty‘strife is by no means
complete, the outline that does appear strongly suggests
its character. In 1885, the party won both the April muni-
cipal elections and the October state elections. The mayor
chosen in the former was Hanna's boyhood friend George
Gardner. Hanna's reaction to the latter was one of sur-
prise and relief. The Republican ticket had carried his
own ward, the ninth, "which had been a Democratic stronghold
since it was spliced, and [came within eighty of carrying
the eighth (the banner Democratic ward in this city) for our

,.,.n

I
"5".

 

a"

v“

 

o-.;

 

138

cmnmy treasurer, on whom the Democrats had centered all
tmnr energies," he reported to the governor. "We feel as
ifvm had done a pig_th;gg_in Cuyahoga." His particular
Murat the performance of the candidate for county treasur-
er,IMvid Kimberly, reflected a particular interest in his
success. Kimberly told in later years how he had been
giwnlan anonymous campaign contribution of $1,200 with a
rwte saying that he would learn the name of the donor and
km expected to repay only if he were elected. The money
was Hanna's and Kimberly was elected. If, as was alleged
later, he showed his gratitude by partiality toward the
Emion National Bank, it did not prevent him from reelection
to a second termfis
Between the spring and fall elections of 1885, events
at the state convention at Dayton made it clear that Hanna
was still regarded by many as a businessman in the back
seat. He had consistently urged the nomination of Foraker
for governor, as has been noted, but his county's delega-
tion entered Rose in the race despite a total lack of out-
side support. Hanna watched the proceedings from his chair

among the dignitaries on the platform. He was a member of

 

h58ame to same, Oct. 16, 1885, in ipid., pp. 23, 2h;
Morrow interview with David H. Kimberly, Cleveland, 1905,

Hanna papers; Croly, Hanna, pp. 126.

139

state executive committee. And his pleas were ignored by
his home delegation.l+6
In the congressional district convention of Septem-
ber,1886, Hanna, Everett and others were able to put
'UHpugh the nomination of Amos Townsend by a majority of
‘Uuee votes on the first ballot over two strong contend-
ers. In.Hanna's words, it was a "close fit." A boom for
11w incumbent representative had appeared at the eleventh
Mnu'and Hanna found that not even the delegates from his
own ward were united behind him. In the election that fall,
ibwnsend was defeated, as was the Republican candidate for
sheriff. Otherwise, the party came through by narrow
pluralities. Hanna's ward followed the county in scratch-
ing Townsend. A grudge carried over from earlier days had
contributed to his losses, but Hanna complained tint the
greater fault lay with Cowles' Leader, which had "got up a
fight‘with [its] Union printers and turned them all out,
thereby bringing the . . . labor vote against us. . . . Oh!

it is an outrage to have such a paper to represent our

party."1+7

 

L*6o.ieire.isza Leases, June 11, 12, 1885.

If7H'anna to Fbraker, Sept. 22 1886, Nov. 8, 1886,
Ebrakgprflagna_Cgrre§g., pp. 55, 56; Cleveland Leader,

 

 

IMO

With the approach of the mayoralty campaign of 1887,
Hmum.found himself cartooned in the Elain_D§aler as an as-
pnant for that office. In short pants and cap, he stood
winla.streetcar tucked under one arm listening to the
'hnyoralty piper" with Gardner and others. Instead of fol-
hnnng the piper himself, he and his friends sent the peren-
rual officeseeker William Bayne. Bayne was defeated,
though the party generally was having a good year.”8

How all this impressed Governor Foraker with his
friend's political puissance need not be guessed. After
Bayne's defeat Hanna received a letter of regrets but lit-
tle comfort. "You ask me in a postscript what I think of
the political situation in Ohio," Foraker wrote. "I think
it good everywhere except at Cleveland; and for the life of
am I cannot understand what is the matter there. . . . I
know it must have been a disappointment to you. Why is it
that such a man cannot be elected in such a city to such an
office? . . ."1*9

In the fall elections of 1887, Cleveland returned to
the Republican column and helped add to a handsome majority
in the state for Foraker. Meanwhile, Hanna had come into a

new glory of his own--an embarrassing kind of glory that

 

p 12:8Qlexelsm Plain Dealer, Feb. 27, 1887; Croly, henna,

n9Foraker to Hanna, April 13, 1887, szgker-Hapna C r-
m, p0 670

1H1

was to increase as the years passed. On September 21,
1887, the Plain Dealer announced a discovery:

A new ring has developed itself in the Republi-

can party hereabouts, if the complaints of Re-

publicans are to be believed. To the court house

ring and the city hall ring has now been added

the Mark Hanna ring. What the old rings want

everybody knows. What the new ring is after will

be developed later.
"later" came only a few inches down the same column of that
day's editorial page, where in another squib it was pro-
phesied that "if a Mark Hanna ring materializes and gets
the upper hand in this county its influence will be cast
in favor of John Sherman rather than that of Blaine or
Foraker. . . ." The following day in the same place the
editors introduced the Republican ticket for the county
with the allegation that it had been "selected by a ring of
officeholders . . . made out before hand by a secret meet-
ing of bosses headed by Marcus A. Hanna." The specifica-
tions of the charges are unprovable at this late date.
Perhaps it is as well, however, to leave the Plain Dealer
editorials of September 21 and 22 undisturbed, as land-
marks, or guideposts, in American political history.

Boss Hanna encountered a few days of stormy political
weather soon after the opening of the new year of 1888. He
had seen fit to endorse to Foraker a prominent local at-

torney, William B. Sanders, for appointment as judge of the
court of common pleas. "The leading members of the bar are

 

1H2

in favor;" he was a man of the "highest character and
abilities and . . . a personal friend of mine . . .
whose appointment would give me gggg; pleasure. . . ."
The appointment was made the next day, possibly even be-
fore the recommendation arrived. In telling Hanna of this,
however, Foraker noted that "the entire Cuyahoga delegation
to both the Senate and the House, with one exception, came
in a body to recommend either Solders, Garry or Eddy, and
to protest against the appointment of Sanders." Hanna,
while agreeing as to Eddy's qualifications, asserted that
the others mentioned were "not fit." "I have something to
say to the members of the Cuyahoga County delegation when
I see them," he concluded. "Between you and I [sic , they
are not safe advisors for Cuyahoga politics. In fact, I
personally don't care whether they like this appointment
or not. Your best friends and supporters do, so don't
worry over it."50

This note of belligerency reappeared in the next local
convention. Although the party had swept the board in the
spring municipal elections, the dispositions of the faith-
ful seem not to have sweetened noticeably as the day for
choosing national convention delegates approached. Charles

F. Leach, who would later become a prominent Hanna

50Hanna to Foraker, Jan. 2#, 1888; reply, Jan. 26,
1888; Hanna to Foraker, Jan. 28; all in Foraker-Ham Cg;-
Leasi, pp- 90-92.

 

1H3

limnmnant, carried a vivid memory of his initial encounter
wimlhis future boss. As he recalled it seventeen years
later:

I first saw Mr. Hanna at a convention in this
city [Cleveland]. That was in 1888. We had met
to choose delegates to the Republican National
Convention. Mr. Hanna had been in the South where
he had been working for John Sherman. He came home
and wanted to be a district delegate to the na-
tional convention. Some of us had agreed among
ourselves to send two other men. We felt that
Mr. Hanna was a bulldozer and we didn't want him
to interfere with our plans and our convention.
We nominated one of our men for delegate and were
about to nominate the other when Mr. Hanna came
and stood in the aisle at the side of the dele-
gation of which I was a member. We looked upon
him as a boss who desired to run the convention
so we shouted and jeered at him. He got awfully
hot and shaking his fist at me said: "I'll get
even with you." That was the first time he ever
spoke to me. He was made a delegate to the na-
tional convention but he escaped defeat by a nar-
row margin. I can remember that I had no partic-
ular animosity toward him. It looked to me as
though he was trying to bulldoze his way to the
national convention. Hundreds of other fellows
were of the same opinion. . . .

Adjusting the machinery necessary to produce Hanna's elec-
tion produced so much noise that observant Democratic edit-
ors felt encouraged to contribute to the discord. Since the
previous September's editorials they had almost entirely
neglected to follow Hanna's career in this new role. On
this occasion, however, the Plain peglg§,summarized its

convention story in an editorial note that "the edict has

-‘

51Morrow interview with Charles F. Leach, Hanna pap-
ers.

inn

been issued that Mark Hanna will go to the Chicago conven-
tion as a delegate from the twenty-first congressional dis-
trict. Of course the Republicans will obey their boss."
This was written before the convention met. On April 114-,
Myron ‘1‘. Herrick was chosen on the first ballot, and Hanna,
who was nominated by his lawyer, Andrew Squire, on the sec-
ond.52

Looming just ahead was the state convention at Dayton.
How the Cuyahoga delegation would behave was uncertain. It
had been sent by a meeting that had passed resolutions en-
dorsing Sherman's presidential candidacy, but an assort-
ment of grudges and a lack of leadership were apparent.
Foraker remarked in a private letter that "Cleveland has
801: into a mixed-up muddle of such dimensions that nobody
can tell where they will come out." Evidently they did not
come out where Hanna hoped they would. In the matter of
choosing delegates-at-large, he had preferred a balance of
FOt‘aker and his friend Bushnell, and Sherman's confidante
McKinley and Foster. Instead, Congressman Benjamin Butter-
Worth Of Cincinnati was elected over Bushnell. Butterworth
was Hanna's friend, but be upset the balance of the group
and for that reason alone Hanna's regrets to Foraker after
the event would seem plausible. As manager of Sherman's

int
erests, he had tried to prevent any dissentions that

52
W m 29212;, April 9, 15. 1888.

 

11+§

might Split the delegation later. He was "surprised and

disgusted" to see the Cuyahoga men oppose Bushnell, he

wrote. "It was not my delegation. . . ."53
Hanna's role in the national convention of 1888 will

be taken up in the following chapter, but it might be

noted here that he loyally accepted the candidate who had

bested his favorite. The national and state pluralities

for Harrison in November were quite small, so doubtless it

was with some relief that Hanna found Cuyahoga county

Giving a respectable margin for his party. Not only his

work at home, but his wide-ranging and successful money-

raising activities elsewhere gave him reason to expect that

his support of candidates for appointments under the new

administration would be given some attention. In this he

was bitterly disappointed. He was little better off when

it came to "getting his man in" than he would have been had

G'Povep Cleveland won. The indifference of Harrison affected

Sherman's usefulness as well, for the President carried his

obligations to Republican senators with remarkable ease.51+
\

C
. Ferak’3Foraker to Bengamin Butterworth, April 12, 1888,
a 9" Papers, box 2 ; Hanna to Foraker, May 2, 1888, E9;-
Spongkii‘a‘QQ-a; Corresp“ p. 102. Foster privately admitted re-
W. M bllity for the switch to Butterworth: see Foster to
West; Bateman, April.25, 1888, Warner M. Bateman papers,

rn Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland.

View ".011 Hanna's part in the campaign, see Morrow inter-

with Cfith Cornelius N. Bliss, Washington, D.C., 1906, and

1883 Sal‘les Dick, Hanna papers; Hanna to Sherman, July 18,
’ herman papers. See also note 59.

i F - v_ --_—__ __-——-—_, _..
5 _ , .m. u... ..-~. .ua

w'ru... -"

lhé

George Gardner was returned to the mayor's office in
11m spring of 1889, and of this Mark Hanna could approve.
The rest of the year, however, was marked locally by run-
xung factional quarrels that reflected the breach with For-
aker following the national convention of 1888. Hanna did
rmt approve of the success of his old schoolmate Allen T.
Brinsmade, who was elected city solicitor in April and
nude a member of the party's state central committee in
June. Neither did he approve of Myron Herrick's associa-
tion with the Foraker group, and the two friends had a tem-
rmrary falling out midway in the year. Finally, his own
city gave a plurality to Foraker in the gubernatorial elec-
tion of 1889--the one campaign in his career in which Hanna
balked at doing his share.55

If the foregoing survey of Hanna's tribulations seem
to deny the fact of his growing importance in party coun-
cils, it is incomplete. The merchant in politics showed a
real aptitude in these early years as a contributor, col-
lector and disburser of campaign funds--the "sinews of war"
as they were respectfully nicknamed. As early as 1880, as
has been noted, he led in the organization of a widely imi-
tated local businessmen's auxiliary for the Garfield cam-

paign. The idea was revived in succeeding presidential

 

559mm Elam Dealer, April 2, June 21+, 25, Nov. 6,
1889; Foraker to Herrick, July 1, 1889, copy in Foraker
papers, box 29.

 

 

1H7

campaigns and by 1888 was adopted on the national level, with
Ihnna among the membership. Toward the end of 188%, he
reported local collections of $3,000 and was trying fur-
ther. Small as this amount seems, it was more than the

tbtal Foraker could report from Cincinnati for the November
election of that year.56 Hanna served on the finance com-
nuttee of the state executive committee and helped seek
mn:contributions on every occasion. With his conviction
‘Umt he worked in a good cause, there was no shyness in

ins approach to his wealthy neighbors and friends. But re—
quests for more money seemed endless. After having solic-
ited contributions for the fall campaign of 1885 and then
Ibr the costs of pressing the Cincinnati election fraud
cases, even the bold Mark Hanna began to feel qualms. "I
can think of no one else who will be likely to give any-
thing," he wrote A. L. Conger as he enclosed his and John
Bay's checks in January, 1886. "The fact is I have gone
over the ground here so often of late that I am ashamed to
ask a man for any more money for political purposes."57 His
Own checkbook, nevertheless, was always ready. At Foraker's

request, for instance, in the fall of the same year he

*

56Hanna to Foraker, Oct. 29, 188%; reply, NOV. 3,
188%; both in Foraker-Eggng_Corresp,, pp. 10-12.

I: -
’7Hanna to Conger, Jan. 7, 1886; see also same to
same, Jan 5, 1886; both in A. L. Conger papers.

 

 

 

1h8

chipped in 3100 to a fund of 3500 being raised in the state
to help overthrow a Democratic congressman in Virginia.
When the state campaign of 1887 had passed, leaving the
executive committee 8%,500 in debt, Hanna and Foraker
Sparred amicably over which of them would treat the other
to his apportioned share of the obligation. The governor
had always been a conscientious donor himself, but his
nmans were far more limited. "Indeed," Hanna insisted,
'Wou will n21,take care of my share of what we may have to
Pay. . . . I claim the privilege of paying your assess-
nent as well as my own, and it will give great pleasure to
do so. I only ask that I may be excused from doing any
more begging_this trip." Eventually, each paid his own
share, and with a generous check from John D. Rockefeller

58

the committee was soon operating in the black again.
Money for contesting elections, money for erasing de-
ficits and money for other special or pet projects came so
frequently that no measure of Hanna's financial importance
to the party can be taken from a simple list of his con-
tributions to the various committees at campaign time, or

from.a list of his collections from others, even were they

‘

58Fbraker to Hanna, Sept. 16, 22 1886, Nov. 5, 1886,
Nov. 16, 21, 1887; reply Nov. 23, 1887; all in szakez-

Co , pp. 56, 82-85, where the date of the final
Hanna letters is misprinted as Nov. 27. See Foraker pa-
Pers, box 28. The Virginia Republican, Yost, won his
election. On Rockefeller's aid, see Hanna to Foraker,
Jan. 20, 1888, ibid., p. 89.

1&9

available. While he sent the national committee $10,000
of his own in 1888, for example, and collected probably
$100,000 at the same time, he was equally ready to come
ibrward with the smaller, less widely acknowledged check
when it could be placed effectively on short notice.59

An example of this occurred early in the campaign of
1885, when Foraker called upon Hanna to help him purchase
the support of two small Cleveland newspapers. Fbr what it
tells of methods, prices and confidences of the time, the
episode deserves more than passing mention. The guberna-
torial nominee wrote his new friend on July 2:

On my return from Columbus I find a letter from
H. C. Smith, editor of the Cleveland Gazette,
saying that he must know by Saturday, when his
paper comes out, what policy his paper is to
pursue. This simply means that he must either
be helped, or his will not be a Republican pa-
per.

I have met Mr. Smith several times, and he
seems to be a bright, intelligent young man,
who is anxious to do what is right, and I imagine
he can give us some efficient help through his
paper.

Of course, the committee will have to take
care of such matters, but inasmuch as the commit-
tee is not yet organized and prepared to do any-
thing, I enclose my check for $50, payable to
your order, and request that you see Mr. Smith and
make the best arrangement with him it is possible
to make to secure his hearty and active support.

59Charles Richter to Hanna, Oct. 18, 1888, from New
York, encloses two receipts for two $5,000 contributions;
in Hanna papers. Croly, Ha a, p. lh9, errs in crediting
him with a total of on158§5,000. The estimate of $100,000
is

collected by Hanna in 1 from the Morrow interview
with Charles Dick, Hanna papers.

 

 

150

I would not agree to pay him from all sources,
more than $100 or $200 or 3300 during the campaign.
That would amount to a considerable help to him,
and as much as the committee would be able to be-
stow in any one direction, in my judgment.

Bear in mind, too, that R. A. Jones, of the
Cleveland Globe, who saw us at Columbus, will
have to be seen and provided for similarly. I
send this 850 only with the idea that it will
enable you to tide the gentlemen over for the
present until the campaign gets on its feet. . . .

P.S.--See to it that these fellows are active,
zealous and unqualified in their support, Bher-
wise do not have anything to do with them.

Ihnna replied a few days later that he had "fixed the
editor of the Globe and will see Smith today if I can

find him." Presumably he found him, for the Q3;ettg,swang
into line.61 When a question arose as to whether Hanna had
"fixed" Mr. Jones' ngpe_securely or David Paige and Allen
0. Myers had subsequently caused it to slide in the direc-
tion of the Democrats, a fuller explanation of what he had
done was in order. Hanna wrote that

the statement of [about?] the Globe I do not be-
lieve, for, as I wrote you, I have had an inter-
view with Jones and have his promise to support
you if we would let him do it in his own way.

The paper has not been a political one, but rather
devoted to their various societies. They had

one Democrat on the paper and I have bought his
stock and presented it to Jones. He said he would
first publish letters and replies, one of which

you will seg in the paper I send you by mail to-
day. . . ." 2

“maker-Hanna. ___2_2..Corr s , pp. 18, 19.
61Hanna to Fbraker, July 7, 1885, 1p;g., p. 19.

62Hanna to Foraker, July 14, 1885, replying to Foraker

E; EggnaélJuly 9, 1885. both in.Earaksrrflanna.§2xrssnie
O ’ O

_. .-_.. .r. - ..=- -. -w, .._-_._ “l,

151

Shflfiar subsidies to the venal publishers of impoverished
newspapers were not uncommon, as the rumor of competition
Ibr the Globe's favor illustrates. That Hanna was en-
tmusted with the mission at so early a date tells something
ofifls value to the veteran politicians as distinct from
Unarank and file of the party, none of whom was privy to
such transactions.

Dan F. Reynolds remembered in later years how he had
teen delegated the unhappy responsibility for collecting
a 31,260 campaign deficit in Cuyahoga county about this
time. He was having almost no luck at all, and reported
as much to the committee. As the politicos sat around the
nesting room in gloomy rumination on their fate, in walked
Ihnna. "It looks pretty blue in here; what's the matter?"
he asked the assembled mourners. They told him, and he
sat down with his checkbook to write out an order for the
full amount. "Here, pay your debts and look cheerful."63

Party leaders loved this cheerful giver. If he seemed
to be buying--or renting--their favors, he paid well and
promptly, he asked for nothing unreasonable or heterodox
to good Republicans, and he sought no glory in office for
himself. If he had his own circle of friends, they were not

exclusively his, but good party men all-~Foraker, Sherman,

k

63Morrow interview with Dan F. Reynolds, Cleveland,
1905, Hanna papers.

152

McKinley, Amos Townsend, George Gardner, Myron Herrick,
Asa Bushnell, Benjamin Butterworth, the Rockefellers and a
host of Cleveland businessmen and minor party workhorses.

Clearly Hanna was seeking a place in the established
order of political things rather than attempting either to
reform or corrupt it. In this sense he looked upon politics
as a game. It was neither war nor a crusade, but a game
with settled objectives and established rules for tactics
and scoring. It must be played strenuously and to win, but
persistently, too, year in and year out. Such was Hanna's
view, it may be inferred--he never expressed himself dir-
ectly on the matter--and such has been the traditional view
of the political American. What was unusual was the direc-
tion Hanna's ambition took in relation to it. He wanted
from the start to be the coach and manager, rather than a
player on the team. (His enemies, had they followed the
simile this far, would have said he wanted to buy the whole
team.) His approach to politicians was almost fatherly.
He would be tolerant and understanding, but never deferen-
tial, except to a very few, and these--Sherman and McKinley--
one at a time.

During this apprenticeship period of the Eighties,
Hanna was operating simultaneously on all three levels of
domestic politics. As a local power, he was least success-

ful. As an influence on the party in the state he was

153

gaining rapidly through his services to the Republican
governor, senator, several congressmen, and a number of
wealthy businessmen and local leaders he had worked with
at conventions and on committees.

On the national level, he had found a hero in John
Sherman. His prominence among men of the Sherman-for-pres-
ident group was a considerable one, especially toward
1888, but it was a prominence that would cost him dearly
in state and county. It was Hanna's loyalty to Sherman
that led to the estrangement from Fbraker--an estrangement
that serves as one of the major themes of his public life

after mid-1888.

 

CHAPTER V
THE LESSONS OF 1888

In the complex dance of American political life,
there is one underlying rhythm that beats so constantly
and monotonously that its sound often goes unheard. Be-
neath the march and Spin of issues, and giving the tempo
for heroic solo performances, can be detected the constant
two-four beat of the national election schedules. Though
its timing can be marked annually, its heaviest accent
falls on the years divisible by four. Not surprisingly,
then, the biography of the public man may be highlighted
by the evenly spaced events of the presidential election
years. This is the case with Hanna to a great extent.
His debut in national politics and the start of his friend-
ship with Foraker both date from the national convention
of 188%. The convention of 1888 was to mark the end of
the alliance with Foraker and the beginnings of a new inti-
macy with McKinley. More broadly, it precipitated a new
factionalism in Republican Ohio, and to some extent deter-
mined the role Mark Hanna was to take in state politics
for the remainder of his public life.

The narrative ahead will be directed toward the answers

to several questions here implied: What caused this

151+

 

 

155

falling-out between the men and the formation of new fac-
tions around them? What part did Hanna play in the 1888
convention and how well did he handle himself in it? And
finally, what new directions did Hanna's ambitions and
prospects take at the end of this year? Although this is
a biography of Hanna rather than Foraker, some attention
must be given to the latter's side of the forthcoming con-
flict. Governor Fbraker's continued importance in the
Ierty would be unexplainable had he been without a case
{flausible to a large number of his friends.

Two assumptions regarding the workings of Joseph Ben-
son Foraker's mind in this period may be fairly taken. The
first is that he was willing to put himself in the way of
any political advancement that seemed within reach. This
is not to say he was reckless. He had no wish to make a
fool of himself. But he had the confidence, the optimism
and the vanity to take to heart any suggestions that he was
in line for the senatorship, the vice-presidency or the
Presidency itself. In short, he had begun to exhibit the
familiar Great Man syndrome. Second, Foraker was not one
to feel any Special warmth of personal loyalty to another
man. He understood the give and take of mutual obligations,
but tended to keep a scorecard on them that party colleagues
might have considered ungenerous. He was an intensely loyal

and partisan Republican, but within the party his peers

found him aloof and touchy. His fellow Cincinnatian,
Benjamin Butterworth, wrote of him to a friend one exas-
perating day: "You know I have never been unfriendly to
Gov. Foraker; I have been a vastly better friend to him
than he has been to himself, although he may doubt it. Un-
fortunately he does not permit any body to come near him
unless to burn incense in his nose. . . ."1 Butterworth,
vdth his flair for the poisoned hyperbole, would shortly
talk himself out of another term in Congress. But he was
rmt alone in his impatience with Foraker.

Neither of these characteristics would be worth dis-
cussing at length had their possessor not been rising to
mufllheights of political popularity as to create wide-
spread talk of his fitness for a place on the national
ticket. The talk began early in 1887, when he was draw-
ing admiring applause from important audiences that heard
him speak in New York and Pittsburgh. On several occasions
in that gubernatorial campaign he was given opportunities
for bloody-shirt waving that won renewed cheers from aging
veterans in Ohio and beyond. Indeed, it seemed at times
that the governor was being allowed to run against the Con-

federacy. Unfortunately, his battle cries came in the echo

__¥

lButterworth to Daniel J. Ryan, July 6, 1889, Ryan
papers, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.

157

of a peace and good will tour through the south by Senator

John Sherman?

Democratic editors, meanwhile, saw their chance to
muddy the waters further by stressing at every opportunity
Foraker's fondness for Blaine and his surmised ambition to
make himself the vice-presidential candidate with that al-
ways dangerous "Plumed Knight" from Maine.3

The state convention at Toledo in July of 1887 climaxed
the first attempt of Sherman's friends to corner and dis-
arm the young governor. As early as April 1, they an-
rmunced through congressman Charles H. Grosvenor that they
would call for an endorsement of Sherman's presidential
xmetensions. What could Foraker do? He tried briefly to

escape commitment, but could not. He needed a united party
behind him for the coming campaign. The price was his
pledge of allegiance to the senator, and yet in giving it

he made himself unavailable for either nomination at Chi—
cago. His acquiescence was a "mistake," he said in his mem-
Oirs later, but at the time the issue was before him he had

more realistically concluded that he was trapped:

__~

1
Foraker Notes pp. 2%9-252 283-289: Walters For—
ster, pp. so,’51, 533 57-61. ’ ’ ’

J 2Walters, Foraker, pp. 52, 51+ 56- Hanna to Foraker
“13' 2, 1887, Foraker papers, box 1; 91.3% 221.11. a -
3’ Jilly 18, 18870

158

We are now seeing what we all should have seen

before [he wrote a friend]. Instead of perfect

harmony, all is discord--Every man is whetting

his knife, not for Democrats but for fellow Re-

publicans. I feel it will grow worse instead

of better. . . . I feel sick and tired out by

it. It seems to me that Sherman is the most un-

fortunate man in some reSpects that I have ever

known. I do not know what can be dfine to help

the matter. If you know advise me.
All this was before the state convention itself. When it
met, the Sherman group, led by Grosvenor and A. C. Thompson,
refused all compromises, Ironically, in view of his close-
ness to the senator's friends, McKinley was among those on
the resolutions committee who voted against the Sherman en-
dorsement before it came to the floor of the convention.5

Hanna succeeded in staying clear of the governor's
wrath. Sherman, too, sought to hold Foraker's good will
with complimentary letters. In January he expressed his
pleasure at having him head the Ohio delegation--as if he

could well prevent it. He asked Foraker to make a seconding

 

1+Foraker to W. D. Bickham, July 1%, 1887, copy in
Foraker papers, box 28.

5Foraker Notes. 13. 268; we v a d Blair; Dealer,
July 27, 28, 1887. The state executive and central com-

mittees remained in the control of Foraker's friends, how-
ever. He had let it be known that on this he would have

"no fVWXLing or nonsense of any kind with Mr. Sherman, or
any'od“the gentlemen who represent him." Foraker to Foster,
July 25, 18 7, Foraker papers, box 28.

 

 

—__——+~—7—_; -- '

159

speech at Chicago, though it was agreed that the nominating
speech itself should be made by someone from outside Ohio.6

Not until May would Sherman formally authorize Hanna
‘uatake charge of his interests at the convention. But the
lode-waisted, light-stepping merchant from Cleveland had
tmgun to assume a leading role in pre-convention skirmishes
long before this. As Croly observed, Hanna in effect
'hwlected himself" for the position "by virtue of hard,
enthusiastic and competent work."'7

On the first day of March, Hanna set out with the
family in tow for Atlantic City. All of them had been ill
mudng the preceding month and little Ruth was still unwell.
Inter a period of rest and a sidetrip to Philadelphia,
Hanna was ready to make his first report on what was to be
a major political expedition. As a sample of his approach
torus work, the letter deserves extended quotation:

. . . While there [in Atlantic City] I made the

acquaintance of Mr. Matthews, Prop. & Editor of

the Buffalo Express. I got a good deal of infor-

mation from him regarding N. Y. State politics.

Said that he had been in favor of Sheridan believ-
ing that he could create a regular old-fashioned

60n the continuing good relations with Hanna, see

flaakerrflanaa.922£2s2is p. 71 rr., and the complimentary
reference to Hanna in Foraker to Alger, March 12, 1888,
Rnaker pa ers, box 28; on Sherman see Sherman to Foraker,

Jan. 13, l 88, Foraker- herman M, pp. 53, 5’+.

7Sherman to Hanna Ma 12 1888 -
y Hanna papers Croly
m, p. 131. a a a 9 9

 

 

160

"whoo -her up" kind of a campaign among the
"boys' which would completely overshadow the fac-
tions in N. Y. State. I told him that such a
choice would simply be throwing away his influ-
ence at a time when it could be of great service
to his party, etc. And urged the "Ohio idea"
with all my eloquence. He admitted that you
were the REEF. man for Prest "But can we elect
him." My reply was simply to ask him Why you
could not carry N. Y. To which he said he be-
lieved you could with a My unison all along
the Rep. line. And eyelieee first what you had
suggested. Warner Miller for Gov. and the Morton
faction the second place or something equally
satisfactory. When I left him yesterday he told
me he thought he would be willing to have me say
that he would support you. Then I would say it,
says I. You may say he is my second choice, as
I am not prepared to say that Sheridan is out of
the question. Matthews is a power in Western

N. Y. He does not want any office nor control
any patronage. Therefore he is the "right kind"
of a friend to have. I hope to see him when he
returns to Buffalo.

I spent some time today with Mr. Swank of
the Iron and Steel Ass. S. is a great Blaine
man. But will now do all he can for you. He
took me to see Wharton Barker with whom I spent
two hours-~I hardly know what to make of him as
he expresses himself strongly for you while he
also seems to be loaded with doubt about N. Y.
from reliable sources. Swank wanted me to see
Jas. McManes who he says will control a majority
of the Phila. delegates. But Barker advised me
not to see him as he had [said] lately (this
week) that you could not be elected. McManes
and Quay are not friends now. It struck me that
Barker did not want me as 1933;; fiziend to see
McManes--At any rate I will not risk making a
mess of it by going contrary to his advice. But
I will have someone else see McManes. . . .

I had a long letter yesterday from Gov.
Foraker . . . and am satisfied that he is work-
ing as hard for you as he has done for himself.

 

161

8

And will continue to do so to the end. . . .
The letter from Foraker referred to was a strongly worded
reply to pleas from Hanna to help extinguish threatening
boomlets for Blaine in the state. Foraker retorted that
he was doing his bit far more than Sherman seemed to recog-
nize, and cited several instances. But Sherman wrote Hanna
that Foraker's letters to him had been "very satisfactory"

and that he wanted to see the constantly recurring jeal-

ousies in the party kept down.9

On reaching New York, Hanna outlined his designs on
that city and reflected on his past week's performance:

I felt it was a mistake not seeing McManes. But
I was afraid of offending Barker. . . . The more
I think of it the more I am satisfied that Barker
was determined that I should not see him. Think-
ing that his own influence would be dwarfed. I
cannot understand that sort of feeling in con-
nection with matters so important. And may you
be delivered from many such friends.

The next day he called on Stephen B. Elkins, reporting some
encouragement in that quarter--though he later found he had

been deceived--and Spent an hour with "my friend Jno. D.

a;

8Hanna to Sherman, March 18, 1888 from Philadelphia,
Sherman papers. James M. Swank, secretary of the American
Iron and Steel Association, was well known to Sherman:
see Swank to Sherman, Jan. 11, 1888, idem. Barker, a
financier and editor of the Agegicag, was for Harrison then;
in 1896 he would join the Populists. McManes is properly
given a chapter in Harold Zink, City Boeees in the m
States (Durham, N. C., 1930).

9Foraker to Hanna, March 12, 1888 Foraker, Notee,
p. 325; Sherman to Hanna, March 17, 188$, Hanna papers.

'm

162

Ebckefeller, trying to get him interested." He did receive
permission to lunch with him every day during his visit,
"so as to go for several of their Gen'l Officers. . . ."10

Sherman beamed approval on all of this; prOSpects were
bright. John Hay was also scouting for him, and Green B.
Baum, a specialist in southern politics, was busy in-
quiring after delegates and distributing funds in the states
of the old Confederacy.

Gently the senator advised his friend as he went along.
He agreed it would have been better had he seen McManes
himself, since "any casual expression of opinion by him
would not bind him. . . ." When Hanna reluctantly reported
a rumor that editor Smith of Philadelphia was wavering to-
ward Blaine, Sherman replied grimly that he had "no doubt
that C. Emory Smith, B. F. Jones, and the whole of the old
[national] committee are ready at any moment to transfer
their force if Blaine will consent." Gradually the fledgl-
ing campaign manager was learning his way through the east-

ern thickets of the political jungle.11

 

loHanna to Sherman, March 18, 19, 31, 1888, all in
Sherman papers.

llSherman to Hanna, March 20, 1888, Hanna papers.
Raum made a number of trips south; his best re orts are in
letters to Sherman of April 28 and May 17, 188 , both in
Sherman papers. On McManes and Smith, see Sherman to
Hanna, March 20, 28 both in Hanna papers, and Hanna to
Sherman, March 27, 1888, Sherman papers.

163

Not until the end of the first week in April did he
return to catch up on accumulated business in Cleveland.
Before long he realized that his election as a district
delegate was by no means assured, and there followed that
"bulldozing" scene described by Leach earlier. Soon after—
ward came the state convention at Dayton. He had been try-
ing to see Foraker the previous week without success, but
stopped over in Columbus now to ride with the governor
to Dayton. Returning home for a week, he then disappeared
in the direction of Boston for a week on business. The
first four days of May he was back in Cleveland fretting
over the "nightmare" of the oil inspectorships. At the end
of the week he was in Chicago with A. L. Conger, arranging
for delegation and campaign headquarters, and seeking out
Illinois party leaders. From Chicago he went to Minneap-
olis, not to be seen in Cleveland again until May 15.12
In the accumulated mail on his desk then were two signifi-
cant letters. Foraker had written requesting a visit from
him, noting sharply at the conclusion: "I do not like the
outlook for our cause. It may be it is only because no one
seems to deem it appropriate to give me any information

about it. At any rate, I am wholly ignorant as to Mr.

12
Hanna to Foraker April 6 11 16 1888 Eerakefi-
Hanna Corres ., p. 105;’Hanna to’Sherman: May 3, 15, l 88,
Sherman papers.

16H

Sherman's plans and wishes, hopes and prospects." The
other letter was from Sherman, saying that
it is very important that you and Foster meet
here with McKinley, Butterworth, Raum and others,
who will be designated, as early as the 25th of
this month with a view to a conference.

Please advise me if it is within your power to
come, and whether it will be best to invite Conger.

Answers went out immediately to both men. He would try to
steal time to come down for a conference before long, he
assured Foraker, but would be on the road most of the time
fulfilling prior commitments. To Sherman, whose letter had
also notified him that he had been chosen convention cam-
paign manager, he also explained that he had a tight sched-
ule but could get to Washington Friday or Saturday if the
others could. "By all means invite Mr. Conger and any other
of your friends that can be of service. Would it not be
well to at least extend an invitation to Gov. Foraker? I
do not think he could go, but I do not think it wise to ig-
nore him in making plans for this campaign.13

So Foraker was invited, and declined. Only Hanna and
Foster made the trip; the others, including at least
McKinley, Butterworth and Raum, and probably J. C. Donald-

son as well, were already in Washington. What was said at

 

l3Foraker to Hanna, May 10, 1888; reply, May 15, 1888,
both in Forake -Hagea Corres , p. 105; Sherman to Hanna,
May 12, 1888, Hanna papers; reply, May 15, 1888, Sherman
papers.

 

165

the meeting is not known to this day. On Foster's return
to Ohio, he wrote Foraker that Hanna had agreed to "have a
full talk" with him the same week. Hanna made a stopover
in Pittsburgh, however, and when he arrived in Cleveland
had only four days free before he was obliged to set out
for Chicago and points west again, this time on long-ne-
glected business for the Union Pacific Railroad. He wrote
the governor that he feared he may not have time to come
down before leaving, and then inquired whether the altered
room arrangements he had made for him at Chicago's Grand
Pacific Hotel would be suitable. He had reserved a suite
for him directly above the Sherman and Ohio headquarters.
McKinley, Foster, Butterworth and he would share two small
roomsadjoining the headquarters. The change was made, he
explained, because he understood that the governor would
have his wife with him. Was this all right?11+

It was not. Foraker was piqued and minced no words in
explaining why. He quoted from Sherman's letter saying that
a long and important conference had been held and that
either Hanna or Foster would return with a full report "at

an early day." Then he quoted Foster's letter saying that

 

1“Foraker to Sherman, telegram, May 17, 1888, Sherman
papers; Foster to Foraker, May 21, 1888, Foraker papers,
box 33; Hanna to Foraker, May 2%, 1888, F rak -Hanna gee:
1e§9,, p. 106; Hanna to Sherman, May 30, l , explains his
railroad business.

166

Hanna would make the report. Butterworth had also written,
but less frankly, saying that "nothing of consequence was
done" at the conference. "Matters are under advisement. I

will write you as soon as anything worth your hearing trans-

pires."

With these letters before me, Foraker concluded

I was surprised to receive your letter in which
you do not speak of any arrangement having been
made according to which you are to see me, . . .

or of any information, . . . or of any plan, . . .
or of any organization, . . . but which is chiefly
an assignment of reasons why I should surrender
the rooms in the vicinity of our headquarters

that I have had engaged for more than three months,
. . . and take others higher up.

These letters appear to me "out of joint"
with one another, and coupled with what is reach-
ing me from various quarters, satisfy me that the
so-called "fool friends" are not all killed off
yet, as I supposed, and inggce me to say that I
prefer to retain my rooms.

Hanna made no argument. The suggested rooms "only had in
view your own comfort and privacy. They will be left as
they were. I leave for Colorado tomorrow night and will
see you on my return." After stopping over in Chicago, he
wrote at greater length of the proposed room changes, en-
closing a diagram. "Believe me I did not intend to be of-

ficious in the matter and am sorry if it might have seemed
So . "16

“

15Foraker to Hanna, May 25, 1888, EQEEEQEffléEné.QQL'
resp,, pp. 107, 108.

16Hanna to Foraker, May 26, 1888, Fbraker papers, box
1; same to same, from Omaha, May 29, 1888, Eeeekegyflenne,
ngzeepe, pp. 108, 109. Foraker had his way.

167

But he never answered the question of whether he was
delegated to report on the Washington conference. Perhaps
he had not understood that he was, but disliked to contra-
dict Fbster. More likely, he felt that a full talk in
Columbus would do so little to smooth the governor's fea-
thers by then that other, more rewarding chores had to be
given greater priority. In any case, he never did have
that talk, and never wrote in more than outline of his
doings and findings. In a last-minute effort to salvage
some of the earlier good feeling, he wired an invitation
to leave early for the convention with him in his private
car. "I want you there bad." It would have been awkward
at best, and a strain on the governor's dignity; Foraker
courteously excused himself.17

The chores that were coming to demand priority as June
approached were increasingly centered in Chicago itself.
None of the better daily newspapers there were boosting

Sherman.18

One that had been friendly had begun to slip
away toward Gresham's camp. On his way to Colorado, Hanna

stopped over in the city to make further convention

 

17Hanna to Foraker, telegram, June 11, 1888; reply,
June 12, 1888, both in Fereker-Henne,gerreeee, pp. 111-113.

18William Henry Smith to Sherman, May 12, 1888; Murat
Halstead to Sherman, May 15, 1888, both in Sherman papers.

168

arrangements and found time to see William Penn Nixon,
publisher of the later-Ocean. His report to Sherman on the
interview bristled with confidence:

I gave N. a piece of my mind (as the feeling
held by protectionists in the east) in regard
to his {elleging the Chicago Tribune in support
of Gresham. I think I shook him considerably
and Jones will magnify my position as a represen-
tative of the class who can or not support the
fattening fortunes of his paper (That is his
weak spot) But I have told him to go on mildly
as he is and to repent before too late so as to
throw his influence at the right time for Sher-
man (on the 2nd ballot) and he would be for-
given. . . .

Today with Mr. Thurston . . . and I made
him admit that Blaine's success at Chicago under
the conditions upon which he could steal the
nomination was full of danger for the election.
He is really the strong man in the delegation
for that faction and I am hoped to eaptege him
at Chicago. . . .

There was some substance to his boasting, however, for Nixon
and Jones both came around}9

Wednesday morning, June 13, a private railroad car de-
scribed by an unfriendly reporter as a "saloon on wheels"
was stocked and steamed up for its grand departure to the
battlefront. Hanna rounded up his friends, shooed away

sharp-eared newsmen, and set his face for Chicago.20

 

19Hanna to Sherman, May 29, 1888 Sherman papers.
Nixon to Warner M. Batemen, May 30 1888, Bateman papers;
A. M. Jones to Sherman, June 2, 1888, Sherman papers.

2OClevelagg Plain Deeler, June 1%, 1888.

169

If his head had begun to swell with new visions of
reflected glory as manager of the leading candidate before

the convention, he needed only to look at the introduction

accorded him by the theege_fiegele5 "Editor Hanna of the
Qleyelene_Leede1_came yesterday to do advance picket duty

for Ohio's favorite son. . . ." But only Democrats read
the Heme. 21

The Republican national convention of 1888 was a clas-
sic of its type: the "open" convention. There was no
strongly established leader early in the contest. Blaine
might have found himself in that position had he not chosen
to disavow publicly any ambition for a second time at the
end of May. Sherman's friends brought the greatest bloc of
committed delegates, but many of these were from the "rotten
boroughs" of the hopelessly Democratic South. In any case,
his manager's total claim of 300 on the first ballot fell
far short of a majority of the 831 delegates. The conven-
tion was open, then, in the sense that it afforded full play
for the professional skills of the dealers, manipulators
and combiners of minorities into a majority acceptable to
them. Victors in such conventions might be expected to be
heavily mortgaged to local bosses, for they can win only
through a series of hasty deals with the leaders of the

more docile herds of delegates.

K

2111211., quoting Ghiraaa 11321..

170

In a nutshell, the convention of 1888 is the story of
the nomination of Benjamin Harrison of Indiana on the
eighth ballot, the prompt selection of Levi P. Morton of

New York as his running mate, and the adoption of a strong

high tariff platform. To leave the story in a nutshell,

however, would be to hide its significance to the careers

of Hanna and his friends. For them it was a time of high

excitement and hard experience.

The scene was the huge new Chicago Auditorium, an un-
finished five-storied granite enclosure with a temporary
roof that for all its newness presented to at least one

observer the appearance of an attractive old ruin. Decor-

ations of festooned flags, rows of state shields and giant

Portraits of presumably giant Republicans were conven-

tional. A novelty was the use of electric lights through-

out. The focal point of the hall was a great Union shield
in 750 red, white and blue lights mounted behind the rost-
rum.22

Early arrivals to the convention city took little time
for admiring the decor. More than a week of feverish plan-

ning and skirmishing elapsed between Hanna's arrival and

the start of the first ballot on June 22. Besides Sherman

and Harrison, the active candidates included Judge Walter

‘—

Qo Gresham of Indiana and Chicago, Governor Russell A. Alger

H... L Eugene, June 16, 1888.

171

of Michigan, Senator William B. Allison of Iowa, and belat-

edly, Senator Chauncey M. Depew of New York. His entry

into the lists of June 18 out nearly a hundred votes from

Sherman's expected first ballot strength. Blaine was in

Scotland visiting with Andrew Carnegie and quietly nursing

his health. His friends were on hand, however, and gave him

no fewer than 33 votes on any of the first six ballots while
waiting to hear his wishes as the proceedings dragged on.

Reporters found their first theme in confusion. Their

ears tingled in a din of unintelligible whispering. The

situation was more than fluid; it was almost gaseous.

"There is no situation," one concluded; "the prophets have

quit prophesying," another wrote. Hanna's private remark

that he preferred the policy of the "still hunt" typified

the attitude of'all the managers. As a consequence, none

Of them knew much of what the others were doing and the

Press knew even less.23

After his first two days on the scene, Hanna made his

initial report to Sherman. Gresham, whcmthe senator had

feared as his most dangerous rival, was seen to be fatally

weak in organization. Allison and Harrison were about

also :31gliai M21931 HELD. 2&1, June 17, 1888; see
' a M

June 17 orrow's dispatches to the Cleveland Leeder,
’

admit- EL S_e_g_._, which betray more confusion than they
,

p‘pemfianna to Sherman, lO p.m., June 15, 1888, Sherman

,.‘.
, u'

3..

172

abreast, he found, and encouragingly pleasant relations had

quickly been established with the latter's men. Little was

known of Depew‘s intentions, but two interviews with Quay

had proven "satisfactory." Currently Hanna was working on

the Texas delegation, laying his approaches to the incoming
California men, waiting for Sawyer to arrive so that he
could conclude arrangements for Wisconsin discussed with

Payne, and looking for Manley of Maine, who had promised

help in that state. Meanwhile, some leakages were reported

in the southern delegations, for General Alger's boom had
been growing rapidly in that direction, "and I regret to

S“? that the evidence shows the results are largely due to

the barrel. . . . [But] I believe that we will be able to
stop that."21* How he stopped it will be taken up later.

Ohio's delegation began falling apart in discord from

the time of its first meeting. Blaine's recent letter of

Withdrawal had not relieved Sherman at all. The "Blainiacs"

0111? began seeking another name to promote against him.

A189? was considered. Rumors of a Depew-Foraker or Depew-

McKinley ticket circulated, making it necessary for the two
Ohioans to pledge their allegiance to Sherman repeatedly.25

Foraker decided early on a test of strength in the delegation

_-k

21+
papers.Hanna to Sherman, 10 p.m., June 15, 1888, Sherman

5

2
Eli—nae V613 Plain Dealer. and mileage Tribune. both June
821’; 188 5 Walters, M, De 67; Foraker, Mei; I, 3kg-

—I

,.O.va
.4 ‘—

ova —

. r
w”.

.‘u..

 

.
.A‘

173

between his and Blaine's friends as against the Hanna-
Butterworth-Foster group that was suspected of being ready
to defect to McKinley when opportunity arose. The occasion
of the test was the selection of a national committeeman.
Hanna had been backing Amos Townsend for some time. Foraker
decided to oppose him with the incumbent Blaine adherent,
A. L. Conger. A poll of the delegation showed Conger
would win, and Townsend felt obliged to withdraw.26

When the meeting broke up, an anonymous Ohioan sum-

marized a grim situation for the press: "We have the cover
on and screwed down, and every big man in the state is
sitting on the safety valve. The very men who might profit
most by the explosion are the ones who daren't let go."27
This was the picture of Ohio's happy warriors given pros-

Pective Sherman delegates to contemplate.

Each day matters grew worse. 0n the evening of June
19, the Foraker Club of Columbus struck up its band and
marched away from the crowd outside Sherman headquarters as
Grosvenor rose in his turn to speak.28 The next day a con-

test arose in the credentials committee between rival

¥

18 26Foraker, Notes, I, 3H3-3i,6. Chi page T31] ’ June 18,
pp88io§ee131560 Julia B. Foraker, i M m LE Again,
0 , .

279121222 irimme. June 19, 1888.

t 28 v a d Blele Qeelee, June 20 1888; Green B. Raum
o Sherman, : 0 p.m., June 20, 1888, Sherman papers.

—I

17%

Virginia delegations. Hanna supported the pro-Sherman

group under William Mahone; Foraker preferred the Blaine

faction under John S. Wise. The issue came to the conven—

tion floor, and though Hanna was able to dissuade Foraker

from speaking there in favor of Wise, he could not prevent

a division on the delegation's vote.29 The one occasion

that did not seem to arouse new antagonisms this week was
Foraker's seconding speech for Sherman, an effective ef-
fort: that drew grudging professional compliments as well

as the customary cheers and outbursts of "Marching Through
Georgia . "30

It was at about this time, however, that Fbraker took
a turn at being miffed. High on his list of choices for
the nomination was Russell Alger. Sherman he felt obliged
to support first; Blaine he privately preferred, and Alger

came second only to Blaine.31 Throughout the first week in

29Raum to Sherman, 8:l+o p.m., June 20, 1888; A. c.
Th0mpson and Grosvenor to Sherman, June 21, 1888; both in
Sherman papers; Clgyeland Leader, June 21, 1888.

30Telegrams to Sherman from Raum, Foster and Grosvenor,
‘11 June 21, 1888, in Sherman papers.

1‘ 31Fbraker's prediliction for Blaine becomes evident
Alter in the course of the convention; on his interest in
laggr, see Foraker to Alger, March 2, 1888, and April 3,
9 both in Foraker papers, box 28. In both letters
soraker assures Alger that he and his friends prefer him
econd to Sherman. As Blaine had already declined to let

5 name be used, presumably Foraker was counting him out.

 

——-.-r'_—'

 

175

Chicago it had become obvious that Alger's managers were

buying up Sherman delegates from the South. Hanna men-

tioned it in his first report to Sherman on June 15, and

frequently thereafter. Grosvenor, Thompson, and Raum re-

ported it. Impecunious Negroes for the most part, it ap-
peared that these delegates had to be reimbursed for their
expenses at every turn.32 Hanna had known they would need
help and asked Sherman long before the convention to pass
the worr’ South that he would be "prepared to purchase the

surplus [gallery] tickets of their delegation for members

of the Sherman Club." What he did not know was that com-

petition from Alger would raise their demands on his gener-

osity. When Foraker came upon Hanna at headquarters busily

dealing in tickets and complaining of Alger's rivalry, he

M

32Hanna to Sherman, June 15, 1888'

Grosvenor and
Thompson to Sherman, 7 a.m., June 19, 1888g Hanna to

Eherman, telegram, 3:56 a.m., June 20, 188 (saying they
have reclaimed a portion of our losses in the South");
Baum to Sherman, 9:’+0 p.m., June 23, 1888 (saying they had
not bought delegates themselves); all in Sherman papers.
In a letter to Sherman after the convention, a friend told
him that "An Alexandria politician tells me that some
cuthern delegates had no means after their arrival and,
if Your managers had provided them with board, they would
“6 swelled your vote considerably. As it was, others
EPO’Vided for them and reaped the benefit." H. C. Porter
0 Sherman, June 27, 1888, Sherman papers. But such re-
ports deserve little weight, for one of the values of the

Practice of having candidates stay away from party con-
Ventlnns

is to protect them from uilt knowled e of ust
Such activities. g y g 3

 

v-vv

he'd

1.. 1

10‘

an.

176

turned away in disgust-~but in disgust at Hanna, not
Alger.33

Still, a see-saw battle continued throughout the first

six ballots. Although Sherman never lost the lead, the

extent of the Alger threat to Sherman's leadership in the

delegations from the old Confederacy is indicated by the

running score: 111-27, 105-53, 106-1+9, 96-62, 9‘+-63, 97-60.
On Friday, June 22, the first three ballots were taken.

Tallies for the six leading contenders were, in order:
Sherman, 229, 219 and 2%; Gresham, 111, 108 and 123;

Depew, 99, 99 and 91; Alger 81+, 116 and 122; Harrison, 80,

91 and 91+; and Allison, 72, 75’ and 88. On the first bal-

lots there were 150 scattered votes, on the second 92, and

the third, 68. As had been feared, Sherman's following was

too Southern in flavor to inSpire much faith in his pros-

Pects for election. Of the Northern states that might be

carried for a Republican candidate, he received support only

from Ohio, Pennsylvania (53 of 60 votes), and a third of

the Ma ssachusetts delegation .

At the end of this first day the newSpapers might still

report that "there is no situation." Elaine's ghost seemed

to hover over the convention with hypnotic effect. On whom

V0111d the anti-Blaine group settle? Hanna saw it this way:

‘

 

F 33Hanna to Sherman, May 28, 1888, Sherman papers;
maker, Mes, 1. 363, 361+.

177

. . . The talk of weakness in our own camp has
made all candidates timid about coming to us.

. . . I believe the Blaine men are only waiting
their opportunity and nothing will save this
convention from that danger but the unselfish
loyalty to the party of such men as Harrison
and Allison. Our combinations did not work this
morning because the Blaine men did not show
their hand. Wisconsin ought to have saved our
loss for us on the last [3rd] ballot. But I
believe Spooner is holding a chance open for
Harrison. Gresham gains spoiled our combination
to get the votes from Wisconsin and Illinois we
hoped for. [Senator Warner Miller of New Ybrk]
gives no aid and comfort yet and if the Blaine
demonstration does not frighten them I think
Harrison will get the largest percentage of the
N. Y. delegation. . . . If Quay will stay with
us I believe we are still in a good place. I
have not seen him since adjournment but think

he needs bolstering. I can see that he wants

to name the man before anyone else cgg do so.

Am just summoned to meet Quay. .

Operiings for Harrison in Wisconsin and New York, fears of
What Quay would do with Pennsylvania-~it looked as if the
aAnti-Blaine forces would settle on Harrison. But it was
notthat simple, for the nomination was not accomplished by
themn alone. Certainly Hanna's fear of Quay's skittishness
“as; Justified, for the Pennsylvania boss was engaged at
thaj; very moment in an effort to get a written promise of

a cabinet member from Harrison. It must be inferred that
he failed, and it may be inferred that he kept looking

arouund.35 After meeting with the Pennsylvanians, Hanna was

\

18 'BMHanna to Sherman, telegram, 3:HO p.m., June 22,
88, Sherman papers.

June ‘35John B. Elam and Louis T. Michener to [Harrison],

L1 17, 1888, copy in Michener papers, Manuscript Division,
bT‘QT’y of Congress.

—__—____—I

W

é+~

178

near dispair. "Everything is in a mess," he wired Sherman.

McManes would stay only two more ballots and Quay was ask-
ing what Sherman would do if he saw his case was hopeless.
"Combinations seem impossible," Hanna repeated, "owing to

our known weakness. . . . Answer quick."36

Hanna referred here to the inability of the Ohio dele-

gation to hold together on anyone other than Sherman.

Once
it broke away from him, it would go its own way. Nor could
it be expected to agree easily on a vice-presidential can-

didate. Aside from this shakiness in its home state's sup-

port, the Sherman candidacy had other weaknesses. As in

1881+, he was a veteran senator with an inescapable record

on the major issues. His personality remained a factor:

the "Mansfield icicle" opponents called him. His southern
support was leaking to others, and in so doing it called
attention to its venality. The West Coast disliked Sherman
for his stands on the silver and Chinese immigration issues.
Finally, there were the New Yorkers, Platt and Depew,
neither of whom felt that they and their Stalwart friends
could expect many favors from a Sherman in the White House.

The Shermanites had friends in the Empire State's delega-

tion, however, and hope was never abandoned until the last
Minute.

\

188 36Hanna to Sherman, telegram, 6:05 p.m., June 22,
8: Sherman papers.

-'§ .

 

 

179

If Hanna had dwelt on these considerations and become
somewhat disheartened at the end of the first day's bal-

loting, there was still one further complication that may

have aroused more of his curiosity than deSpair. A sur-

Prisingly vigorous boomlet for McKinley developed Friday

afternoon. He received at first two, three, and then eight

votes that day.
the

This raised a dilemma even though none of
Votes came from Ohio. Butterworth and John Little ex-
Plained in a long wire to Sherman that

Chur friends are a little divided in judgment

as to whether he should take notice of the mat-
ter in convention now. He is restless under
‘what he regards as an imputation upon his integ-
‘rity of purpose and is not disposed to sit silent
'under it unless our friends think it best that
he should. . . . He would without an if or but
demand of the convention that his name should
not be used and that to persist in it would re-
flect upon his integrity, and be an assault upon
his honor. The danger is that the exhibition

of the quality that prompts him would increase
his vote. He has been and is thoroughly loyal &

has worker“? like a trojan to promote your nom-
ination.

Others, including Hanna, wrote to ascertain Sherman's wishes

regarding McKinley. The next morning Hanna wrote that "some

w
ant to capture the place with McKinley," but "that is not

f
I.0111 your fric—:nds."38 Before Sherman replied, McKinley had

made his own decision.

On Saturday morning as the fourth
\

D 37Butterworth and Little to Sherman, telegram, 7:15
'31., June 22, 1888, Sherman papers.

D 38Hanna to Sherman, telegram, June 23, 1888, Sherman
aDers.

—__________—l

180

ballot was getting under way, a vote for him was announced
from Connecticut. McKinley quickly gained the floor and
rose to demand in a fervent speech that his commitment to
Sherman be respected by the convention. If the success of
the Foraker seconding Speech earlier had aroused fears of
a boom for him, now this "exhibition of the quality that
Prompts him" stirred hopes and fears of a scramble to
MCKinley. Neither development reached the surface, but
beneath it, as will be seen, both men were offered tempta-
tions.

For McKinley--and Hanna--the temptation arose at the
conclusion of the two ballots taken Saturday morning fol-
lowing this pledge of loyalty. Sherman's vote was under-
going a slow bleeding, dropping to 235 and then 22'+, while
HaT‘Y‘ison was winning the bulk of the New York delegation,
20 new votes from Wisconsin and a sufficient scattering of
”thers to bring his score up from the previous day's 91+ to
217 and 213 on Saturday's ballots. Gresham was falling
back and being counted out, but both Alger and Allison
incJ'led ahead. Blaine, too, was holding 1+8 votes at the
01° se of the day. Even McKinley was given 11 and then 11+
votes, as against the eight that had worried him on Friday.

DeSpite Harrison's rapid rise, there was no agreement
on the seriousness of that threat. James Gillespie Blaine

still held the convention in a kind of thrall. Hanna,

181

Sherman, and a number of others thought Harrison merely a
"cover for Blaine."39 Sherman's failure to rally the anti-
Blaixua forces around him meant that a new choice must be
made ii‘a stampede to Blaine was to be avoided. Hanna's
exchange of telegrams with Sherman on Saturday have not
been kejm'in chronological order, but the inferred sequence
indicates Hanna's reluctant agreement that McKinley should
be true next focus of the Ohioans' attention. In his first
referwence to the situation, he had not lost hope in a
Shernuan victory, and so felt that the McKinley talk was
"not.:from your friends." Then he softened:

{The Blaine movement will develop this afternoon
tand I feel sure will get votes in the Ohio dele-
gation. . . . Senator Hoar and many of your best
friends say that the only way to prevent a Blaine
nomination is to wire me to announce your with-
drawal and let McKinley come in. Foraker will
oppose this but the other states say it is either
McKinley or Blaine. I do not advise in this and
it should only be done as a last resort. . . .
wl'“tng next that the convention had agreed to adjourn for

tkmé \mekend, he asked for instructions.1+0 The delegation
can(Bussed; Hanna reported its results in two steps:

Little has just come in to say that the feeling

is almost universal that McKinley is the only

man on whom the anti-Blaine element can unite.

The vote inconference is to the effect that

neither Allison or [sip] you can defeat Blaine.
\

Ski 39Idem; Halstead to Sherman, tele ram, June 23, 1888;
6r

1) man to Hanna, telegram, June 2%, l 88, all in Sherman
aPars.

HOHanna to Sherman, June 23, 1888, Sherman papers.

182

Foraker is for Blaine and will slaughter you.
Says hiEielf that his influence shall go to
Blaine.
Then, before Sherman had answered any of the earlier ques-
tions, Hanna committed himself:
The Blaine movement is to be made on the next
ballot. We think McKinley the only man who can
defeat him. Who do you advise. Can Ohio afford .

to lose the opportunity. I regret the situation
but fear I am right. 2

Sherman was in no mood to fall in behind another man. One
Garfield had been enough. He wired back:

Like McKinley but such a movement would be un-

just to others and I view it as a breach of im-

plied faith. I will be true and frank. Mutual

fidelity demands that we stand to our position

and fall if need be with honor.
Hanna had told him only a few hours before that he would
"die in the last ditch if you say so," and now it seemed he
was saying 30.73

Thus ended the near-boom for McKinley. The claim that
it had been covertly sponsored by Hanna at its inception is
“supportable.“ If the movement had roots in Ohio they
webs well buried. More likely, it had no roots at all, but

sprang up overnight in the minds of several men

 

thdem.

1+3_I_gl_em; reply, June 23, 1888, Sherman papers.

I. L"""Walters, F ker, p. 72; Julia B. Foraker, I Would
v LiAgain, p. 105.

—_—_—I

_——r——
—_

 

\
1“!

mu!
l

. y u
l ‘P‘A'i
vv-L‘

i r
'a r
fl!
‘ turd

.
I...‘

4'.
u,

RI

r...

h ,-
’ .o I

'94

 

183

independently. Hanna was not alone in seeking a second
choice acceptable to the Sherman group when the senator's
incapacity for rallying a majority against Blaine became
evident.t'5 It was an incipient draft movement in which
McKinley himself had no active part. He was never accused
0f Promoting himself, nor is there any reason to suspect
him of doing so. True, his profession of loyalty before
the convention was a highly effective display of his ora-
tOI‘Y, but it was appropriate and to the point."6 McKinley's
tenlperament was much more suited to staying afloat in a
storm than to stirring up the waves. For the movement to
succeed it needed not his efforts so much as the cordial
Melting of Sherman, and Sherman's telegram of Saturday
niSlit gave notice that there would be no peace at home if
the movement were persisted in. This killed it for the
Chicane. There is some indication, however, that volunteer
usSionaries outside Ohio continued their work on Sunday.
McKinley's peak strength of 16 votes came as late as the

s"Venth ballot.
\

In usRaum to Sherman, 9:er p.m., June 23, 1888, says the

ogvement originated outside of Ohio and mentions Farrell

f Ill., Phe ps of N. J., Hoar of Mass. and others as

t‘VOring the idea. See also Frank B. Baird to Sherman,

1? egram, 1:05 a.m., and A. M. Jones to Sherman, telegram,
'05 a.m., June 21+, 1888, all in Sherman papers.

1'63» Olcott, m, I, 262, 263.

18k

Foraker was aware of the McKinley talk and fully
aBreed on the need for moving to a second choice. That his
choice would be Blaine surprised no one; that his announce-
Ient of it would be given to the press on Saturday after-
noon surprised and angered a great many. He told reporters
that he had done his duty, that Sherman's cause was hope-
less, and that he and others in the Ohio delegation would
SWitch to Blaine on Monday morning. All this came without
a release voted by a majority of the delegation, as had
been pledged earlier.l*7

Immediately in the background of this bolt were two
rulors. Just after the fourth ballot had been taken and
a I'ecess called until four o'clock, word spread that the
Blaine men would make their big push that afternoon on the
next ballot. The Ohio delegation quickly caucussed. While
“he talked of winning with McKinley, others, led by

F(’l‘aker, agreed to demand the right to break for Blaine if
\

0n 1+7Wa1ters, Foraker, p. 73. The interview was carried
or Associated Press wires and appeared in Sunday editions
an Subscribing papers. On the release of Ohio delegates,
0 AP reporter wrote that he learned at Ohio headquarters
3? Saturday that "under an agreement which every delegate
laughed there would be no change of candidates unless a
Jority of the dele ates so decided. . . ." (Wag.
3 1225121., June 2 1888.) Hanna's telegram to Sherman
SE81: after adjournment Saturday afternoon (June 23, in
erman papers) implies that no such release had been
given: "Now if our delegation relieve themselves of the
iesponsibility of voting for you I want full and definite
nathtions What to do. 0 o e"

185

by the time their state was reached on the roll call it had
become evident that Blaine was strong enough to win. New
York, especially, they relied upon for their cue. This
Inch decided, they returned to their seats only to find the
convention adjourning until Monday morning.“8

The rumor of an impending push for Blaine may well have
been true; the other rumor was false. This was a report
that Sherman had named McKinley his successor if it should
appear that one was necessary. On Sunday morning Foraker
learned directly from Sherman that no such legacy had been
made. Then it was too late to undo the damage. The story
of the governor's break for Blaine was in all the Sunday
Papers. He denied it. Eight months later, however, he
admitted its truth."*9

Saturday was the nadir. Sunday morning brought a re-
newed willingness to work for harmony and even victory
behind Sherman. For Hanna the first chore was to patch up
the delegation. Regarding Foraker, he wired Sherman:

. . . He pretends to feel that he has not been

well treated but this is only an excuse. We

had [have?] decided to make a desperate effort

today to pacify him & save his honor. When you

wire him let it be as if you were prompted by

the reports that he was untrue to say to him

that you did not believe such stories. . . . If
\

“8Foraker, m, I, 373, 371+.

”We main 122m: and 91mm miss; both
Jline 2h, 1 ; Walters, E21232!» p. 73; J. B. Morrow MS.

Statement, Cleveland, 1905, Hanna papers.

 

 

186

he will come out now & join heartily in your sup-
port I believe we can rally enough support from
Illinois & Wisconsin to start the current our

way. . . . The Blaine movement don't seem to gain
as much as they hoped. McKinley is acting splendgg-
ly and is showing himself your true friend. . . .

Sherman followed this advice on Foraker, taking the oppor-
tunity also to explain that he had not intended to seem
ungrateful to him for his seconding speech. He had tele-
graphed his appreciation through Hanna, who neglected to
pass it on. Foraker was mollified, though he reminded the
senator that if a break for Blaine was to be made it would
be impossible to prevent some of the delegation from Join-
ing “.51

All eyes were on the New York leaders Sunday for signs
°f Just such a break. Suddenly Sherman's fears seemed to
Valli sh, as shortly after two o'clock in the afternoon he
received an excited telegram from his New York banker
fFiend, A. E. Bateman:

I have Just come from a long conference with

Hiscock & Depew. An effort will be made to give

you 72 votes on first ballot. Depew will take

the platform 8: ask the convention to make your

nomination by acclamation. Alger will be vice
pres'gz Now all this must not be known today.

\

p soHanna to Sherman, telegram, June 21+, 1888, Sherman
ers.

n slsherman to Foraker, telegram June 2“: 1888; reply,
“1., both in Sherman papers.

18 52A. E. Bateman to Sherman, telegram, 2:10, June 2%,
88, Sherman papers.

187

Hanna, too, betrayed his elation:

Bateman has Just wired you and it is all right

but you must keep up the intercourse with the

others who before this have given you encourage-

ment. I mean Cullom, Spooner & Sawyer. We are

on top at last.
Throughout the afternoon the wires hummed with messages of
encouragement.53

Then came another sharp turn: late in the evening it
was discovered that New Ybrk had decided to stand by Har-
rison a while longer. Hanna wired that now it was up to
Sherman to hold Quay in line and come to terms with.Allison.
If he could do that, the Gresham vote would be in prospect.
But Sherman was unable to win over Allison. Their confer-
ence in washington brought them to the meaningless conclu-
sion that, in Sherman's words, "if the vote of either would
decide the contest in favor of the other, it would be done."
This intelligence arrived in Chicago shortly after midnight.
Hanna wired a sour comment and went to bed.5h

Monday morning dawned hot and humid, as had every other

day of the convention. "The situation . . . is decidedly
maxed again" began Hanna's first dispatch. New York would

 

53Hanna to Sherman, telegram, 2:21 p.m.; telegrams to
Sherman from.Butterworth, McKinley, Baum, A. E. Bateman,
and A. B. Cold, June 2%, 1888, all in Sherman papers.

5hHanna to Sherman, telegram, June 2%, 1888; reply
telegram, June 25 1888; Hanna to Sherman, telegram, 12:30
a.m., June 25, 1868; all in Sherman papers.

188

go glong with Harrison as long as he continued gaining.
Blaine had wired his friends Elkins and Boutelle another
refusal, but there was no public indication of his prefer-
ence. Hanna heard only that California was switching to
Alger, and so predicted that most of the rest of Elaine's
following would do likewise.”

The pea was under another shell. A glimpse could be
seen as the first state was called on the sixth ballot:
Alabama gave 15 of its 20 votes to Harrison for the first
time. Then the pea disappeared. Both Sherman and Harrison
Gained slightly; Alger and Allison lost ground. .‘

The seventh ballot began. Harrison began to creepvl
ahead with small gains first in Connecticut, then in Flor-
ida, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts and others. Tension
mounted as the clerk called out the states in alphabetical
order. Depew could be seen standing in the aisle with an
Allison agent, Colonel Henderson. Quay spotted them and
hurried to join in. Platt came over. Finally Hanna moved
in and all four huddled with heads bowed together and cigars
purringjé

Ikerrison's gains accelerated early in the eighth bal-
lot as California finally came to him, rather than to Alger.

This was the first solid evidence the convention at large
\

SSHanna to Sherman, June 25, 1888 , Sherman papers.
561m 22:: mm, June 26, 1888.

189

had of Elaine's preference. It was quickly confirmed as
Allison's Iowa and the 59 votes from Quay's Pennsylvania
went over to Harrison. With the announcement that Ten-
nessee cast 20 votes for him, the former general and senator
from Indiana passed the finish line. Sherman, who had led
on every ballot except the last two, was left with only
Ohio and the remnants of his southern bloc. "The nomina-
tion fell very flat in the hall," he heard from a friend
that day, "and yet there was a sense of relief because it
was not B1aine."57

The choice of Harrison was a compromise arranged late
in the convention with precisely this view in mind--to give
a sense of relief to as many groups as possible. He was a
rWipe cted and respectable candidate from a state considered
more doubtful in November than Ohio. The attention of the
bosses had turned to him late Saturday after Depew had
vetoed a plan to settle on Allison. An envoy was sent to
Indianapolis to give terms to Harrison and met with him
after church on Sunday. His return was signaled by New
York's decision to stay with Harrison "as long as he con-
tinued to gain." "Ret" Clarkson of Iowa went along with
the Harrison movement after he had found both Allison and

Blaine out of the running. Clarkson was authorized to act

~

57William Henry Smith to Sherman, June 25, 1888, Sher-
“n P‘Pers.

190

for Allison--which helps explain Allison's stubbornness in
his conference with Sherman in Washington--and he had the
backing of his delegation. Aldrich, Hoar and a number of
others were privy to the negotiations with Harrison, but
none of them wanted to burn their bridges behind them by
telling Sherman or his managers of the scheme prematurely.
It is also worth noting, since it has often been overlooked,
that the movement toward Harrison began inside the conven-
tion and not with the arrival of the telegrams from Scot-
land- Both Elaine's final declination and Carnegie's ad-
vice that Blaine was immovable and Harrison was to be pre-
ferred as second choice arrived on Sunday morning only to
confirm the sense of the meeting of the night before.58
In spite of the smoothness with which the Harrison
movement rolled after it started, there were a few men in
the Blaine camp who apparently were unwilling to concede
even late on Sunday night that the time for hatching new
plots was over. There is the almost fantastic story of
"Foraker's temptation" at two o'clock on Monday morning.
It was not brought to light until a number of years later,
when Senators Fessenden and Elkins told publicly that they

and others of Elaine's friends had intruded on Foraker's

—__

58This sketch of the Harrison campaign is based on
Leland Sage will: Bald Alum, pp. 221-22*+ and Geor e

F. H
11: fil§~h§3w 91 29. 1252.. (2 vols., N. Y., 1903 ,

191

sleep at this unlikely hour to urge that he let him swing
550 votes to him on the first ballot in the morning. E1-
kins, who had every opportunity to keep up with develop-
ments through the day, should have known he could do no
such thing. If he was sober, the only explanation for his
action could be lack of sleep. In any case, Foraker polite-
ly declined, and in his memoirs was able to point with
pride to the occasion as another example of his steadfast
loyalty to Sherman.59

Hanna never wrote his memoirs. His written comments
on the climactic day of the convention were limited to one
Ielancholy telegram to Sherman at the end of the day:

Your friends went down with honor to their candi-
date and themselves. My satisfaction lies in
the fact that I retain my self respect and have
renewed my admiration and devotion to my leader
the greatest living American statesman. If I
have made mistakes in what I have tried to do

in your interests it has been from want of exper-
ience in dealing with unknown quantities and not
.knowing that in politics promises went for noth-
ing. I cannot refrain from again mentioning the
heroic conduct of Maj6 McKinley under the most
trying circumstances. 0

59Foraker to Elkins, Dec. 26, 1895, Foraker papers,
box 27; Foraker, Notes, I, 368-372. Elkins also had re-
ceived a confidential letter dated March 1, 1888, from
Blaine discussing the contenders (not including Foraker)
‘nd Clearly choosing Harrison. Quoted in Oscar D. 1am-

?el‘t, mm Benign Elkins (Pittsburgh. 1955), p. 120,
rom the Elkins papers.

1888 6OHanna to Sherman, telegram, 5:30 p.m., June 25,
9 Sherman papers.

V.

192

Perhaps by then Hanna needed the consolation of his thoughts
on McKinley, for he was to find himself involved in one
more exchange of unpleasantries with Foraker before the
convention adjourned. As "quartermaster" of the Ohio dele-
gation, he asked the governor if he would call a meeting

to provide for members' shares in headquarters expenses.

He was refused with the excuse that it was too late for a
meeting then, according to Foraker; or that it was up to
Hanna to attend to that himself, according to Hanna's ac-
count. The result was that on returning to Cleveland,
Hanna was obliged to send out a circular letter asking for
$15 as each delegate's share. He himself put in $100 and
took responsibility for any deficit. The circular letter
appears to have hinted at Hanna's views on the circum-
stances that made such an awkward approach necessary. A
sharp exchange of letters between the principals followed,
and Hanna gave his version to Sherman with the concluding
comment that objections to the procedure he had adopted
were "an outgrowth of disappointed treachery." Foraker's
last letter on the subject was almost the last letter to pass
between the former friends until their service in the sen-
ate years later required both of them to write occasional,

formal notes. But for now, Foraker concluded, "in your

193

own language, '1 have no desire to discuss with you any-
thing else.'"61

Fbr all the confusion of the Chicago convention story,

its significance in Hanna's political career is unmistaka-

able. It was here that he saw his great hopes for Sherman's

presidential candidacy shattered for the last time, and

here that he saw McKinley's prospects brighten for the first

time. Meanwhile he became estranged from Foraker. It was

the turning point in his relations with three of the four
most important political alliances of his life-wand the
fourth, that with Theodore Roosevelt, would not be formed
until many years later.

How did Hanna look to others? No complaints came to
Sherman. 0n the other hand, perhaps because by then his

abilities were known, neither did his fellow delegates
sing his praises. His information was sometimes faulty,
as on the question of the Harrison movement, but in this
he was in distinguished company and there was little he
could have done differently in any case. Hanna's candi-
date, it must be remembered, made it clear that he "pre-

£33er defeat to retreat" toward any second choice.62 0f

61Hanna to J. B. Luckey, July 27 1888, copy in Hanna
Pagers; Hanna to Sherman, July 1%, 1888; Foraker to Hanna,

115 9 Aug. 16, 1888, in Fgraker-Hama Cgrresp” pp. 11%»,

t 2Sherman to Hanna, telegram June 23, 1888; Sherman
° F0I‘aker, telegram, June 25, 1888; both in Sherman papers.

191+

course, to Foraker and his followers Hanna's performance
deserved censure on several grounds. From the start they
were annoyed by his distrust of them. In their eyes he was
covertly working with the McKinley boomers while he com-
plained of their weakness for Blaine. And Foraker took
indignant exception to Hanna's thinly disguished bribery of
the southern delegates, though the convenient selectivity
of his indictment detracted somewhat from its force.
Hanna's role in the party in the state after the Chi-
cago convention was determined by the now sharply drawn
factional lines between Foraker and Sherman. The break had
come not over issues, but over a conflict of loyalties that
were supported by political expectations in the narrowest
sense. Ohio Republicans were suffering from a surplus of
ambitions. No one man could satisfy them all. Some were
grouped around the young and promising governor; others
were allied in a loose federation under Sherman, waiting to
596 who among them might become his successor. In his own
camp, Foraker was always the one man of talent, and the suc-
cess he met in later years must be measured with this in
mind. In Sherman's camp there were many talents: McKinley,
F03139?, Butterworth, Grosvenor notable among the public
f1Blues, and Hanna, Baum and Donaldson outstanding among
the managers behind the scenes. Sherman himself was old

now, but not retired. After the convention, he paid out

'-

195

$7,000 for his campaign eXpenses without a whimper and
wrote appreciative letters to his lieutenants.63 Higher
political honors now were out of reach, he admitted to
Foster. "For one, I am done with them, though do not think
I am a growler, only tired."6l*

For Ohio Republicans to be without a presidential can-
didate was unthinkable. The years of Hayes, Garfield and

Sherman were over. If Foraker was not to be next, who was?

McKinley we 5 .

x

to S 63Sherman to Hanna, Julg 11, 1888, Hanna papers; Hanna
herman, July 11+, 18,188 both in Sherman papers.

8 6“Sherman to Foster, June 26, 1888, copy in letterbook
’ Shel‘man papers.

CHAPTER VI
THE LEAN AND ANGRY YEARS

Benjamin Harrison was in one way a most unlikely choice

in the campaign of 1888. There has probably never been a

more unseemly exhibition of corruption in any national
election, and yet Harrison himself was a man of almost

pharisaical righteousness in his political methods. Not

only was he innocent of vote-buying; he was uncommonly shy

even about advancing patronage commitments. His noble de-

ter‘Illlt'Lnation to make a statesman of himself was made evident

to Party politicians as a disturbing backwardness in handl-
ing the new broom of triumphant Republicanism.1

Early disappointments with the incoming administration

were only deepened during the ensuing four years. In Ohio,

Repuhlicans of both factions were alienated. Hanna had

hOPed to win Harrison's notice during the campaign by faith-
fully plodding through all the chores expected of him in

spite of his private conviction that "a great mistake" had
been made. Soon after the returns were in, he paid a brief

V1311: to the president-elect in Indianapolis.2 It was of

o omi

.13 IM- to a
W and Politigal selenge, v:1 Standard Univ., 19 2),
o — 7.

1See George H. Knoles, The Presidential W and
W 9;; 1892; Stanford Univ, Pu i ati

‘Hanna to Sherman, July 18, 1888, Sherman papers.
196

197

no use. Sherman's earnest efforts to follow up patronage
matters for Hanna were similarly wasted. On such a local-
ly important position as that of Cleveland's collector of
internal revenue, Sherman was disposed to follow Hanna's
recommendation. "It would seem," he wrote, that the Demo-
cratic incumbent John H. Farley "ought to go out without
much why or wherefore, but that is not the policy of the
Administration." After a discussion of other offices, the
usually restrained senator sighed in despair: "I am both
weary and discouraged, weary from pressure based upon the
opinion that I can do something for my friends and discour-
aged that I have not been able to do anything.
"I wish you would join me in a trip across the ocean
May lat."3
There is no evidence that even a crumb of patronage
was thrown Hanna by the Harrison administration. Not so
much as a lighthouse keeper on the Cleveland breakwater was
entrusted to his choice.1+
If it was any consolation to Hanna and Sherman, their
erstwhile friend Foraker was equally dissatisfied on this
Wint- In one of his milder observations, he wrote the
patronage-master of the Post Office department that it was

beginning to look as if the President "is somewhat on the

\
3Sherman to Hanna, April 9, 1889, Hanna papers.
“CrOJ-BH m: p. 153'

.g'..x_

198

mugwump order."5 In the Eighties this was strong language.

No prominent Ohio names appeared on the roster of the

new regime in Washington.

State -

Blaine was made Secretary of
The Philadelphia merchant John Wanamaker became

Postmaster General; William Windom of Minnesota was given

the Treasury department--a decision that left the once-con-

fident Tom Platt trembling with anger. In the latter years

of the administration, a few Ohio men did get in: Foster

as Secretary of the Treasury, Green B. Raum as Pensions

Commissioner, and E. G. Rathbone as Fourth Assistant Post-
master General.

job,

Each of these was a powerful political

and each of the men named was a friend of Sherman.

B1113 all this came too late to repair the damage of earlier

oversights. The Ohio delegation would go to the national

conVention of 1892 anxiously seeking alternatives to Har-
rison,

If these Harrison years were lean years for Hanna and

his friends, they were none the less busy. In its simplest

terms, the strategy of Hanna's game would be to maintain
the strength of the Sherman alliances and to add to it the
“(Wing power of William McKinley. When the time was ripe

‘

f0? Ohio to reassert herself as a president-maker, he wanted

F0 SForaker to James S. Clarkson, April 18, 1889, copy in
7 1‘aker papers. See also Foraker to James G. Blaine, June
. 1889, to w. D. Bickham, July 3, 1889, and to w. o.
Mdley, July 5, 1889, all mg.

199

to see McKinley ready and the party willing. But presiden-
tial questions aside, he had another reason for promoting
McKinley. It was the best defense against Foraker. In-
deed, this anti-Foraker motif seems to become an end in it-
self for Hanna in these years, a sub-plot with a life of
its Own. Of all the reasons he might have offered for his
continued opposition to Foraker, a prudent concern for his
°Wh POIitical life must have been prominent. Joseph Benson
Foraker in full power over Ohio Republicans would be no
"easy boss;" Hanna could expect only a nightmare of humil-
iation.

The first clash between Hanna and Foraker--and it il-
l“strates perfectly Hanna's vulnerability on the defense--
came as an incident of the gubernatorial campaign of 1889.
Foraker had set his sights on the senate after his return
from the Chicago convention.6 When it became apparent that
She'f‘tnan's place would not soon be vacated by his appointment
'39 Harrison's cabinet, the governor cast about for a friend-
1y Successor whose aid he could expect in a contest for the
seat of Henry B. Payne in 1890. He hoped to persuade Asa
Bu3hnell to run, but was refused.7 Reluctantly, then, he

\

6Foraker to McMurdy, Aug. 27, 1888, copy in Foraker
Papers,

I 7Wa1ters, m, pp. 81+, 88, 89; Foraker, 119321,
a 396; Foraker to Bushnell, March 25, 1889, copy in
FWalter papers.

200

consented to his lieutenant's pleas to run for a third term
himself. It was a long chance, for only one governor in
the state's history--Hayes--had served three terms. The
nomination came easily, for Hanna, McKinley and Grosvenor
98011 came to the convention with his own candidate and
failed to unite their forces soon enough to take it for
th'h'K‘lelves.

Ohio voters, however, took unto themselves a Democratic
governor and legislature in 1889. Foraker's defeat was not
unSixpected; the year was a disappointing one for Republi-
cans throughout the country, and the Ohio opposition had
chosen a capable leader in James E. Campbell. Neverthe-
less, the campaign did have its special features. A revolt
of Cincinnati beer-drinkers against Sunday Blue-law enforce-
ment involved Foraker on the side of their enforcement. He
“8th associated himself with a bit of skullduggery known
‘3 the "ballot-box forgery" incident, which embarrassed
“the? than damned him, and he had the anti-third-term bias
to oVercome. He was further handicapped by a serious ill-
ness that took him out of the campaign during a period when
We"? day counted.8 And finally, he made the race with only
lukewarm support from some Republican workers and none at

all from Hanna or Butterworth. Butterworth was especially
\

ch X3366 Walters, Foraker, pp. 89-97; Foraker, 11953;, I,

W

 

 

 

201

angered at Foraker's complicity in the rule of George

Barnsdale Cox in his town of Cincinnati. The governor had

turned the city over to "the gang," he asserted, "and the

municipal administration has become so fetid that you can

smell it two townships away."9 Hanna agreed and added in-

dictments of his own.10 In spite of his opposition, how-

ever, Myron T. Herrick, Theodore E. Burton, Allen T.

Brinsmade and others succeeded in leading Cuyahoga county

into the Republican column. Hanna had been thwarted all

along the line, except insofar as Foraker's defeat repre-
sented his wishes.

This temporary bolt from the state ticket was not some-

thing Hanna wished to see advertised in the press. Essen-

tially it was a refusal to help finance or collect contri-

butions for his party foes. Throughout the campaign and

for a. time afterward, he maintained a discreet silence. In
the spring of 1890, however, he was caught off guard by a
Wily New York newspaperman. Then, with his widely reprint-
ed "Foraker is Dead" interview, the fur began to fly.

Anong other things, he was reported saying that

—-

S 9Butterworth to Hanna, June 27, 1889
as also same to Daniel J. Ryan, JUIY 6, 1889, Ryan papers.
to FoloJames B. Morrow statement, Hanna papers:

S. R. House
belowraker’ Nov. 7, 1889, Foraker papers, box 1; note 11,

Hanna papers.

202

The fact is that Foraker has been a heavy load
to carry for some time. Elected by the very
best element in the Republican party in our
state, he allowed his ambition to get the bet-
ter of him and capitalized with his power as
governor the youngest and in many instances the
worst elements of his party. In almost every com-
munity he had created new political managers and
with them he undertook to dominate all the old
and respectable element of the Republican organ-
ization. At the outset of this endeavor he natur-
ally antagonized friends of John Sherman. . . .
I hardly expected that the storm of indignation
in the party against Foraker and his methods would
create the havoc it did but he had reached a point
in his career that made heroic measures necessary
for our future. . . . Foraker is dead as a factor
in our politics and Ohio is as reliable a Republi-
can state as it ever was. or course the results of
last fall's voting hurt us very hard, but in the
end it will do us good. It will teach any ambi-
tious and "magnetic" man in the future, as Foraker
is, that he cannot insult the business and conser-
vative elements of his party and then demand their
support.

Will Foraker quit politics now?

I think so. He tells me that he is going
to practice law and let politics alone. I hope
and believe that he will have the good sense to do
so. Personally I am not unfriendly to him. He
has many bright and important gifts, but they are
of the enthusiastic order, which appeal to the
mob and such powers cannot last long in the cru-
cible of action. Therefore, politically, I am
done wfih him, as I was before the last cam-
paign.

And there was more of the same. Hanna's friends cringed as

the counterattack began. William S. Cappeller, Mansfield

publisher and former national committeeman, spoke for the

rest when he suggested that "Senator Sherman will pray to

be I‘elieved from such fool friends as Mr. Hanna," whose
K

11W Elam 22242;, March 21+, 1890.

203

interview "was the first authentic admission that there was
an organized Republican effort to defeat Foraker."12

Above all, Hanna felt he owed an apology to Sherman.
As soon as he read the reactions, though not the interview
itself, he clipped out the Cappeller and other statements
and enclosed them in a long letter to the senator.

At first I thought it was made to order- but I
remembered meeting Frank Burr accidentally in the
lobby of the Hotel here and in talking about many
matters it comes to me that he asked a question
about politics in Ohio. What I said to him I am
sure I am not ashamed of. But I had not the most
remote idea that he was pumping for an item. In
that I plead guilty to Cappeller's charge of

Iaeing a fool. I certainly never aspired to being

a politician nor a boss as Mr. C. would under-
stand the terms. My consolation is that I am not
lonesome in my position before the public of Ohio.
Iiowever the only regret I have in the matter is

the connection of your name with one who stands
condemned and in such a ludicrous position before
the W of the state. I felt that some
explanation was due to you, . . . and if I have 1
said anything distasteful to you I apologize. . . . 3

Gradually the peacemakers in Washington and Ohio effected

an informal truce. Foster, Halstead, Ryan and McKinley even
discussed the possibility of holding a "love feast" to re-
new party harmony, but this seemed to be asking too much.

A month after the interview was published, at least the
critical point had passed. "The feeling that Foraker ought

__

12142151., March 28, 1889.

3 13Hanna to Sherman, March 28, 1890, from N. Y. C.,
herman papers.

201+

to be killed off entirely is not so strong as it was,"
Foster confided to a friend.11+

More to Hanna's taste in the fall of 1889 was his ex-

pedition to Washington to do what he could to help McKinley

win the speakership of the House. This first appearance in

the capital of the team of McKinley and Hanna failed in its

primary mission. The Ohioan ran second to Thomas B. Reed

of Idaine. His consolation prize, however, was the powerful

chairmanship of the House Ways and Means committee.

Then
as now, this was the source of all revenue bills. Then
much more than now, revenue meant the tariff. As an op-

Port'unity to make a legislative record, it was better for
McKinley than the speakership.

This is not the place for a review of the dolorous his-
tory of the McKinley tariff bill.

Only a few aspects are
relevant .

As originally proposed in the spring of 1890,

“mi even as passed that fall after hundreds of modifica-
tions, it was the highest tariff in history to that time--

50 high as to discourage many imports and reduce revenues

all along the line. large industries were protected from

f°r°18n competition; small industries were protected, and

even a few non-existent industries were protected.15 But

11+

Foster toRan A r11 12 18 29 M8. 5 1890 all
in Ryan papers. 3' 9 P 9 9 9 y 9 9

1‘5
Mar aret Leech Days Mgflnlex (N. Y.
1959)9 pp.g1+1+-‘+7 and 50%?ng Qf. ,

‘5‘,

 

at“

1,.
“1'

(r-
< lg.

' p

205

for McKinley and Hanna both, protection was a fetish. The
industrial leaders of northeast Ohio that they repre-
sented were tariff worshippers themselves, and none ser-
iously considered the possibility of having too much of
this good thing. McKinley's approach was to let the dir-
ect beneficiaries of the system have what they asked for.
In return he would ask, through Hanna and others, for what
he needed at election time. Sherman followed the same rule
to a great extent in his Senate Finance committee. Put
this way, it sounds like a criminal conspiracy, but it was
not that in the hands of these true believers. What was
good for American business was good for the entire elector-
ate , whether the electorate understood so or not.

McKinley and his friends put their faith on the line
in 1890. Democrats and some members of their own party
Warned of pitfalls ahead. Blaine tried to ameliorate the
new schedule's damage to foreign trade by introducing some
reciProcity features. Even a few Ohio Republicans fought
for restraints. Ben Butterworth expressed their feelings

when he wrote Hanna in March that

. . . we have protection run mad in this country,
And instead of slowing up, we are blundering
ahead, trying to appease the farmer by a little
tariff on the unprotected hen, and a like sug-
gestion as to Burmuda Potatoes, &c. which would
be as valuable to the farmer as building a statue
to the Sphinx on Coney Island. The wrath that is
gathering through high and unnecessary protection
V111 break one of these days, and instead of leav-
ing a substantial structure, as an evidence of the

206

strength of our protective system, we will find
that the foundations upon which it rested will

be swept away, and then the tige will ebb and flow,
backwards and forwards. . . .

Hanna's reply is unfortunately lost, but he was used to his
friend's declamatory style and doubtless shrugged off such
fears as unwarranted.

McKinley's tariff bill became law in time to become
the central issue of his campaign for reelection. The new
legislature had gerrymandered his district once more to in-
clude as many Democrats as possible, and either because of
this, or because of the unpopularity of the new tariff, or
both, McKinley was defeated for the first time after six
consecutive terms.17 It was a bad year for Republicans all
through the country. The Democracy had taken every advan-
tage of the new tariff issue and pushed its men through to
form a strong new majority in the House, though the Senate
remained Republican.

If McKinley and Hanna were surprised at this reaction,
they admitted no discouragement. The party organization
in.the state had pulled together admirably. Perhaps now
it was time for McKinley to shift his attention to state
politics. "I agreawith you," he wrote Hanna, "that defeat

m

16Butterworth to Hamma,6 March 15i 18906 Hanna papers.

See also same to same Sept 189 1M"
01cott,MgKin;§y, I, 12% 6, ’

17Leech, McKinley, p. #8.

.. ___.-‘-"_._.-‘

207

under the circumstances was for the best."18 Certainly
Hanna had not lost faith. The experiences of the past year
had brought him closer than ever to the suave, dignified
congressman from Canton. He had shown the McKinleys the
hospitality of his new home on the lake, had endorsed notes
for him and helped manage his finances.19 Every meeting
had brought increased respect for his new hopeful. Next
would be the governorship. Then-awhy not?--the presidency
itself.

Parenthetically, one event of the year 1890 deserves
close examination here. It affected Hanna's political for-
tunes in later years and has unfairly stained his reputa-
tion among historians to this day.

The story begins a few days after the election. Hanna
wrote a letter to the state's attorney-general, a young
Republican named David K. Watson. In it he protested Wat-
son's action of several months earlier in bringing suit
against the Standard Oil Company for violating its charter
by transferring control over its affairs to a trust domin-
ated by non-residents of the state. Watson said later that
when he received the letter he casually permitted a news-

Paperman, Francis E. Gessner, to read it. No copy was

k

18McKinley to Hanna, Nov. 12, 1890, Hanna papers. See
also Olcott, McKinley, I, 187-189.

19McKinley to Hanna, June 2, July 13, 1890, both in
fhnna papers. See also Leech, MgKinley, pp. 21, 22.

208

made, however, and the matter remained private.2O watson
replied cordially but firmly that he did not intend, as
suggested, an attack on organized capital generally. The
facts of the case at hand made his action seem a matter of
duty. Senator Sherman was not behind it, despite rumors
that the suit was related to his antitrust bill then pend-
ing in Congress.21 After a few weeks delay, Hanna wrote
again to urge his view that "there has been no industry of
greater benefit to our city [than Standard Oil], and there
are large holdings among our enterprising business men.
[His brother Mel was one of them;] They are indignant at
this attack, and when the time comes will make their in-
fluence felt. Therefore I have said to you in all frank-
ness that politically it is a very sad mistake, and I am
sure it will not result in much glory for you. . . ."22
There the argument rested. The case proceeded and so far
as is known Hanna said no more to Watson about it.

Seven years later, as Hanna was campaigning for elec-
tion to the Senate, opposition newspapers all over the

state blossomed out with the following alleged Hanna

M

20Morrowinterview with David K. Watson, Washington,
IL C., 1906, Hanna papers.

21Watson to Hanna, Dec. 13, 1890, Hanna papers.

22Hanna to Watson, Dec. 27, 1890, copy in Hanna
Papers.

209

quotation in great black letters: "No Man in Public Of-
fice Owes the Public Anything."23

Their source was an article in the Neg 1911; Mid, of
August 11, 1897, written by the same Francis B. Gessner
who had supposedly read Hanna's first letter to Watson
years before. Now he reported the story, first checking
with others who also claimed to have read the letter. He
said that this sentence had stuck in his memory verbatim,
along with the substance of the rest of the letter. "No
one could read it and ever forget it," asserted the some-

what tardily shocked Gessner.

Watson was besieged by reporters for confirmation,
but beyond insisting that the extracts published were in-
a(mura‘te he would add nothing. Then, according to Watson's
Story, Hanna asked if he would give the letter back. Wat-
son agreed. In a brief and somber ceremony at the Neil
House in Columbus, the offending words were torn up and
flushed down the toilet, Watson pulling the chain. The
would —be senator was contrite, and Watson was content, for
he had taken the trouble to make a copy for himself?”

Eight years later, James B. Morrow interviewed Watson

in the course of his researches for Croly's biography of

—_

231d M. T b ll nigger! stangarg o ngpgnx
(2 vols. ,al90k)ai,ell+é. 21‘. the .2.

2""Morrow interview with David K. Watson, Hanna papers.

 

 

210

the late senator from Ohio. He took down the story as re-
lated heretofore, together with some additional material

on Watson's efforts to prevent Ida Tarbell from including
the episode in her articles for Mgglurg's W. From

his own lmowledge of Watson and Gessner and from talking
with Hanna's secretary, Elmer Dover, Morrow doubted the
truth of the Watson version. But Watson did give Morrow
his alleged copy of the destroyed letter, together with a
CODY of his reply and the original of Hanna's second let-
ter. When Croly published his biography of Hanna in 1912,
he Printed the Watson copy of the first Hanna letter in
full. The last two pieces are still in the Hanna Papers,
but the copy of that first and most important letter has
disappeared. What follows, then, is necessarily copied

from Croly's printing of Watson's copy of the purported
OI'1ginal letter of November 21, 1890:

€30me months ago, when I saw the announcement
‘through the papers that you had begun a suit against
‘the Standard Oil Co. in the Supreme Court, I in-
‘tended, if opportunity presented, to talk with you,
and failing in the personal interview, to write
jyou.a letter, but the subject passed out of my
Inind. Recently while in New York I learned from
my friend, Mr. John D. Rockefeller, that such

suit was still pending, and without any solicita-
tion on his part or suggestion from him, I deter-
:mined to write you, believing that both political
and business interests Justified me in doing so.
'While I am not personally interested in the Stand-
ard Oil 00., many of my closest friends are, and

I have no doubt that many of the business associa-
tions with which I am connected are equally open
to attack. The simple fact is, as you will dis-
cover, if you have not already done so, that in

211

these modern days most commercial interests are
properly and necessarily taking on the form of
organization for the safety of investors, and
the improvement of all conditions upon which

business is done. Tehg; i_s hg greater mishahe

f__o__rg_h_ih9__ro utgfpuhlig oiefifg Lfl
thenmeemeihaiheeeemmieihem-

1ieeaeeninm..nne.a_needvasemu_t.enii
2:. m1 s 121 Masking ihe W1 Ian—ads
whiehezeerieneeheemhiw 51 688 seams be
$19119.- [Italics supplied .] From a party standpoint,
interested in the success of the Republican party,
and regarding you as in the line of political pro-
motion, I must say that the identification of your
office with litigation of this character is a great
mistake. There is no public demand for a raid
upon organized capital. For years the business of
manufacturing oil has been done with great success
at Cleveland, competition has. been open and free,
and the public has been greatly benefited by the
manner in which the oil business has been carried
on. The Standard Oil Co. is officered and managed
by some of the best and strongest men in the country.
They are pretty much all Republicans and have been
most liberal in their contributions to the party,
as I personally know, Mr. Rockefeller always quiet-
ly doing his share. I think I am in a position to
know that the party in this state has been at
times badly advised. We need for the struggles of
the future the cooperation of our strongest business
interests and not their indifference or hostility.
You will probably not argue with me in this. I
have been informed, though I can hardly credit the
information, that Senator Sherman has encouraged
or suggested this litigation. If that be correct,
I would like to know it, because I shall certainly
have something to say to the Senator myself. I
Simply say with reapect to this matter, that pru-
dence and cautégn require you to go very slow in
this business.

SE;

The crucial sentence has been italicized here. Croly was

concerned also with the second sentence prior to it, in

“111311 Hanna suggests that some of his own business

‘

25Croly, Lianne, pp. 267, 268.

212

connections are "equally open to attack." Both of these
statements he found incredible. No matter what Hanna might
have thought privately, he argued, he would never have con-
victed himself of such "childish folly" on paper. "Why,
even if he believed it," Croly asked, "should he be cynical
and incoherent enough to throw [into his argument] a re—
mark that a public official owes no duty to the public?"
Especially when Watson was not a close friend and would
have good reason to be offended by such talk. He concludes
that the letter itself had been tampered with: "The sus-
picion which attaches to the whole document makes it im-
possible to accept absolutely any part of it and base a
criticism of Mr. Hanna upon it." Nevertheless, Croly ad-
mited that much of the letter could have been written as
Purported, and that therefore Hanna might have wanted it
des‘iroyed in 1897 because he was ashamed of it.26

Some suspicion may be cast on the document, although
it is cast in part by biassed witnesses. Hanna's secretary
in his senate days, Elmer Dover, told some stories reflect-
ing on Watson: he had been rebuffed by Hanna in his appli-
cation for financial aid in his 1896 congressional cam-
paign; he had presented a $250 bill for the expenses of
that two-day trip to see Ida Tarbell in New York; and he

2
6mg” pp. 269. 27o.

 

213

had hinted to Hanna's family that something might be done
for him for his services in keeping the lid on the story as
well as he did.27

Gessner was under greater suSpicion. Morrow, who had
a wide acquaintance among fellow newspapermen, noted in his
comments on the Watson story that "even before Francis B.
Gessner became an outcast and inhabitant of the gutter
through drink and drugs he was distrusted by newspaper men
Who knew him in Ohio." Behind this charge are some scraps
of contemporary evidence that still survive. John Sherman
traced down a false news story in 1888 and found Gessner
at the bottom of it. He was known then, Sherman reported
hearing from a newspaper friend, as a "common liar" who had
been "detected in several similar matters."28 One year
later, it appears that Gessner was turning over a new leaf.
Foraker addressed a letter to him in Detroit at that time
saying that he had written a note of introduction for him
to Russell A. Alger. "You will find Governor Alger a very
generous hearted man. He will take a great deal of pride
in helping a man if he has confidence that he will stay up.

It gives me great pleasure to know that you have come to a

——__

27Comments by J. B. Morrow attached to his interview
With David K. Watson, Hanna papers.

also 288herman to Hanna, April 2, 1888, Hanna papers. See

Sherman to Foraker, May 28, 1881+, in mam-Shem
e 3 pp- 389 390

211+

realization of your mistakes and have formed a determined
purpose to redeem yourself. . . ."29 Whether the governor
of Michigan was satisfied with him thereafter is not in
evidence, but according to Watson, Gessner was in his of-
fice in Columbus six months later reading Hanna's letter.
Presumably he was at least a good Republican then, for he
kept 'the letter in confidence. But in 1897, he was con-
tributing grist for the mill of the Democratic M m
m. In 190%, he is found again in the Republican camp,
this ‘time writing the praises of no less stalwart a party
man than Charles Dick, Hanna's successor in the Senate.30
{Thus when Croly mentioned "the suspicion which at-
taches to the whole document," he must have been thinking
of derogatory reports on the characters of both Watson and
Gessner as well as the "inexplicable" passages in the let-
ter itself. An alternate explanation of the letter's his-
tory was given by Morrow in his written comments on the
whtSCui interview, and by implication this is the theory
Croly accepts: A letter was written to Watson in 1890;
Watscul gave the substance of it, or showed it, to Gessner

in 1897 during the heat of the campaign against Hanna, and

‘_

29Foraker to Gessner, May 27, 1889, copy in Foraker
Papers.

§OSee his "The New Senator From Ohio, " M e '
Maxine, xxx: (190%). M

 

215

the two men conspired on the story about Gessner's earlier
reading of it in order to cover their motives, since Whtson
was afraid to oppose Hanna openly. The original was de-
stroyed to satisfy Hanna, but a corrupted copy was made

and kept by Watson for use should it become helpful later.

This seems an unnecessarily elaborate as well as a
shaky defense. The first part, covering the probable con-
spiracy to hide Watson's motives, could well be true. But
the more serious charge of falsifying the letter by adding
to it is both weak and unnecessary. The sole excuse for
it is the conviction that Hanna would not have written
what he was purported to have written. It will be argued
here that he might well have written the entire letter,
"childish follies" and all.

It will be recalled that it was only four months after
this letter of November, 1889, that Hanna gave the inter-
view on Foraker in New Ybrk which caused him such embar-
rassment. It might also be noted here that he had then and
would continue to have for many years almost a phobia
against public Speaking.31 His fear of addressing the pub-
lic was a self-protective one, for he knew that his habit
cfl'pitching his thoughts point-blank at his listeners could

bring swift embarrassment in the next day's papers. It

_;

31Morrow interviews with Charles Dick, Mrs. C.A
Hanna, and William P. Frye (Washington, D. C., 1906).

216

would be a long time yet before he would develop that
politician's sixth sense of caution when exposing his mind
and heart to the public. His written remark that he was
no worse than the men of Standard Oil was obviously only
anotharspark in the momentary heat of the occasion. He
was no legal shark. The slip was that of a man morally
certain, personally indignant and legalistically naive.

The second remark is puzzling only because it seems
never to have been understood for what it plainly says.
It is a long, compound-complex sentence, but it expresses
only one thought--the same thought, essentially, that ap-
pears two sentences later in the words: "There is no pub-
lic demand for a raid upon organized capital." watson was
in politics up to his eyes. He presumably had two motives:
to serve the public, and, in doing this, to advance his own
interests, i.e., his career. Hanna was telling him that he
could accomplish neither of these objects "by attacking the
organizations under which experience has taught business
can best be done." This is not only the context of the
thought; it is the thought itself. The thought that it is
a mistake for a man to assume that he owes any duty to the
public--stopping there--is nowhere present.

Hanna may have been right or wrong in what he did say,
but the sentiments he expressed were not atypical of him.

1H5 remark on the importance of supporting the leadership

217

of business men was closely in keeping with the attitudes
implied in the tariff fight of 1890. It was part of the
creed of a representative of the party that admitted of

no differences between the best interests of the country
and the best interests of the community of business suc-
cess. A prosecution such as Watson was undertaking was a
dangerous insistence on technicalities. Had Hanna been
alive sixty-three years later he would have cheered the
answer of Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson when Wil-
son was asked by a senator whether as a former president
of General Motors Corporation he would feel able to make a
decision favoring the national interest but detrimental to
his old company's interest. He could, he replied, but it
seemed an entirely hypothetical question, "because for
years I thought what was good for our country was good for
General Motors, and vice-versa. The difference did not
exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare
of the country. Our contribution to the nation is quite
considerable."32 Wilson, too, found his words would cause
him political embarrassment, and he had not gone so far as
to draw any conclusions as to what the Republican party's
attitude toward his old company should be. At least when
he was later misquoted by hostile politicians, the wrong

—_¥

3zm§!_xgph Tings, Jan. 2%, 1953-

 

'r-

218

words--"What is good for General Motors is good for the
country"--expressed a part of his thought. In Hanna's
case, the misquotation was of a different order. He did
use the words, but did not express the thought.33

Hanna threw himself into the political battles of
1891 with greatest energy where the line was weakest. He
paid less attention to McKinley's campaign than to Sher-
man's, for as will be shown, McKinley had fewer obstacles
to overcome.

Foraker was no obstacle. His endorsement of McKinley
came early and stayed.3h There was no contest at the
state convention; indeed the temporary chairman became so
careless in his preoccupation with McKinley--"He is already
chosen"--that he forgot to introduce the clergyman for the
invocation. Foraker nominated McKinley in a brilliant
speech, and the deed was done in one ballot. There was no
argument over a senatorial endorsement since none was of-

fered.35

 

33Among the reprintings of Hanna's misquotation have
been the popular Harr Thurston Peck, T X§g1§,g£_1hg_
W (N. Y., 19061, p. '+72; and the recent Phillip D.
Jordan, Ohig 99m § 91 Agg (Carl Wittke, ed., Th2,fii§§g;x_
91th; Shape g; Ohig, V91. 5), p. 212.

Im, 3hForaker to Foster, March 11, 1891, copy in Foraker
pers.

F‘ra 359l§¥§%%DQ.El§1£ 23112:, June 17, 1891; Walters,
9913- o

219

A keynote of fear was struck by the Democrats' glgggr
land Elgin Dgglg; in an editorial shortly after the nomina-
tion. "The battle in this state will be the hardest in
years, and its progress will be watched all over the coun-
try. . . . That nomination has placed the policy of high
protection on trial before the people of this state and
their verdict will influence the decision of the whole
nation. . . . So much depends upon the election of McKinley
that no means to accomplish that end will be left untried.
. . . 'Wind and money' are pledged without limits."36

Money was pledged, but not without limits and not
without continued exertions. What gave the Republican war
chest its weight were the liberality of Ohio contributors
plus an unknown number of "remembrances"brought back by
Hanna from hunting trips to Chicago, Pittsburgh and points
east.37 By introducing the tariff into the debate and
having a "free-silver" Democratic platform to attack,
McKinley was able to appeal to his wealthy friends outside
the state.

As a fund raiser, Hanna was in demand everywhere. In

September he was asked to become Treasurer of the party's

 

56mm Elsie Dealer, June 19, 1891.

37McKinley to Hanna, Sept. 13, 1891; Hahn to Hanna,
Sept. 30, 1891; both in Hanna papers; Hanna to Sherman,
Get- 7, 19, 1891, both in Sherman papers; glgxglghg,£;§;h,
, Oct. 23, 27, 1891.

220

National Committee. "I take it that if your business in-
terests will permit, party work is something of a pleasure
and recreation," Foster wrote as he tendered the offer.
Fbur or five men had turned it down; Hanna added his re-
grets and soon afterward the position was awarded to the
New Ybrk merchant Cornelius N. Bliss.38 Earlier that month
he had received a plea from State Executive Committee chair-
man William N. Hahn. Money was needed, and "Friend Hanna
we believe that you can do more good than any other man in
the state." The confidence that the leading businessman

in the state "have in you leads us to believe that if you
will simply ask them to contribute they will promptly re-
spond. . . ." On receiving some encouragement and a few
checks forwarded through Hanna, he wrote again at the end
of the month to say that the committee had so far received
less than $6500 from outside the state. He asked Hanna

if he would help collect on pledges still outstanding. In
fact, he admitted that they were already using his name to
win the confidence of manufacturers who were then being
approached by the secretary of the American Iron and Steel

Association.39

38Fbster to Hanna, Sept. 22, 1891, Hanna papers. That
fauna did serve as Treasurer of the Republican National
Committee at this time has been mistakenly asserted by
several writers: William Allen White, M§§h§,ih,§_2§gg§n1_
(N. Y., 1928), p. 86; David Seville Muzzey, ng§§_gg_
Elem (N. Y., 193%), p. L+68, and others.

39Same to same, Sept. 30, 1891, mg.

221

No reliable estimate of the total funds collected can
to made. If it could it would take on meaning only when
compared with other campaigns and with Democratic purses.
Even Hanna's personal.financial contribution cannot be
learned. References to various amounts that appear in his
correspondence are seldom specific as to their original
source. A statement such as "I have sent Hahn $2000 today
and hope to send him some more" when written to Sherman on
October 19 reads more like a report on collections than on
how much he could afford personally. A week later he men-
tions sending $3500 to Hahn for "that fund."“0 Certainly
he contributed locally, and as will be seen later, probably
he by-passed the state committee during one period of the
canpaign. How much he gave the state committee from his
own pocket can only be guessed. He knew that Foster had
sent 35000 as his contribution, and doubtless would not
have let himself be outshone even by the Secretary of the
Treasury.1+1

In any case, Hanna's most valuable service was in win-
ning contributions from others. He had to do more than
merely ask, as Hahn had suggested. He had to deal, for ex-
ample, with his "careful" friend John Rockefeller:

g;

#0
#1

Hanna to Sherman, Oct. 19, 26, 1891, Sherman papers.
Foster to Hanna, Oct. 8, 1891, Hanna papers.

222

Personal
My dear Hanna:
Yours 8th received. But as I understand,
we have already put in several thousand dollars
from the east.
Thanks--My health is better. Hope you can

let up on business affairs. I think I am more

careful than you are.
Such occasional disappointments could be afforded. When
the returns were in, McKinley had defeated an able Demo-
cratic incumbent governor by more than 20,000 votes.
Hanna's elation at the victory was matched by McKinley's
serene calm. A telegram from Canton dated the day after
the election quietly declined Hanna's offer of a victory
dinner: "Letter received. Am going east Saturday. Need
rest. Think therefore better not have jollification.“3

Parallelling this campaign was another and more dif-
ficult one aimed at winning a legislative majority that
would be not only Republican but favorable as well to John
Sherman's reelection as Senator. Foraker was quietly
maneuvering to win that seat for himself. This was the
underside of his enthusiasm for McKinley at this time. His
thirty-one speeches in the campaign of that year had a
double purpose. He would gather the "younger spirits" in
the party behind him and march into the party caucus the
the following January prepared to retire the aging Sherman

and his friends to a long overdue oblivion.

—___

1+2Rockefeller to Hanna, Oct. 10, 1891, ih_d.
L"Bl‘chinley to Hanna, telegram, Nov. #, 1891, ihlg,

223

That there was no public issue at stake in this intra-
party struggle is evident from a letter Foraker wrote to a
close friend in July. The Sherman men had conferred to-
gether earlier, he said, and then come to him with a re-
quest that he agree not to allow a contest against Sherman.
He would like to have agreed, since he preferred to remain
in his more renumerative law practice. But he took ex-
ception to their manner of approach. It must have been
more than an approach, for he concluded that "since they

NH The itch for

attacked as they did, I decided to run."
office was revived with the slightest irritation.

Sherman enlisted Hanna's personal help early in the
campaign. Fearing that their quondam friend Foraker and
his friends might have a strong grip on the machinery of
the state executive and central committees, he asked for a

frank report on the Cleveland situation and his assistance

in securing the right legislative candidates.45 Hanna's

opinion was that Foraker was definitely "not on top here."
Mayor William G. Rose had been considering himself a com-
promise candidate for the senate, but he made more

election promises than he could fulfill. Now he was "the

deadest politician you ever saw," outside of City Hall.

L

In. l+ltForaker to Cappeller, July 23, 1891, copy in Foraker
Pers.

“SSherman to Hanna, July 10, 1891, Hanna papers.

22%

Herrick was a Foraker man, but Hanna was his friend and
might be able to win his influence. Sherman would find
that he had many friends in Cleveland. "As fast as candi-
dates come to the surface I will take measures to find out
their choice. In short I will do all I can to aid you.
. . ." The report was "as usual, frank and encouraging,"
Sherman wrote in thanks. Hanna's subsequent dispatches
continued optimistic. He won over Myron Herrick.and began
working on the Young Men's Republican Club, which was for-
tunately anti-Rose already.M6

Sherman's veteran scout Jake Donaldson was less sang-
uine. He warned the senator against relying upon some of
the old guard in Cleveland, naming Brinsmade specifically,
.and.repeatedly impressed upon Hanna the urgency of his win-
:ning a strong delegation for Sherman there to balance ex—
pected losses in Hamilton County. Foraker was leaving no
stone unturned to capture Cleveland; indeed "Charlie Kurtz
'was there last Thursday & Friday, too sneaky I understand
to register anywhere, and . . . another one of the party
goes there today," he wrote. Donaldson inspired Sherman's

letter to Hanna in late September telling him that in

‘

1+6Hanna to Sherman, July 16, 1891, Sherman papers;
I‘eply, Julg 20, 1891, Hanna papers; Hanna to Sherman,
«Italy 21, l 91, Sherman papers.

225

fighting for Cuyahoga County he was "fighting the battle
for the state. "”7

Hanna was willing to fight and wanted to do it openly
--"just as Foraker is doing it in Dists. where he is
strong. Their scheme," Hanna wrote, "is in Dists. where
sentiment is strongly for you to say that we must not agi-
tate the senatorial question but select men who will figiLr
ly_represent the sentiment of the Dist. Then they will
take good care to have these good men committed before
hand. Therefore I say it is nonsense to be put to sleep by
such talk and I am personally saying to all who come to me
that my influence and aid will go only to men whom I hug!
to be for Senator Sherman." By the end of September, he
could report of the county convention that "we did not get
,all of the men 2e selected. But gyg;y_gh§ g; thg_has per-
sonally pledged to me that they will vote for you for Sen-
ator." Again Sherman was pleased. Hanna must have chuck-
led as he read in his congratulations that the Senator con-
sidered himself "under a thousand obligations to you.“+8

Some ten days later the subject of finances arose. In

the course of his letter to Sherman explaining his plans

~

1+7J. C. Donaldson to Sherman July 2%, 1891, Sherman
Papers; same to Hanna, Aug. 11, 1891; Sherman to Hanna,
Sept. 22, 1891, both in Hanna papers.

x+8Hanna to Sherman, Sept. 1, 28, 1891, both in Sherman
psazpers; Sherman to Hanna, Sept. 29, 1891, Hanna papers.

226

and activities Hanna remarked casually that "I had to pay
pretty well to get the workers on my side for our candi-
dates in the convention. Ybu know that element are not
cheap."1+9 No copy of the reply, if there was one, has sur-
vived. The campaign continued apace.

As Sherman's campaign progressed into October the
question arose whether his or Foraker's managers would be
given credit for supplying the financial needs of weak or
unpledged nominees. "My fear is . . . that the opposition
may seek out these needy ones and afford them the neces-
sary aid and thus secure their pledges," Donaldson advised.
Sherman consulted with Hahn to pinpoint the doubtful
counties and together they agreed on a special fund of
$5,000 for the legislative canvass.5O But Donaldson,
Grosvenor and Hanna distrusted the state committee. Don-
aldson felt that Hahn was using too many Foraker men in
the field and hearing too many soft words about Sherman's
:needs from them. The northwest counties alone would re-
-quire $5,000, he argued; the total should be twice that.
Grosvenor questioned Hahn's diligence and spoke plainly of

the need to help men like John Abbott, who "has got to

“9Hanna to Sherman, Oct. 7, 1891, Sherman papers.

50Donaldson to Sherman, Oct. 2 19, 1891, Sherman
papers; Sherman to Hanna, Oct. 6, 1591, Hanna papers;
HELJuito Sherman, Oct. 8, 1891, Sherman papers; Donaldson
to Hanna, Oct. 10, 1891, Hanna papers.

227

operate upon the miner vote in Athens and Hocking
[counties], and the State Committee cannot do that for
him." But Sherman feared post-election embarrassment if
he seemed to desert the state ticket. Proposals for by-
passing the committee were temporarily vetoed. By mid-
October, however, Hanna was given permission to reserve
some money for distribution from Cleveland. At the same
time confidence in Hahn was being restored and soon more
money was sent him.51

A prime example of how tangled the web of political
circumstance could get was Paulding county, a small square
of farming towns in the northwest along the Indiana bor-
der. George P. Waldorf, collector of internal revenue at
Toledo, was Sherman's trusted advisor in the area. On
October 16, waldorf wrote the Senator that Paulding county's
candidate for state representative, Francis B. DeWitt, had
just come to him with a plea for $500 beyond the $1,000
promised by the state committee. The county had been
boodled by the Democrats, he reported, so that it was neces-
sary to boodle the colored vote in return. DeWitt already
had influential Democrats working for him, he said, so his
indormation ought to be accurate. Both he and John C.

k

51Grosvenor to Sherman, Oct. 11, 1891, Sherman papers;
same to Foster, Oct. 8, 1891, copy in Hanna papers; Donald-
s<::n to Hanna, Oct. 10, 1891, ihid.; Hanna to Sherman,

01::t. 7 8, 19 1891, Sherman papers. Sherman to Hanna,
Oct. 18, 20, 1891, Hanna papers.

228

Rorick, the senate candidate from that district, had re-
fused offers of "unlimited" finances if they would pledge
for Foraker. Waldorf advised allowing the 3500. There is
no record that the request was granted, but both men were
elected. For a time, their votes were considered safe for
Sherman. Then both of them went over to Foraker's camp.
Rorick even gave out a story in December that he was offer-
ed 85,000 to vote for Sherman, and of course refused.52

Hanna was privy to this story and a number of similar
experiences closer to home. It was the kind of episode
that might have led to his alleged maxim that "an honest
politician is one that stays bought."

DeSpite the persistent efforts of both factions, there
‘were enough unpledged or unreliable legialators-elect after
the Republicans' November victory to keep the senatorial
question unsettled. Sherman had wide support in the busi-
ness community, among federal officeholders and from those
‘who liked Feraker less. And he had the prestige of his
long service, which to some deserved a vote of confidence.
Foraker had strength among the veterans, his old appoint-
ees, some farmer and labor groups, and the entire Hamilton

County delegation under its now well established boss

k

Szwaldorf to Sherman, Oct. 16, Dec. 2%, 1891; Donald-
s<:n1to Sherman, Oct. 15, 1891; all in Sherman papers; same
t<ED Hanna, Nov. 1%, 1891, Hanna papers.

229

George Cox. Both contenders had a share of newspaper sup-
port.53

Sherman's strategy in the face of Foraker's claims of
a majority was to accumulate enough public pledges to cut
short any extended fight. Hanna agreed on the plan, but
had to report with some embarrassment that "we are having
a little trouble smoking out some our fellows here" in
Cleveland}1+ Several in particular kept him on the anxious
seat: Wilbur Parker, Frank 0. Spencer, Morris Porter and
W. D. Pudney. He approached them with care at first, re-
marking in an aside to Sherman that it was "wonderful how
independent men get after they are elected." It would be
.no easy task to bring them around, he warned, for "our fel-
xlows here are of the stripe that cannot be reached through
‘their pride."55 Of the four Cuyahoga men listed, two
1would break to Fbraker. Spencer, in whom Myron Herrick
icould find little pride, nevertheless stayed and helped urge
JPudneyto stay; Mmen pressure from his employer was added,
FDudney finally stayed. Parker and Porter, however, did not.

 

S3See Walters, F ker, pp. 101, 102.

51“Sherman to Hanna, Nov. 5 7 1891 both in Hanna
§:pers; Hanna to Sherman, Nov. A, ll, lBél, both in Sherman
Perso

ssHanna to Sherman, Nov. 19, 20, 1891, both in Sherman
papers .

230

Only these two broke the unanimity of the county's eleven
man delegation.56

Hanna also shared in the fight to hold or win votes
in the other Western Reserve counties. Senator E. L.
Lampson was an uncertain quantity for a time, as he had
been strongly supported by Conger for the nomination. He
privately promised his vote to Sherman as early as August,
however, and by early December was pledged in writing.57
Representative L. C. Reeve of Ashtabula at the same time
seemed safely for Sherman but had already promised his
vote for the speakership to another than Sherman's choice,
Lewis C. Laylin. He was not safe, however, on the day
that counted.58 Charles H. Strock of Trumbull County was
another problem:

I have seen Strock [Hanna wrote] and have had

a dozen others see him. But he cannot be made

to promise to either side. The fact is that he

is going to wait until the last moment so as to

get the most that is for him. He is not a man

I can influence. So we have simply got to wait

until we can find out what will satisf him and
see what we can do to that end . . . . 9

 

56Hanna to Sherman, Dec. M, 1891; Herrick to Sherman,
Dec. 21, 2h, 1891; all in Sherman papers.

57A. L. Conger to C. L. Kurtz Aug. 31, 1891, Conger
papers; w. c. Haskell to Sherman, Aug. 19, 1891; Hanna to
Sherman, Dec. 11, 1891, both in Sherman papers.

58Hanna to Sherman, Dec. 11. 1891, Sherman papers.

59Same to same, Dec. 2“, 18919 lhlflp

231

”lather Hanna had stated the problem correctly or not, he
failed to solve it in time to win Strock's vote.

Except for these few, all of northeast Ohio stood
sé’lidly behind Sherman. The battle was Joined in scattered
daunties throughout the state. Noble county's representa-
ti ve was thought to have been bought up by the Foraker
men.6o Young Harry M. Daugherty of Fayette county, later
to be remembered as Harding's Attorney-General, was thought
‘0? the Foraker men to have been bought up by Sherman's men.
The evidence for this is weak, but the evidence that he
committed his vote to both factions concurrently is strong.
In the end he went with Sherman, the winner.61

The struggle had become so bitter by early December
that Sherman concluded to offer armistice terms. In trade
for Foraker's withdrawal he would support him later for the
vice—presidential or any other nomination he might want.
His offer was rejected and the battle continued.62

Gradually the arena narrowed as the January 6 caucus

date approached. Columbus hotels filled with politicians.

 

60H. J. Cleveland to Sherman, Dec. 25, 18919 13$..-

6lJames Mo Cox, Jamel mm Hz 1232.: (No Yo, 19%),
pp. 303, 30%; Grosvenor to Sherman, Nov. 9, 1891; Hahn to
Sherman, Dec. 11, 1891; Hanna to Sherman, n.d. ca. Dec. 25,
1891 ; all in Sherman papers.

628herman to Geo. K. Nash, Dec. 8, 1891, copy in let-
terbook 8, Sherman papers. Apparently there was no reply
in writing from Foraker. Nash was used as emissary.

232

Some were invited as guests of the contenders, others paid
their own way.63 Each faction seemed to feel the other
outnumbered it in the hotel lobbies. On Christmas Eve, a
young Urbana newspaperman named Joe Smith, who had recently
been added to Sherman's team, spilled out all his fears in
a letter to the senator in washington:

The fight is going steadily and strongly against

us. Hahn is away. Donaldson is without hope

and sick. Judge Nash is confined to his room.

Hanna has his hands full in Cleveland, and Ryan

though home is too sick to take much part in the

fight. At least $10,000 could be and ought to be

legitimately used to break down the Fbraker or-

ganization and check the desertions from us.

. . . McKinley must come to your relief. . . .

The Cincinnati gang is lousy with boodle. . . .

It is better that you learn the truth now than when

it is everlasgingly too late. Have written Fbster

and McKinley.
Hanna agreed. He returned home from a quick trip to Colum-
bus equally alarmed. Two more men had defected and several
doubtful cases were not improving. "Hahn admits that if
McGrew is elected [as Speaker] that our margin is hardly
safe against the promise of chairmanships." Mere helpers
were needed. Had Sherman seen Butterworth? He had prom-

ised to come if he could. "I will make him come . . .

 

63Hahn to Sherman, Dec. 15, 17, 1891, both in Sherman
papers.

6“Joseph P. Smith to Sherman, Dec. 2%, 1891, Sherman
papers. The total bill for the senatorial fight against
Foraker was $8,189.53, of which several hundred dollars
were contributed by Hanna. Sherman paid the bulk of it
himself. See Hahn to Sherman, Dec. 9, 1891, March 2%,
April 1h, 1892, all ipig.

233

[and] I am going to see McKinley and insist on his doing all
he can."65

Hanna returned to the scene himself on New Year's Day
and on the next evening his friends met the enemy in the
speakership contest in the Heuse caucus--a victory for
Sherman's man Laylin by four votes. But Kurtz and Cappel-
ler vehemently predicted a majority for their man on the
final test. Fbur days later that test came, but it was
divided into two parts. First was a vote on whether to use
the open or secret ballot. Fbraker preferred the secret
ballot in hope that it might attract votes that would
otherwise be frightened away by fears of patronage retri-
bution. On the other side, though with less Justification,
it was charged that a secret ballot would permit the Hamil-
ton county men to hide the shame of their allegiance to
Cox. The vote on the balloting procedure itself was taken
by rollcall, and the decision (h7-h4) again went to Sherman
and the open ballot. Finally came the showdown: 53 to 38
in favor of John Sherman for a sixth term.66

The elderly statesman returned happily to his labors
in Washington, called in his secretary and dictated a kind

note to Hanna:

k

65Hanna to Sherman, n.d. (ca. Dec. 25, 1891), Sherman
papers.

66 Lgager, Jan. 2-7, 1892; Richard Smith to
Sherman, Jan. 7, l 92, Sherman papers; Conger to Kurtz,
Jan. 12, 1892, Conger papers.

23k

Now, after the smoke of battle is cleared away,
I wish first of all and above all to express to
you my profound gratitude for the part you have
taken in the recent Senatorial canvass. I feel
that without you I would have been beaten. It
was your foresight in securing the Cleveland
delegation that gave us the strongest support,
and made it possible to counteract the evil
influence of the Hamilton County delegation.

Ybu have been a true friend, liberal, earnest
and sincere, without any personal selfish motive
but only guided by a sense of what is best for
the people of Ohio and of the Country. I wish
you to know that I appreciate all this and will
treasure it as long as I live and only wish the
time may come when I may in some way show that I
am deserving of all your kindness.

After protesting that Hanna must not be allowed to take the
financial burden upon himself as he seemed to be doing,

Sherman continued:

It is a source of great satisfaction to me that

our canvass was made without the expenditure of

a single dollar for boodle, with no bitterness

to our adversaries and with no appeals for our

candidate to the interested cupidigy or ambition

of the Senators and Members. . . .
Walters has suggested that the references to the absence of
boodle, bitterness and cupidity revealed a Sherman that was
already slipping into senility.68 In view of all that he
could not help but learn from his own correspondence, this

would seem to be the kindest explanation.
Hanna had seen more than his share of boodle, bitter-

ness and cupidity in these years. It is difficult to

67Sherman to Hanna, Jan. 9, 1892, Hanna papers.
68Walters, W, p. 103.

235

imagine him standing in awe of any man, least of all a man
in politics. Did he find anything still worth admiring
in all this? Mark Hanna was shy about articulating his
ideals. He preferred to act on them as best he could with-
out elaboration or explanation. If party work was, as it
seemed to Foster, "a pleasure and a recreation" to him at
times, part of his pleasure in it derived from his personal
devotion to his heroes. There were two of these in time,
but Sherman was the first. Hanna's respect for the office
of senator doubtless came in large part from his high re-
gard for Sherman. A story told in later years illustrates
how the man and the office merged in his thoughts.

The Cleveland lawyer John H. Dempsey told Morrow in
1905 of a quiet Sunday hour Hanna and he had spent talking
together in a Columbus hotel during a lull in the Sherman
nomination fight of 1892. When they came to the subject
of Sherman, Dempsey gave his opinion that the Senator might
be expected to retire at his age. Most men entering their
seventies, after all, were content to lie in a hammock in
the sun and listen to the grass grow. "Jim," said Hanna,
"there is only one thing in these United States that I
would like to have and can't get." Then, with some feeling,
he confided, "I would rather be a Senator of the United
States than anything else on earth!” Dempsey was all for
it, and immediately launched into an outline of the first

 

.I '1 A 1‘1“? Il- lii f

 

236

several steps to get it. Hanna stopped him short. "Jim,
I couldn't get it anymore than I could fly!"69

Here was a glimpse of the Hanna his friends admired.
No matter how much mud he got his hands and feet in, his

head always seemed to stay above it.

69Morrow interview with John H. Dempsey, Hanna papers.

CHAPTER VII
TWO "CLOSE SQUEAKS" WITH McKINLEY

If the year 1888 marked the emergence of McKinley as
Hanna's second major political interest, the year 1892
brought him to a position of unrivaled primacy. Following
the reelection of Sherman in January, Hanna gave McKinley's
advancement his first attention. The time for the change-
over was ideal, for the ex-Congressman had redeemed himself
with the governorship in a season still unfriendly to Re-
publicans nationally. He was now in a better position than
ever to launch a campaign for the Presidency. Sherman, on
the other hand, was in a position to retire with dignity
from a long life of presidential campaigning. And finally,
the victory for Sherman had brought defeat to Foraker. If
not out of politics, he was at least out of office.

One of the virtues of a democracy is said to be its
provision for the succession to power. In a formal way,
the process is an orderly one. But in the subtle ways of
politics, the coaxing of groups from one leadership to
another can be a test worthy of masters in the art. The
Year 1892, for all its timeliness, presented its challenges
in this respect. The logic of making the shift from Sher-
man to McKinley had not appeared with equal clarity to all

237

238

concerned. 01d habits and accustomed poses were not easily
broken. Specifically, the problem was that some anti-Ad-
ministration Republicans outside Ohio were using Sherman's
name as a rallying point rather than McKinley's. Perhaps
it was because of his "soft" position on the currency is-
sue; perhaps it was the recollection of the McKinley Tar-
iff's unhappy effect on the congressional election of 1890.
Then too, they may have feared that he was too strong a
possibility, while they only wanted a stalking horse for
delegates. As will be seen later, there was no obvious
candidate to oppose Harrison, and some of the men in the
Sherman movement--Platt of New Yerk, Quay of Pennsylvania
and Mahone of Virginia--were disposed to work by indirec-
tion toward goals they preferred to camouflage until the
last moment.

Hanna knew that Sherman had no lively hopes of the
nomination for himself. Doubtless he would like to have
pointed out to the senator that it was his duty to help
McKinley actively if he sincerely wanted his nomination.
But this is not the way a senator is spoken to--especially
an elderly senator to whom one has been attached both per-
sonally and publicly for the past eight years. If Sherman
was willing to let his name go before the convention it

would be neither prudent nor pleasant for Hanna to oppose
him.

 

239

There is something pathetic in theglaying-out of this
futile game of Sherman for President. A New Yerker repre-
senting Governor Warner Miller sought out Hanna in early
April, advising him of bright prospects for Sherman in the
Empire State and asking his help in Ohio. Hanna then
wrote Sherman a long letter that seemed to say that "if
this is to go on," he would be willing to sacrifice him-

self for old times' sake:

I have a letter from our friend Burleigh regard-
ing your candidacy at Minneapolis. I had hoped
that the opposition would turn to you if it as-
sumed proportions that looked like success. But

I had about concluded that things were going to
drift until we could do nothing else but take
Harrison. Of course we will have to act with dis-
cretion in this state and McKinley must be in ac-
cord. For you know that he has had the feeling
that lightning might strike him. I can see where
Foraker might favor it as opening up his chances
for your senatorial shoes. I have gone over the
delegates and think we could depend on 3Hto 36

as your fast friends. If this is to go on we must
begin at once and do some missionary work in the
south. Thompson can fix his friend in Georgia

and he can have influence with Alabama. Let NY
and Penna take the lead and then fix Alger through
Senator McMillan. Get Allison and Clarkson and I
think we can win. Certainly Harrison would be

a fool to accept a nomination by a bare majority
of southern votes. If this is to go on I will
arrange to have Judge Thompson Genl Grosvenor

and Ben Butterworth go with me to Minneapolis as

a "big M" on the gaggigg, Keep me posted and I
will handle the matter here on the quiet. But I
must be on the square with McK as I have done a
little work in that direction when I never dreamed
of your name coming up.

1Hanna to Sherman, April 7 [18923, Sherman papers.

2k0

After some delay and perhaps a reply from Sherman
that has since been lost, Hanna wrote to Burleigh that
"should New Ybrk state touch the button, I think the thing
would go off." The initiative must come from outside, howb
ever, and then he could only say that he thought there
would be no doubt about "a large majority" of the Ohio del-
egates following.2 Burleigh answered that Platt would soon
write to confirm that New York would give fifty votes on
the first ballot and seventy-two as a unit soon after.
Quay and Mahone were in on the understanding to unite on
Sherman, he said, but it was important to move in Ohio.3
So far as is known, the first word to Hanna from Sherman
himself is dated May 9. He had no wish for the nomination
and "all the cares that it involves." He would rather see
McKinley win the honor. But then came a cold shower of
disappointment: "Treat what I write you in absolute con-
fidence. . . ."k He was unwilling to jeopardize his al-
ready shaky position with the Administration any more than
Charles Foster was. Fbster, who ranked second only to

Sherman among the active elder leaders of Ohio Republicans,

 

2Hanna to H. G. Burleigh, Whitehall, N. Y., April 29,
1892, copy in Sherman papers.

3Burleigh to Hanna, May h, 1892, copy in Sherman
papers.

l+Sherman to Hanna, May 9, 1892, copy in letterbook 8,
Sherman papers.

2H1

might have been a potent influence for McKinley had he not
been obligated to Harrison by his cabinet office.

To make matters worse, the selection of delegates to
the national convention at Minneapolis brought renewals of
the factional quarrels with Foraker. He had been accused
of influencing the party's state committee against select-
ing McKinley for temporary chairman of the state conven-
tion, a slight that brought vehement protests from Sherman
and his friends and, inevitably, a defensive counterattack
by Foraker.s Probably neither side was concerned so much
with the immediate issue of McKinley's "humiliation," how-
ever, as with the long-range question of Foraker's chances
for election to the senate. Local contests sprang up all
over the state, but at the state convention itself a kind
of truce was arranged. Foraker was allowed seats as dele-
gate-at-large for himself and his friend Asa Bushnell.
McKinley and state chairman William Hahn took the other
two places. Hanna gave up his hoped-for election with the
understanding that the factions would work together in

harmony at Minneapolis.6

_

5wa1ters, mm, pp. 10%, 105.

6F'oraker to R. A. Alger, May 2, 1892, Foraker papers;
Hanna to Burleigh, April 29 1892, copy in Sherman papers;
same to Sherman, June 1%, 1892, refers to "agreement made
at Cleveland" for harmony; in Sherman papers.

 

21+2

Ohio's delegation was uninstructed as to its presi-
dential choice. Soon after their arrival in the convention
city a poll showed 20 preferences for Harrison, 17 for
Blaine, 5 for McKinley and one for Sherman.7 The Blaine
votes represented Foraker's bloc. As he had in 1888, the
Plumed Knight was again trying to make himself unavailable.
He openly renounced any talk of his candidacy in February.
But then only four days before the convention met he re-
signed as Secretary of State without explanation. His
relations with the President had been strained for some
time, but nothing new had occurred to account for so un-
timely a departure. He did nothing to further his friends'
hope for his candidacy. He simply retired, less in pique
than in despair and illness. Unless some dark horse was
brought forward at the eleventh hour, hopes for defeating
Harrison might center at last on McKinley.8

Harrison's managers were alive to the danger of McKin-
ley's popularity and sought to forestall trouble by enlist-
ing him for active duty on their side. He had disavowed
his own prospects and stood quite correctly on the tradi-
tional view that a president is entitled to a second nomin-

ation if he wants it. The question was whether he would do

__

7walters, Foraker, p. 105.

8Knolss. W. pp. 52-56. discusses
Elaine's motives. On dark horses, see ipig., pp. H0, #1,
and references.

2H3

more than stand for Harrison. Louis T. Michener, who was
again managing Harrison's forces, called on McKinley at
FHnneapolis soon after his arrival. He greeted him as a
Harrison supporter, chatting amiably about how well mat-
ters were progressing. McKinley stared out the window and
said nothing. Michener asked him to join the Harrison men
in their rooms and received no answer. Then he took his
leave, and received a cordial handshake. A few minutes
later he sent the first of a parade of the governor's per-
sonal friends down to his rooms for a visit, but one by one
they reported the same experience. Their next move, and
this one succeeded, was to have him made permanent chairman
of the convention. That isolated him at the rostrum where,
as Quay commented, it was impossible for him to "Garfield"
the convention.9

Hanna was in the peculiar position of manager for both
Sherman and McKinley. It would have been an impossible
position had either man been an announced candidate, or
even a privately hopeful one. Each of them, however, was
prudently skeptical of his own chances, and both trusted
Hanna to serve their best interests in good faith. His

record for refusing offices was bearing fruit.

9Louis T. Michener, manuscript memoir, Michener pap-
ers. This memoir is one of a group prepared for the late
Prof. A. T. Volwiler of Ohio University in the 1920's.

ZHH

Although not a delegate himself, Hanna arrived early
in Minneapolis, and after taking lodgings with his friend
Governor William R. Merriam of Minnesota, he opened un-
official McKinley headquarters at the West House.10 Great
quantities of McKinley portraits, badges, pennants and
other parade trappings were stored in a nearby loft ready
for use.11 Then he walked and listened and talked among
the incoming delegates. The Blaine men were making the
most noise. Harrison's men were quietly confident. Then
came news of Blaine's resignation from the cabinet. It so
unsettled some of his supporters--including Depew of New
York and Sawyer of Wisconsin--that according to Hanna they
began to consider the necessity of leaving him for another
anti-Harrison contender. "This was the opportunity I
waited for," Hanna wrote later. He set out immediately to
find Platt and Quay. They were not ready to leave Blaine.
Then he tried to discuss second choices with the Harrison
men and was rebuffed again. It was early yet, but the im-
mediate problem for all except the Administration men was

to prevent a nomination on the first ballot.12

 

10Hanna to Sherman, May 30, 1892, Sherman papers;
Croly, Hanna, p. 166.

11Michener memoir, Michener papers.

12Hanna to Sherman, June 1%, 1892, Sherman papers.

2h5

Hanna looked over the possibilities for his two
friends. He found hope for Sherman in New York, parts of
Pennsylvania and New England. But, as he explained to
Sherman later, "I told your friends in the East that in my
judgment your name should not be considered except in case
of a deadlock. . . . I considered that there could be no
honor to you in making a contest, but it would be a just
tribute and would be a fortunate deliverance of the situa-
tion."13 So much for Sherman. It was, after all, the most
he could expect.

But "in the west, particularly in the silver states
and California, Kansas and Nebraska, the choice was almost
unanimously for McKinley." If to these votes could be
added most of the Blaine faction, they might, together with
the usual scattering of complimentary votes elsewhere,
still prevent Harrison from winning on the first ballot.
After that, fear of the Administration's revenge might
vanish. Then, Hanna said, he was assured that McKinley's
position as the second choice of many Harrison men would
bring him further gains. As the maneuvering for position
continued while the convention went through its preliminary

work, Hanna wired Sherman a request to urge Allison to have

13m...

2H6

Governor Gear lead some Iowa delegates to McKinley.1u
Another and more important chore could not be delegated.
He had to bring Foraker a proposition that they agree to
put Ohio solidly behind McKinley in return for "repara-
tions for some things past." Foraker later remembered
Hanna saying that the offer was authorized by McKinley.15
Hanna denied it. "I did say," he wrote later in defense,
"that I would not hesitate to take the responsibility under
the circumstances of advising the Ohio delegates to give
their solid vote for McKinley."16 As he was managing the
canvass of an unannounced candidate, he could hardly ad-
mit otherwise. If he had made such a slip he was obliged
to deny it. Such a claim of authorization could only have
been a slip, for with the peaceful overtures already ex-
changed at the time of the state convention in April, and
with the knowledge that Foraker had no better place to go,
he ought to have had confidence enough in a favorable reply.
In any case, Ohio's vote was secured for McKinley.
One more day remained before the balloting began on Friday,

June 10. The report of the credentials committee on

 

1111231.; Hanna to Sherman, telegram, 6:06 p.m., June
9, 1892, Sherman papers.

15Foraker to w. D. Bickham, June 18, 1892, Foraker
papers.

16Hanna to John P. Hopley, June 27 1892, Hepley fam-
ily papers, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.

2H7

Thursday was made a test vote on Harrison's strength
against the field. Harrison won, but Hanna continued work-
ing undiscouraged.17 Some of the Blaine leaders, however,
were discouraged enough to consider talking deals. At a
conference Thursday night it was concluded that there was
a "possibility and even a probability" of preventing a nom-
ination on the first ballot and winning with McKinley soon
after. Just what deals, if any, were made that night is
unknown, but Hanna worked until dawn to firm up the Ohio
delegation and gather in whatever other votes he could.18
Harrison's managers were maturing their own plans that
Thursday night with somewhat greater success. What they
needed was proof of their first-ballot majority with which
to bolster the wavering delegates within their own ranks.
To provide that proof they gathered in one meeting hall all
the delegates committed or leaning strongly to their side.
The purpose of the meeting had been kept secret until they
arrived for fear of frightening some away. Bum when they
found themselves a part of a giant Harrison rally in com-

pany with a majority of the votes, they felt safe--or

¥

17Hanna to Sherman June 1%, 1892, Sherman papers;
Qleyelgng_Leager, June l0, 1892.

18Hanna to Sherman, June 1%, 1892, Sherman papers.

2%8

stuck, as it may have been in some cases. The next day
Harrison was nominated on the first ballot with 77 votes
to spare.19

Opposition to the President was limited to an almost
equal division of votes between Blaine (182 1/6) and
McKinley (182). For Blaine it was an empty gesture. For
McKinley it was a show of strength that augured well for
1896. The one danger McKinley risked he avoided neatly.
The story of how he managed it is more amusing that signif-
icant, but deserves retelling. The scene was the conven-
tion floor as the one nominating ballot was being taken.
When Ohio was called, it responded with #% votes for McKin-
ley and two for Harrison. This was the governor's cue to
make it clear for the record that he had not voted for him-
self. He demanded a poll of the delegation. Foraker rose
in his place to argue that since he had been elevated to
the role of permanent chairman his place in the delegation
was taken by an alternate and therefore he had no right to
protest. McKinley overruled his point of order with a fine
flourish of earnestness and a poll was taken. The roll-
call showed not only that Foraker was voting for McKinley,
which drew cheers from those who knew their Ohio politics,

 

l9Michener memoir, Michener papers; gingi3n311_ggmr
ngettg, June 10, 1892, contains an excellent re-
port on the meeting by Murat Halstead. Blaine and McKinley
partisans disputed the accuracy of the head count and
proxy claims at the meeting.

2M9

and that McKinley's alternate had voted for Harrison as re-
quested, but it also exposed a Mr. W. C. Cooper, who
promptly changed his vote to McKinley.20 Thus the lone
Harrison vote of the governor shone forth more brightly
than before and the governor had one more vote for himself
than before. His essential point was to demonstrate his
continued loyalty to the Administration. At the same time,
however, he reaped some incidental rewards: establishing
the correct posture of restraint and self-effacement so
important to presidential prospects, allowing Foraker to
record his magnamnnuty, and picking up an extra vote for
himself. Had it all been planned, it could never have
worked.

Defeat notwithstanding, then, the convention had its
rewards for the Ohioans. McKinley was in no hurry. The
important thing was to strengthen his position for the
future, and that he had done. The year 1892 held no great
promise for Republican success regardless of the candi-
date.21 While the nomination would be of some value for

itself--it would make him titular head of the party--there

202mm
ME: June 11 9

21Considerations supporting such a view before the
convention include the closeness of the 1888 election, the
defeats of 1890, intra-party antagonisms, and the threat of
losses to the rising Populist movement.

Eager, June 10. 1892; W Elan

250

was consolation in knowing that now there would be time
for a campaign toward the more auspicious nomination that
another four years would bring. Then it would be a cam-
paign more in the conservative style both Hanna and McKin-
ley liked—-cautious, methodical and thorough. What had
come to them in Minneapolis was an ideal beginning. They
had almost surprised themselves with their good fortune.
Sherman would write to Hanna a few weeks later that from
reports that had come to him he believed they had come
nearer to success than they had been aware of.22 Hanna
sensed the same thing at the end of their last hot day's
work in the convention city. A friend who was with them
as they cooled themselves in their rooms at the west House
that evening remembered Hanna saying, "My God, William,
that was a damned close squeak."23

Harrison's renomination was accomplished before the
Democrats or the new Populist party had opened their con-
ventions. Regardless of their choices-~Grover Cleveland
and James B. Weaver reSpectively--the thought of supporting
Benjamin Harrison for another term fell on many Republicans

like a wet blanket. Hanna found an "utter indifference"

*

22Sherman to Hanna, June 17, 1892, copy in letterbook
8 9 Sherman papers .

23Hem H. Kohlsaat, mam nannies ta Hamlet (N. Y.,
1923), p. 155. See also Nicholas Murray Butler, Agzggg

13231 (2 vols., N. Y., 1939), I, 221.

 

 

251

toward the success of the national ticket, he admitted pri-
vately, though insisting at the same time that he was loyal
enough to do his part if Harrison's managers would show
the "proper spirit" toward those who had preferred another
nominee at Minneapolis. He had no apologies to make for
his support of McKinley. After all, he pointed out, the
movement had wide support outside of Ohio, and it hardly
behooved the state to overlook such an honor to its own
governor.21+ He was glad to hear that Sherman approved of
his conduct at the convention. "Whether Mr. Harrison does
or not," he added sullenly, "is not of much consequence to
me."25

There were problems enough in Ohio. If a hopeless na-
tional campaign was given only perfunctory attention,26 the
regrouping and solidifying of the party for McKinley's 1896
campaign was given the most elaborate care. Hanna and

McKinley now worked more openly. They used their control

2L"Hanna to Sherman, June 14, 1892, Sherman papers.
25Same to same, June 21, 1892, ipi .

26See e.g., Dick to Sherman, Oct. 12, 1892, Sherman
papers: " . . . This state Committee is in absolute want
of adequate funds. . . . Necessary work must be abandoned
for want of means. . . .

"But two men have contributed from Washington
departments. Such postmasters as the one at Springfield,
Ohio, decline to contribute anything. . . . Pension exam-
iners, fully one-third of them, refuse to give a cent, and
we have been unable to get a list of the #th class Post-
masters, although it was requested fully a month ago. . . ."

252

over the state organization first to put their man in as
chairman of the state executive committee. Charles W. F.
Dick, a loyal young Akron politician with a flair for
systematic and detailed work, was their man. When he
seemed cool to the idea of involving himself seriously in
the Harrison campaign they reminded him bluntly that every
camps. i- gn from that time forward would be conducted with an
eye to making McKinley president in 1896.27 This made it
worthwhile.

Dick's position for the next twelve years was essen-
1daily that of Hanna's first lieutenant and star pupil.
Like Hanna, he was always a specialist in party management.
C031131ementing the elder man's personal and often improvised
aPDI'Oach to a campaign, he specialized in building and main-
taining a heirarchy of standing organizations from the pre-
Cinct level upward. Dick made card files of names, com-
Piled information on workers, and kept up a steady flow of
correSpondence alerting, advising and urging local leaders
‘0 keep up to the mark. Where Hanna was inclined to create
ad hoc combinations of power out of the materials available,

Dick relied more on keeping a well-oiled machine in

k

27Morrow interview with Charles Dick, Hanna papers.

253

readiness for all occasions.28 The flexibility of one

joined with the stability of the other to propel a machine
that at its most effective was both alive to the direction

of the moment and coldly impersonal in its demands on its

moving parts.
Foraker was never trusted by the Hanna-McKinley group

long enough to play any positive roll in the making of
For a time, however, there was an

McKinley's nomination.
unusual show of harmony left over from the "concert" at

Minneapolis. Hanna made a point of writing Foraker soon
after the convention that he "m M" his actions

there and wanted to continue the good work of restoring
He offered to be sociable again.

harmony in the party.
"When do you expect to be up in this section again? Will

you go to the Islands [in lake Erie] soon? I will go there
to see you." Foraker replied with well-considered words of

good intent and indicated a willingness to see Hanna on any
He used the demands of his law practice

political business.
to excuse him from entangling social meetings.29

28mg. , on the contrasts in their approaches. Dick's

commonly recognized position as Hanna's lieutenant did not

prevent him from having a career of his own. He was elect-
ed to Congress in 1898, fathered the Dick Law reorganizing
the National Guard, and on Hanna's death succeeded him to
where he served through 1910. He lived until

the Senate,
19%5.
Hanna to Foraker, June 19, 1892; reply, June 20,

both in maker-m a germane. pp. 115-117.

1892;

I. [ill-.5. I» (II, .||}

 

.i
251+

If; Hanna's new amiability did not come without effort.
/f At the moment he wanted to win Foraker more than Foraker
’ wanted to be won. His motive in this as in so much that
/ he undertook at this time was his ambition for McKinley's
success. A passage from a letter he wrote to an editor in
Bucyrus whom he had never met showed how firmly this new
passion had taken hold: "Nothing but a miracle or death
will prevent McKinley's being the nominee of the party
in '96," he wrote, "and to that end I have enlisted, to
accomplish which I am prepared to be politic and patient,
but if to secure it sharper weapons are required I shall
not hesitate to fight with the same sword which I have so
often used in the interests of our mutual friend, John
Sherman."3o
While Harrison was losing the campaign of 1892 in the
nation, McKinley was free to demonstrate his loyalty to
the party and Ashow himself to audiences in speaking tours
that took him as far as Maine and Iowa east and west. Some
1,500 bids to hear the eloquent Ohio governor, who people
said resembled Napoleon, had poured into National Committee

headquarters by mid--September.31 He did his part, and when

 

. 30Hanna. to John P. Hopley, June 29, 1892, Hopley fam-
lly papers.

31James Boyle to J. H. Bothwell, Sept. 17, 1892, copy
in McKinley executive letterbooks, Ohio Historical Society;
Morrow interview with Charles Dick, Hanna papers.

 

 

 

 

 

255

defeat came his conscience was clear. His young secretary

was with him at Columbus as the returns were received and

wrote home that "everybody, but the Governor, lost his
spirits, and he continued to smile until the final news
came. . . . He is bound to be the next nominee for the

presidency, and the very fact of the defeat this year will
This is the talk of all the

elect him the next time.

prominent politicians out here, and it is being taken up
The Governor himself

by the newspapers everywhere.

feels first rate. . . ."32
To McKinley, four more years of Grover Cleveland in

the White Heuse gave assurance that the one issue on which
Cleve-

he felt strongest, the tariff, would remain alive.

land was at the front of the low tariff advocates and would
Fortunately for Republican

work for drastic revisions.
prospects, the Democrats in 1891+ passed the Wilson-Gorman

It was the kind of compromise that pleased no one:

tariff.
may rates were lowered, but few drastically, sugar was

dutied again after McKinley had freed it; reciprocity was
Important to Ohio, raw wool was put on the

done away with.
Finally, a small income tax was included in the

free list.
though the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional

law ,

320har1es M. Bawsel to Lydia Lindsey, Nov. 17, 1892,
Bawsel papers in possession of Miss Helen M.

Charles M.
Bawsel, Washington, D. C.

256

All tariffs are easy

as soon as it was given the chance.
to find fault with, and McKinley was able and willing to

do so with this one.33
For all its complexity, the tariff issue was simpli-
city itself compared to the mystery of the great panic and

Depression that fell on the country starting early in 1893.

This was no mere case of Wall Street hysterics, but a fully—
It began in the spring of 1893

grown modern depression.
with a series of railraod failures that shook the New York
From there it spread along the

Stock Exchange into panic.
coast and out through the Middle West, collapsing hundreds
of banks and thousands of businesses. Unemployment spread

like an epidemic through the cities and infected the
countryside with bands of unwilling migrants and hoboes.
The

The South, already poor, fell into a deeper decline.

West, weakened by drought, blizzards and debt for several
The second year was worse. As

years, was near dispair.
much as twenty per cent of the labor force was unemployed.

Their plight was dramatized by the tramping columns of

Jacob Coxey‘s "petition in boots" as it crossed the moun-
tains from Mas sillon, Ohio, to Washington, only to end in-

gloriously when its leaders were arrested for trespassing
on the Capitol lawn. Similar armies of unemployeduat

33Leech, MgKinlgy, pp. 60-62.

257

least sixteen of them--straggled across from California,
Montana and other points, all aimed at what they thought
was the center of national power in Washington»?+

In this crisis, however, there was no center of na-
The single effort made by the Cleveland Ad-

tional power.

ministration related to the Depression was directed at
keeping the country on the gold standard. In this it suc-
ceeded, though only by meeting the terms of a Morgan-Roths-
child banking syndicate and by repealing the Sherman Silver
Purchase Act. The latter move slightly reduced the supply
of money and greatly increased the anger of Western voters.
The strongest display of positive federal action on the

labor problem in this period was the crushing of the Pull-
man strike at Chicago in 1891+ 35
Two obstacles prevented effective governmental action

One was simple ignorance of its

against the Depres sion.
To an even greater degree than in

origins and pathology.
the Depression of forty years later, there were offered

hundreds of quack nostrums, a few weak palliatives and no
The

truly sophisticated over-all analysis and remedy.
second obstacle was the unwillingness of the Administration

3’+On the impactR of the Depression see Harold U.
Faulkner, Pg&iti&s:R MW @943 09 (N. Y.,
19 59), pp. 13-1 “IBM and notes.

pp. 151-15103 170-181 and notes.

35zh1d,,

258

to accept any responsibility for giving emergency aid or
for initiating economic reforms. Cleveland's dictum of
1887 in his veto of a minor relief bill still guided him:
"the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the
people support the government, the government should not
support the people." This was solid conservative doctrine,
shared by the leadership of both major parties. In Cleve-
land's hands it was observed to the letter.36
Here was in summary the ammunition provided McKinley
and his friends by the four years of Grover Cleveland's
second administration. A Democratic tariff, a major de-
pression that brought misery to every section and interest
in the country; and a deep split in the Democratic party
over the demonetization of silver and the Administration's
reliance on Wall Street bankers to maintain the gold stand-
ard. There were other materials from which to make issues,
but these were outstanding. It was almost irrelevant
whether McKinley offered new wisdom on the problems before
the country. Certainly he wanted to be right as well as
president, but his first need was for majorities. The

 

36See 132151., pp. 143, 11+’+ on analyses of the Depres-
sion. The Cleveland quotation is from his veto of the
Texas Seed Bill, as given in Geor e F. Parker Jaw s
mmgi,mmlv N0 Y-: 189259 Do 00
011 Cleveland '5 Gresponse to the Depression generally, see

A mm 913v vdggg , A St tug! in nggage (N. Y.
19353. abs. 32, 33, 3s. ’

2 259

it] issues he chose to develop will be taken up later, as they
come into focus only at a point close to the national con-
‘/ vention. Other problems came first in point of time.

First, he must keep himself personally available, staying

clear of damaging associations and obligations. Second,

he must make himself known to as many of the leaders of

the party as possible, studying their wishes and deciding

how far he could go in satisfying or reconciling them. In

places where established leaders opposed him, he must de-
cide whether to concede the fight or make his challenge
with a new group of leaders. The first problem, that of
personal availability, was defensive in nature; the second
was the problem of offensive strategy. Both had to be con-
sidered concurrently and continually. Threats and oppor-
tunities arrived impatient and unannounced at any time.

No greater threat to the Ohio Governor's political
future could be imagined than that of bankruptcy. Yet no
sooner had the first symptoms of the great Depression ap-

peared than McKinley suddenly found himself helpless under

a deluge of debt. The story of his bankruptcy--for it was
that in substance if not in law--involved Hanna and his
friends profoundly. To begin with, the failure was not
one of McKinley's business judgment at all, but the fail-
ure of a friend in whom he had misplaced his confidence.

Robert L. Walker was an old personal friend who had done

260

He was a businessman engaged

several favors for McKinley.
Once

in, among other things, the manufacture of tin cans.

or twice when he needed cash he obtained McKinley's en-
Later, with as-

dorsement on his notes for about $17,000.
surances that he was only renewing the old loans, he se-

cured his friend's endorsement on blank notes that event-

ually brought the obligation to some $130,000.37 Then in
The full amount

mid-February of 1893 he met his downfall.

of McKinley's obligation was determined only gradually.
McKinley

When the news first broke, Hanna was in Chicago.
went to Myron Herrick's home in Cleveland and stayed there
almost a week in secluded misery. Henry H. Kbhlsaat, a

mutual friend who owned a large bakery business and control
Herrick and

of a newspaper in Chicago, was also present.
Kohlsaat made their first plan for McKinley's recovery on
the assumption that he was obligated to only $60,000.
McKinley's own net worth of some $20,000, together with

the $70,000 in properties of Mrs. McKinley, would have been
If his friends gave him

sufficient to cover all demands.
unsecured personal loans at interest he would be able to

 

37Leech, W, pp, 58, 59 and notes. See also
Hanna to Sherman, Feb. 22, 1893, Sherman papers, which out-
lines the background and angrily calls Walker "8. fraud and

all of his concerns rotten to the core."

261

take his time in liquidating.38 In a few days, however,
they found the total obligations mounting beyond the limits
of the McKinleys' capacity to pay. Offers of help were
coming in the mail. A new plan was needed. The friends
consulted behind McKinley's back, devised a scheme and
obtained Hanna's approval from Chicago.39 On February 22,
he returned and took his place next to Herrick at the center
of the stage. All else was put aside for the next few
weeks-~"I have no heart for any other work until McKinley

is relieved from this awful strain," he wrote Dick.1+0

The new plan was for the friends to take over all the

McKinleys' property as trustees, letting them believe that

 

38Herrick to Sherman, Feb. 18, 1893, Sherman papers.
This was written the same day McKinley arrived in Cleve-
land, but Herrick described the loan plan as that of "his
[McKinley's] friends." On the McKinleys' estate, see
leech, Mgzinlgz, p. 59. ‘But McKinley's asset; were ap-
praised at some 377,000 in mid-1893, according to McDougall
to Herrick, Sept. 12, 1893, McKinley-Duncan papers, West-
ern Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland. These papers
were given the Society by John A. Duncan, grandson of
McKinley's brother-in-law Andrew J. Duncan, in 1955. They
appear never to have been a part of McKinley's files--he
probably never saw them--but rather a part of Myron Her-
rick's files later separated from his own papers on the
basis of their subject matter.

39Herrick to Sherman, Feb. 20, 1893; Hanna to Sherman,
Feb. 22, 1893 ("He has had hundreds of telegrams and many
offers of assistance."); both in Sherman papers.

L”Hanna; to Dick , Feb. 23, 1893, Dick papers, Ohio
Historical Society, Columbus.

262

they would apply it against the debts. Secretly, however,
they committed themselves to raising the entire amount
themselves and returning the estate intact. Hanna was
given Mrs. McKinley's property in escrow and a committee
was formed of himself, Kohlsaat and Thomas McDougall, a
Cincinnati lawyer friend, to rescue her assets.l+1 Herrick
and McKinley's old law partner William B. Day were dele-
gated to look after the governor's assets and keep track
of accounts and legal technicalities.

The work of salvage went ahead so quickly that there
were differences of opinion on methods that were never
finally resolved. Advice was plentiful: open a popular
subscription of dollar donations--McKinley protested against
this as beggery; limit donations to Ohio—-this was given up
as impractical; keep it all secret-~this was only partly
accomplished; keep it among non-political friends of the
governor--Hanna urged this strongly but was unable to en-
force it. There was no clear distinction between his per-
sonal and political friends, and newspaper publicity brought
in unsolicited donations that were difficult to refuse.”2

Then there were divisions of opinion within the inner

 

LEI'Herrick to Sherman, Feb. 20, 1893; Hanna to Sherman,
Feb. 22, 1893; both in Sherman papers.

querrick to Sherman, Feb. 20, 1893; Hanna to Sherman,
Feb. 22, 1893; both in Sherman papers; Hanna to John P.
Hopley, Feb. 25, 1893, Hopley Family papers.

263

circle . Kohlsaat, for example, pledged $k0,000 from him-
self and his Chicago friends.‘+3 But he had to raise it in
his own way: shortly after his return home he wrote Herrick:

I have asked the Illinois Steel Company for
310,000. They undertook to give me the usual
talk about giving away stock-holders' money.

. . . [I] told them that that kind of talk out-
side might do, but I was not running anything of

that kind.
Mr. H. H. Porter said he would give per-

sonally. I told him that was all right but that
I wanted a subscription from the Illinois Steel

Company. . . .
Mr. Porter agreed to consult with his directors and left

his caller feeling optimistic. There was no real concern
for McKinley's honor in Kohlsaat's approach. He went on

to suggest in the same letter, after knowing that McKinley
had pledged publicly to repay every dollar, that "an effort
Should be made at once to buy paper endorsed by Governor
MCKinley. . . . If [it] can be bought at, say, 75 cents, it
Cbuld then be held, and if Mr. Walker was able to pay any-
t’~hing for it, we could refund the money pro rata to the
Qontributors. But there is no time like the present to
clean it up. If they find a fund has been raised to cancel
‘Inis obligations, it will be difficult to buy the paper at
"Mk

less than face. . . .

 

h3Hanna to Sherman, Feb. 22, 1893, Sherman papers.

1+,"'Kohlsaat to Herrick, Feb. 25, 1893, McKinley-Duncan
papers.

26%

Hanna asked Senator Sherman to solicit contributions
from Washington friends and then set out for Pittsburgh,
Philadelphia and New York. The ground had been prepared
in advance so that on his return to Cleveland, sick with a
heavy cold, he could report encouragement at the welcome
responses he had received. "Like yourself," he reported to
Sherman, "I avoided all complications by going only to men
whom I knew would be prompted by the right motive."u5
The canvass continued intermittently into the next three
months and gradually the original plan was carried out)"6

No full accounting of the contributions has survived,
though some idea of their size and range is available. In
the Hanna papers is a copy of a subscription agreement for
Mrs..McK1nley's benefit listing twenty-one names pledging
$38,500--obviously an incomplete record, as it covers only
about half of the amount needed to match the value of her
estate. The three trustees, Hanna, Kohlsaat and McDougall,
subscribed $5,000 each; Samuel Mather and John Hay Joined
to pledge the same amount between them. Andrew'Carnegie

was down for $5,000, and Henry Clay Frick for $2,000. The

 

1+5Hanna to Sherman, March 11 1893, Sherman papers.
James H. Hoyt, a prominent young Cleveland attorney, had
been to Pittsburgh earlier: Hoyt to Herrick, Feb. 25, 1893,

McKinley-Duncan papers .

l"éMcDougall to Herrick, Sept. 12, 1893, McKinley-Dun-
can papers, shows 3919 500 in unpaid Walker-McKinley paper.
Day to Herrick, Feb. IO, 18 ‘+, 112141., discusses vaguely
closing an account and signing a deed to McKinley.

265

majority were familiar Cleveland names--Wade, Pickands,
Chisholm, Brush and Hoyt. Cincinnatians Charles P. Taft
/ and John R. McLean were also included. The latter name
surprises. McLean was proprietor of the virulently Demo-
cratic W W, and never by any standards a
friend of McKinley. It can only be assumed that it humored
him to patronize the governor with a $500 contribution.

A subscription book kept by Herrick through March 11
lists 3.3215556 in pledges, most of which were paid by that
date. Almost half of the 128 names were put down for less
than $100 each; 11+ were for $2 or less. There were 12 for
$1,000 but none larger. Herrick, who was still relatively

young and thin of purse, was among them. So was one cor-

poration, a Canton bank.L"7 But many of the larger donations

recorded elsewhere are not included in the list. Kohlsaat's

efforts in Chicago produced $5,000 each from George Pull-
man, Philip D. Armour and Harlow N. Higinbotham, and $1,000

each from Martin A. Ryerson and tie Henry H. Porter men-

tioned in Kohlsaat's letter quoted above)“8 Senator Sherman

Save $500 and collected similar amounts from his colleagues

James McMillan and Redfield Proctor and $1,000 from Leland

.—

L’7The subscription book is in the McKinley-Duncan
papers.

“BKohlsaat to Herrick, March 11+, 18, 1893, both in
McKinley-Duncan papers.

266

Stanford.1+9 Congressman Bellamy Storer of Cincinnati gave
at least $2,500 and perhaps as much as $10,000.50
McKinley seems never to have known of most of the
contributions to these funds. After putting his affairs
into the hands of Hanna, Herrick, McDougall and Kohlsaat,
he left for Columbus and thereafter forwarded his mail on
the subject to Herrick along with his current income.51
His initial despair over his prospects of remaining in
politics was soon overcome by his friends' response and
the sympathetic public reaction to newspaper publicity of
the affair. As he had trusted Walker before, now he
trusted his friends gathered in Cleveland.

The secret was so poorly kept that it is not unlikely
that McKinley knew more of what was going on than he would
admit. On the other hand, it is unnecessary to insist on
it, for after the initial shock he may well have borne up

with the same fatalistic calm had he not known. It was

characteristic of him to put away his worries once he had

g

#9Undated note in Sherman papers, vol. 595, item
60504, in Sherman's hand. See also Hanna to Sherman,
March 11. 1893. um.

SOHanna to Herrick, March 5, 1893, McKinley-Duncan
Papers, notes enclosure of a $2,500 check from Storer.
931's later, Herrick said Mr. and Mrs. Storer had promised

$5,000 each. See T. Bentley Mott, M r _T_._ m m
213 W (Garden City, N. Y., 1930 , p. 73.

in M SlMCKinley to Herrick, Feb. 2%, March 7, 1893, both
cKj‘nJ-BY--D'l;|ncan papers.

 

 

 

 

267

done his best with them. His traits of cautiousness and
self-deprecation were not of the neurotic variety. They
channelled his energies toward the work of the day before
him. His very lack of exceptional imaginative powers
saved him from distracting Speculations. McKinley was a
simple man, healthy, predictable and conventional both in
what he sought and gave.52
Was his trust in these friends justified? They knew
the steady warmth of ambition that smoldered within him
however cool he appeared on the surface. What price did
they exact for saving his career? Specifically, can any
direct connection be established between this episode and
Hanna's rise to power in the party and the senate, Her-
rick's nomination for the governorship, Storer's appoint-
ment as minister to Brussels, or Day's appointments to the
bench and State Department--Just to name those whose help
the future president knew of with certainty. In general,
the answer is no, and the reasons are several. First, the
trustees were in fact all close personal friends of the
governor, and came to his aid with a promptness incompat-
able With a measured estimate of their own advantage or
loss, While it is true that initially they proposed a less
generous plan than that finally adopted, since they

E

523 .
ee Leech, W pp. 10-12 25 for elaboration
and evidence of these characteristics:

 

 

268

believed the McKinleys' assets would cover the obliga-
tions, it seems more important to note that they met to-

gether as early as they did, while the situation was still

in flux, and that their first move reflected a respect for
An overeagerness to take over for

the victim's wishes.
Then, too, these men

him would have been more suspect.
were also more or less friends among themselves, and as

fellow conSpirators they ought to have acted as restrain-

ing influences on one another, guarding, if it were neces-

sary, one another's honor. Finally, it might be noted

that in every case the favors they received later were
Herrick, to whom McKinley

amply deserved on other grounds.
turned first (or was it second?--Hanna was out of town),

did not run for governor until two years after McKinley's
By that time it was Hanna's support that counted

death.
During McKinley's later years Herrick remained

above all.
a loyal partisan in politics as well as the president's

personal friend and investment counsellor.53 But if his
success as a banker in these years was due in part to his
political connections, it was also due to a talent for busi-

ness that would doubtless have brought him wealth in any

case.
53013 Herrick as friend and investment counsellor see
Herrick to McKinley, April 12, 1901 Myron T. Herrick
Western Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland;

Papers,
Leech. m, p. 68, and Mott, Herrick, pp. 50-55-

269

William R. Day, as has been noted, was a former law

partner of McKinley. His first appointment as a federal

district judge predated the Walker affair by four years.

When he went to Washington as First Assistant Secretary

of State in 1897 he had to be begged to do it as a per-
He was needed as a support for the aged

sonal favor.
Leaving Washington in 1898 after having made

Secretary.

an important contribution to the war and peace negotia-
His

tions, he was again appointed to the federal bench.

elevation to the Supreme Court came during the Administra-

tion of Theodore Roosevelt.
Kohlsaat remained a cordial but not intimate friend

of McKinley until their falling out over a matter of pol-

Though he was once considered for the post of

icy in 1900.
minister to Germany, his name was withdrawn when Foraker,

then in the senate, "drew the line."
Bellamy Storer, with his popular and ambitious wife

Maria, was a prominent Cincinnatian who had lavished his
Storer let himself

attentions on McKinley for some time.
be defeated for congressional renomination by Cox and

Foraker in 1891!» and his appointment abroad in 1897 was
But if it be suspected that the

doubtless a personal one.

Storers bought and flattered their way ahead at least in
part, it must also be added that they succeeded almost as
well with Theodore Roosevelt. Storer was promoted to the

270

Vienna ambassadorship during Roosevelt's Administration
after being refused Paris and London, and he stayed in

Vienna until a political indiscretion caused his removal

in 1902.51+
To say that McKinley did not become a captive of his

saviors is not to deny that the Walker failure episode was

It exposed something basic in the structure

significant .
A

of his relationships with his friends, Hanna included.

few surmises on this and a closer look at the Hanna-McKin-
ley friendship itself as it was developing may be in order.
While neither of them ever commented on the Walker affair

himself, the experience must have drawn the two men closer,
It might also

for it brought out the best in each of them.
be suggested that it had the effect of pampering McKinley.

He had, or he developed at some point, a selfish streak

that was none the less real than the more familiar magna-

nimity of his better nature. Charles Dick, in discussing
McKinley later with a friendly interviewer, said that at

least by the time he reached the presidency, McKinley had

been "petted and flattered until he thought all the fruit
on the tree was his." Dick held no personal grudge; his

51+On Storer, see Julia B. Foraker, L M Lixe L1;
2 1-2 3, and oh. XVII; Walters, Foraker, pp.

Again, pp- 1+ 1+

119-121. Herrick feared from the start that the Storers
would come back for favors, and said later that Roosevelt's
appointment as Assistant Secretary of the Navy came through
their influence. See Mott, Herrick, pp. 72-7 .

271

views probably reflected Hanna's to a great extent. Others

who knew him felt the same way.
Ben Butterworth talked with me along this very
line [Dick recalled]. He said that if he and
McKinley should come to an apple tree and should
see an eSpecially fine apple up in the top of the
tree, McKinley would say: "Ben, go up and get iit."

"I would climb the tree [Butterworth continued ,
and just as I picked the apple McKinley would order

me to drop it and I would and he would get it.
After I had done all the work and had run all the

risk, McKinley would take the apple and I would

be and we all would be fools enough to let him
McKinley never hesitated toggall on

have it."
He used all his friends.

his friends.
Others who knew and liked McKinley also remembered

incidents from his later career that substantiate this
The editor James B. Morrow even

parable of the fruit tree.
remembered hearing Hanna speak of it. The two of them had

ridden back to Cleveland together after the national con-
He had talked

vention of l900--an unhappy event fa- Hanna.

freely to Morrow then about McKinley, and among other
selfishness."56

things "complained good-naturedly of his

This willingness to use his friends was perhaps a use-
If the

ful trait in a man who was to become president.

A variant of this story,

 

55Charles Dick interview.
also attributed to Butterworth, appears in Orlando 0.

Ww Me In lbs Brass gallant (N- Y-: 1906).

Stet 1 ,
See also Elmer Dover

p.22.

56James B. Morrow interview.
Croly, m, p. 361+, offers the View that

interview.
McKinley was solicitous of the appearance which he

"Mr.
was making to the world and posterity, and this quality
might sometimes give his behavior at least the appearance

of selfishness."

272

alternative was a weakness for being used by them, it was
/ certainly the lesser fault. A larger question, however,
is how McKinley kept his close friends. Despite a scat-
tering of critical comments such as those quoted above,
he made and kept a number of friends, and those who came
close to him stayed close. There were no unhappy break-
downs of intimate associations such as that between
ibodrow Wilson and Edward House. McKinley measured cau-
tiously the affection he gave, and he usually gave a shade
less than he received. But what he did give was welcomed.
He had a capacity for bringing out the better qualities
in those around him, making them feel and act more like
the men they imagined themselves to be. And he was de»
pendable. He had the tact and gentleness that put men at
their ease as well as in their place. In conversation he
was quiet, a good listener who inspired confidences. He
was flexible but not pliable. He was smooth but not fea-
tureless. He was outwardly soft but not weak. Within
there lay a man of stubborn purpose that was not be trifled
with. All his friends were men, and while they may have

nvied the poised charm that was almost feminine in its

f 273

sensitivity to others, they reSpected him as one of them-
; selves.57
f Today McKinley can only be seen from the distance of
over half a century, and then not as clearly as some of his
more expressive contemporaries. The face was always the
same in photographs--handsome, self-possessed, dull. Be-
cause he was so much the middle-class Victorian gentleman it
is difficult to think of him as anything but stuffy--"He
walked among men a bronze statue, for thirty years de-
terminedly looking for his pedestal," one journalist
quipped later. He was only a steel engraving, like Wash-
ington, said another.58 Lastingly popular presidents have
other qualities: Lincoln's humor, homeliness and fresh
wisdom; Theodore Roosevelt's supercharged energy and range
of enthusiams; Jackson's soldierly dash and scrappiness.
But millions of McKinley's contemporaries-—who knew him
only as a public man-~were not looking for a colorful or
brilliant leader. They placed a high value on dignity in
those days, and he had that in abundance. His private life

 

" 57See Leech, mm. pp. 26, 32, 36, 68, 373, 371+.
A marked difference between Mr. REooseveltJ & Mr. McKinley
Is that the latter was a great listener & the former a
great talker," James R. Garfield entered in his diary,
Oct. 9, 1901; in James R. Garfield papers, Manuscript
Division, Library of Congress.

58w. A. White, Masks in a Pageant, p. 155; Charles

Willis Thompson, Pregiden§s Pg @933, and Egg Near 2:215;-
Eim (Indianapolis, 1929 , p. 15.

271+

was exemplary. They appreciated the almost saintly devo-

tion he gave his wife, a clinging semi-invalid who suf-
fered from a mild epilepsey and other infirmities. In-

deed, when Ida McKinley's demands are considered, the won-

der is not that her husband seemed detached and reserved

in some of his other relationships, but that he had any

patience or warmth left over.59
Most important to the public, McKinley told it what

His tone and style struck a responsive

it wanted to hear.
Con-

chord regardless of issues he might discuss or evade.

sistently through the nerve-wracking decades of the Eighties
and Nineties he reassured Americans that, as his latest

biographer, Margaret Leech, puts it, "they were becoming
the noblest, as they were fast becoming the richest people

He could ring all the changes on Home,

in the world."
"In brain and heart,"

God and Country and do it sincerely.
Miss Leech writes, "he was himself the average middle-class

American, abounding in optimism, proud of the national ef-
ficiency and enterprise; respectful of self-made success,

and pious in devotion to the past."60 It is true that he
But like a good

Posed in public, as politicians will do.

 

59On Mrs. McKinley, see Leech, W. pp. 27-31,
and oh. 9; Julia B. Foraker, IMMH.Ma p. 257.

“Leech, W. p. 35-

275

salesman, he believed in his product. And so did his

friends in Cleveland.
The Special quality of the Hanna-McKinley relationship

lay not in their similarity of outlook, though they shared

much of that, but in their contrasting temperaments and

talents. Hanna was a bluff, aggressive manager of cam-

paigns and collector of funds who said little of the issues

and cared nothing for ceremonials but SpOke plainly of

men and money. McKinley shrank from organizational work
and seemed uneasy when dealing with contributions, but he

studied his position on the issues carefully and took his
part gracefully in the ceremonials of Republican politics.

McKinley had ambitions for office and a professional need
Hanna had ambitions to stay out

to stay in the public eye.
He traded that for the backstage power of the

of office.
McKinley had no stomach for dealing with

office-giver.
Hanna

the "bummers" of city and county courthouse rings.
waded into them, armed to the teeth with the only weapons

By dove-tailing their talents, their

they respected.
their ambitions both men succeeded further than

tastes and
either would have separately. "Together," as Miss Leech
Put it, "these two made one perfect politician."61

In their personal relations it was Hanna who gave his

heart. McKinley gave appreciation, support and confidence.

611213., p. 69.

276

As they sat up at nights with their cigars and their plans
for the future it was Hanna who did most of the talking.
But because he was more anxious to please McKinley than

McKinley was to please him, Hanna was never the dominant

partner. To have overheard snatches of their conversa-

tion would probably have given a kibitzer the same dis-

torted impression that is given by a glance at their cor-

reSpondence. Hanna was direct, blunt and sometimes pet-

ulant. McKinley was indirect, cordial and diplomatic.

But his patience smoothed over Hanna and won him quietly

to his view. This is not to say that Hanna had the greater

need for McKinley in any objective sense. 0n the contrary,

Hanna could have thrown up his hands and returned to his

own business enterprises with little apparent loss. For

McKinley, the road back led only to a provincial law prac-

tice and memories of past glory. Subjectively, however,

Hanna became the submissive partner because he let McKinley
become his hero.62

 

62The conclusions reached in the above two paragraphs
on the Hanna-McKinley relationship must stand on the sup-
port given them in the narrative of these pages, but it
might be noted that in general they correspond to the
views of Leech, m, pp. 67-69; Croly, gag, p .
361+, 365; and White, m in a Pageant, pp. 1 7, 155,
170. See also Rhodes, 14.525.13.121 and R99§§V3132 m,
P. 10. Thomas Beer was curiously negligent as an inter-
preter of the friendship, giving the impression that he
fcsmnd the whole idea distasteful. See his Liam, pp. 111,

1 0, 276 for hints, and 159.11., pp. 102-110 for his sketch
01‘ McKinley.

277

Where Hanna would exercise real power was in the busi-
ness of campaign management. It was a delegated power,
but a vital one. Once McKinley and he had agreed on their
objectives and general strategy, the tactics and execution
were usually left to him. And because his activities ex-
posed him to heavy fire at times, the wounds of the enemy
were often left to him as well. Part of Hanna's job was
to shield his candidate, keep him clean, scrubbed and un-
scarred, presentable to the public. It was necessary work,
but not the kind many men find agreeable.

After the clouds of bankruptcy had cleared the sunshine
of a victorious political campaign seemed all the brighter.
McKinley's reelection in October, 1893, by a wide majority
followed his safe but unremarkable record in office and
his effectiveness in debating national issues. He defended

his tariff more successfully then, since prices had re-
cently fallen off. He attacked the Cleveland Administra-
tion for not "doing Justice" to silver currency. And when
the returns were in, he read scores of congratulatory tele-
grams hailing him as the next president.63
New opportunities to make himself heard outside Ohio
came with the congressional campaigns of 189%. This time
he had a new target in the Wilson-Corman tariff. Republi-

can groups in sixteen states cheered his assaults on

k

6311-eech, W, p. 60.

278

Democratic "free trade" errors as he delivered 371

61+

speeches. He was a success; the party was a success.
Republicans captured a strong majority in the House. They
won majorities all though the border states. They held the
silver states away from the Populists. Surely now the
party nomination was a tempting prize. Nothing that could
bring it to the Ohio governor must be allowed to go by de-
fault.

The convention was almost two years away, however, and
during most of 1891+ both Hanna and McKinley tried to at-
tend primarily to their current business. McKinley had his
hands full with labor troubles in the spring. A wideSpread
coal miners' strike required a call for the militia when

trains carrying "scab" coal were sabotaged. The troops
restored order without violence, however, and the governor's
action was approved generally as prudent and necessary.
McKinley retained the respect of large segments of labor
by his active support of arbitration procedures and his
backing of some friendly labor legislation.6s
Hanna, meanwhile, was trying to keep his own business
enterprises afloat in the storm of the Depression. It was

an uneasy time, but he survived it with no worse effects

 

“and” pp. 61. 62.
65112151.. pp. 53, 9+-

279

than a somewhat reduced profit.66

While the state legis-
lature was in session he kept in touch with pending bills
that affected local business or the party generally. To
some extent he and Foraker worked together as lobbyists
in this period, for the ex-governor now was a political

lawyer representing several large utility firms.67
Much of the work on behalf of McKinley's future was
left to Charles Dick and Joseph P. Smith during 189%.
Dick, as chairman of the state executive committee, was in
an obvious position to help. Joe Smith was the young ex-
editor who had first established his usefulness during the
fight for Sherman's renomination in 1891. He operated
from his new office as state librarian, a willing and wor-
shipful factotum who served his chief and friend the gover-

nor continually until his early death in 1898.68

Hanna kept in touch with Dick and Smith and helped

direct their work as best he could during his spare time,

but it was not until the end of 189+ that he took steps to

 

66Hanna to Sherman, June 8, 189%, Sherman papers.

67A glimpse of Hanna's close concern with state and
local affairs may be had in his letters to Cuyahoga County
state representative Martin Dodge of March 13, May 10, 11+,
15, 16, 1894, in Martin Dodge papers, in possession of
heirs of Homer Dodge, Washington, D. C. On Foraker's work
as a political lawyer, see Walters, Foraker, pp. 123, 121}.

68Leeoh, W, pp. 26, 515; Morrow interview with
Charles Dick, Hanna papers.

280

arrange his affairs to give more attention to the campaign.

His brother Leonard remembered that he seemed vague about

He talked of retiring from business at least

his plans.
partly, and getting more enjoyment out of his last years.69

As if he were thinking of taking up a hobby like stamp
What arrangements were made

collecting or cabinetmaking.
in detail are still unhiown, but he kept the presidencies

of his street railroad and bank, and he held on to a sig-
It is un-

nificant share of his coal and iron business.
likely that his share dropped below thirty-two and one-half

per cent, for he had that much at the time of his death.70

Brother Leonard, however, took active charge of the firm

beginning in 1895.
Thus the campaign for McKinley's nomination shifted

into second gear .

 

69Morrow interview with Leonard C. Hanna, Hanna papers.

70M. A. Hanna Estate Book.

CHAPTER VIII
FROM THOMASVILLE TO ST. LOUIS

Among professional politicians it was no secret that
McKinley was a leading contender for the nomination in
1896. "Ohio has always had its candidate," one of the
party's elder statesmen observed after the elections of
1891, and it was apparent to him that McKinley would be the
man to follow Sherman in that role. The governor's pop-
ular success at the convention of 1892, his survival of
the Walker failure, his emphatic endorsement by the elec-
torate for a second term, his position as the party's lead-
111: exponent of a leading issue, the tariff, all combined
to force the name McKinley into the thoughts of those who
Wa-rnted him and those who feared him. There was no need to
ammounce his candidacy. He was treated as a candidate by
the professionals and the press regardless of his silence.
The office was seeking the man.

Secrecy would have been undesirable if it had been
possible, but a protective discretion was among the first

requirements for the nourishment of McKinley's hopes. Thus

1James G. Blaine to Russell A. Alger, Nov. 5, 1891,
Alger papers.

281

 

 

 

282

it was a happy inspiration that led to the establishment
of the Thomasville "headquarters."

Thomasville is a small resort town near Georgia's
southern border where Hanna had taken his family for short
winter vacations for several seasons previously. After
he had arranged his affairs in Cleveland, Hanna returned
to Thomasville, rented a large house there for five years
and settled down to his next item of business--winning

southern delegates for McKinley.2

A Republican candidate who hunts convention delegates
in the states of the old Confederacy needs only a few wea-
pons, but they must be sharp ani in good order. He must
arrive on the scene early and have considerable sums of
money to spend through state leaders to subsidize their
chosen delegates from district convention to state conven—
tion and on.to the national convention. He must impress
office-seekers with his reliability in patronage matters
and with his strong chances of winning. For without fed-
eral patronage the party of Lincoln in the South lacks that
binding material that holds parties together. McKinley was
fortunate in his preconvention canvass because there was no
incumbent Republican Administration in Washington. Seekers

of office were plentiful and incumbents few.

 

2Hanna to Sherman, Feb. 5, 1892, Sherman papers;
Leonard C. and H. M. Hanna interviews.

283

For three weeks of March, 1895, Mr. Hanna of Cleveland
and his guest the governor of Ohio received visiting south-

ern Republicans in the sun parlor of the big house at

Thomasville. Hanna had already been on the scene long

enough to line up a schedule of visitors and size up the

problems each would present. No reports of their work

from either man survive, but except that the governor

caught a cold toward the end of his stay, all seems to

have gone well enough.3

Essentially this style of approach was the same that

Hanna had perfected at home in Cleveland. There were no

speeches, no rallies or banquets. Only a trickle of well-

chosen "principals" each in turn brought to the center of
attention and entertained as his self-importance desired.
It was a style as congenial to the Ohioans as to the south-

erners. After the national convention the following sum-

mer, when popular interest in Hanna had Spread widely
enough to include readers of the New York dailies, a friend

of Hanna explained to a W reporter that one explana-

tion for his quick success was his long habit of entertain-

ing nearly every prominent visitor to Cleveland that he

could reach. Over the years he had built a long list of

3McKinley to James M'Crea, Pittsburgh, Pa., Feb. 25,

1895; McKinley to Hanna, April 13, 1895, copies of both
in McKinley papers; H. M. Hanna interview.

281+

influential friends who remembered him not as a politician

so much as a good host."r If many of Hanna's friendships
were originally based on political associations, it is
probably equally true that a number of his political as-

sociations were later extensions of friendships that began

at his dining room table in Cleveland.

McKinley's soirees at Thomasville by no means con-

quered the southern problem. Later there would be calls

for Charles Dick and others to represent him at district

conventions that were burlesques of the democratic process.
Dick remembered vividly the barrel of whiskey in the corner
of the meeting room, its head knocked in and a tin cup at-

tached, the milling hundreds of dark-skinned citizens fog-

gily enjoying their day of enlightened deliberation. He

remembered, too, the telegrams from the far-off Texan boss:
Convention red hot.

"Send me two thousand dollars by wire.
When

I am going to get these delegates or bust the bank."
the count was taken at the national convention, McKinley

had the southern vote corralled at last: all but 25 of the
222 votes from the old Confederacy were his.5

Hanna's attention had been so far diverted toward

McKinley's national campaign that he was caught napping

when Joseph Benson Foraker made his bid for a comeback to

power in the Spring of 1895. Still smarting from memories

”use me mm, June 26. 1896.

SMorrow interview with Charles Dick, Hanna papers.

285

of Hanna's epitaph for him of three years before, the fiery

ex-governor from Cincinnati had stolen a march on him at
the Zanesville state convention May 28. Foraker had found

a candidate amenable to himself and boss George Cox in

Asa Bushnell--"Old Bushy" Hanna had once fondly called
him--of Springfield. More than that, he had put across
the rest of his state ticket and won an unprecedented and

unqualified endorsement for himself as senator in 1896.

Hanna's gubernatorial choice, the Columbus judge George K.

Nash, would have to wait his turn later. Foraker's secre-

tary and manager Charles Kurtz replaced Dick as chairman

of the state executive committee. The one consolation

Hanna salvaged from this rout was the endorsement of McKin-

ley for president. But this was a poor trade for the
threat of a national convention delegation that would be

riddled with unreliable Foraker adherents. Apparently

through nothing but overconfidence, Hanna and his friends
had been beaten on their home grounds. Nevertheless, a
show of harmony was maintained through the hugely success-

ful fall campaign. Bushnell was easily elected, Foraker
was sure to be elected to the senate by the new legislature,

286

and McKinley proved again his popularity with varied aud-

iences as he stumped the state for the ticket.6
For Hanna the latter half of 1895 was hectic with the

demands of a swiftly changing political struggle and the

strains of domestic crises. Mrs. Hanna spent the summer

recovering from a fractured hip. later in the year she

contracted typhoid fever. First with one and then the

other, her husband felt needed at home far more than usual.
There were times when he despaired of fulfilling his obli-
gations to her and keeping up with the campaign, but by the
end of the year she had recovered and his health problems

were again limited to his own occasional bouts with influ-

enza and cold infections.7
Hanna's initial approach to his candidate's problems

was entirely orthodox. After the home state was secured,

the obvious place to begin gathering delegates was in the

A show of success there gave bargaining power in

south.
Next came the great

later dealings with northern leaders.
blocs of votes controlled by the bosses of New York and

k

6Foraker to Kurtz, Feb. 23, 1895, copy in Foraker
Papers; Walters, Fgrakgr, pp. 107-109; Leech, MgKinlgz,
P. 6%. Substantiating the suspicions of Foraker's relia-
bility are passages in J. S. Clarkson to W. B. Allison,
June 17 and Sept. 16, 1895, both in Allison papers, His-
torical, Memorial and Art Department of Iowa, Des Moines

(transcript by Stanley L. Jones).
7Morrow interview with Mrs. C. A. Hanna, Hanna papers.

287

These states were often Republican in Novem-

Pennsylvania .
her; they were always desirable wheels on which to roll a

convention bandwagon. Then attention could be given to the
search for blocs of supporters from other sections of the
The states of the Great Plains and Rockies must

country.
not be alienated if the candidate is to be given a truly

Thus it was important to avoid a crisis

national appeal.
Meanwhile, attention

on the currency issue especially.
must be given to winning over a majority of the National

Committee, in order to secure friendly convention committ-

ees. With this breadth of support it would be difficult
to deny the claims of a prospective party candidate, even
if he failed to win on the first ballot.

But such a simple scheme was stalled before it was

fairly under way. Hanna hoped to present his man as a na-

tional figure and win on the first ballot. But the con-

venient process of arranging such a matter with state and
The South had re-

local bosses soon had to be dropped.
New York's Tom Platt and Pennsylvania's Matt

sponded well.
Quay, however, demanded more for their allegiance than
Their exact terms are unknown, but a

McKinley would give.
friend remembered McKinley concluding among other things

that if he could not be president without making Tom Platt

Secretary of the Treasury he would never be president.8

8Kohlsaat, W21 to. sending, pp. 30, 31.

288

Somehow the canvass must proceed without the support of

these two largest states. It would not be easy. A new

tactic was called for.
Not only were Quay and Platt uncooperative, but a bevy

of other obstacles soon arose. Senators Shelby M. Cullom

of Illinois and William B. Allison of Iowa were attempting
to tie up their states for themselves; old Benjamin Har-
rison was toying with the idea of asking for Indiana's vote.

Of course, not all the contenders could be dismissed as
Allison was a real threat if second

merely favorite sons.
Thomas

choices entered into late ballot considerations.

B. Reed of Maine was a legitimate claimant representing the

eastern "gold bugs" on the currency issue. But Cullom and

Harrison were sham candidates, even if they were unaware of

it themselves. So were elderly Levi T. Morton, the New

York‘banker and former vice-president chosen by Platt as

his pawn, and Matt Quay, who certainly did not take his own

prospects seriously as Pennsylvania's favorite son. Even

in late 1895, managers for all these men were more or less
involved in a combine to stop McKinley from a first ballot

victory. If they could do that, they reasoned, they could

 

289

It would not

worry later about whom they might unite on.9
It

be McKinley, for he was under no obligations to them.

would not be Harrison, for he would acknowledge no obliga-

tions and would lose the election in any case. Probably

it would not be Reed, for he was a sectional candidate at
one extreme of the party's thinking on the currency issue
and was too independent of mind to satisfy Platt or Quay.
The plans of the combine never matured far enough to test
any answer that might be suggested, but the likeliest choice

would seem to have been the man most like McKinley in all
but his success in gathering delegates pledges. That would

 

9On Cullom, see Cullom to P. S. Grosscup April 11»,
1896 (copy), Grosscup to McKinley, April 8, 1896; both in

McKinley papers; and William E. Pitkin, "Shelby M. Cul-
lom: Presidential Prospect " m %g the 9%; State
W figci‘gtz XLIx:1+ (Winter, 19 ), 37 -3 . On
Allison, see Leland L. Sage William 0 Allison: A S
195 especially p. 2 3

in Practical Politics (Iowa,City
On Reed, see William A. Robinson, .hQEéi _B_,, Reed,
On Mortoné see
9

ff.
Earliamggtarian (N. Y., 1930), p. 322 ff.
especially Chauncey M. Depew to Morton, March '+, 189
Morton papers, New York Public Library. On Harrison and

the Indiana fight after his withdrawal, see A. Dale
ed., "Letters to Colonel William R. Holloway,

Beeler
1893-1:397," mm W 2:; mm mm (D.C.,
There were also brief attempts to put

19%0), 371-390.
Charles F. Manderson in Nebraska and Cushman
y is clearly re-

forward

Davis in Minnesota. The combine's strateg
vealed in Clarkson to Allison, Dec. 1%, l 95, Allison
papers (Jones transcript), and Chauncey Depew to L. P.

Morton, March ’+, 1896, Morton papers.

 

 

.JV .‘lulullll. i!1.§

 

290

10

have been William B. Allison, the equally cautious, equally
midwestern and equally experienced senator from Iowa.

Only one choice remained for McKinley's managers. They

must fight a campaign against the bosses of the "combine."

Their man would be presented-~and it seems to have been

Hanna's inspiration--as the "advance agent of prosperity,"
the peoples' friend, the bosses foe.11 Applying the con-

verse of an old maxim, they concluded that "if you can't

join 'em, lick 'em." In some states--Arkansas under Powell

Clayton, Michigan under Russell Alger, Wisconsin under
Henry C. Payne and others--this was unnecessary. In many

of the states where a fight was made against strong opposi-

tion there were established leaders on hand to carry the

burden: California, Missouri, Vermont, Minnesota, Kentucky

—__

10This is speculation on Allison's potential for vic-
tory in circumstances that never arose. Reed's campaign
won more delegates before it stalled, but this does not
mean that he was the greater threat, as Peck Croly, Leech
None of McKinley‘s rivals won

and others have concluded.
The potential

enough delegate pledges to threaten him.
threat lay in the action the anti-McKinley combine might

have taken had it had the opportunity at convention time.
Jan. 27, 1896, McKinley papers, estimates

JOhn Hay to Hanna
the dislikes of Platt and Quay substantially as given above.

11
Croly, Hanna, pp. 171 178' Leech Mgginlgy p. 72.
Charles Gates Dawes‘ private,jourr,1al, Jan. 2 , l 98, Dawes
Papers, Deering Memorial Library, Northwestern University,

Evanston, Ill. (Though the author has used and will cite
he original of this valuable Journal, it is also available

1:

in nearly complete form in Bascom N. Timmons ed. A m-
nal 9.1: mm W (Chicago, 1950). Herrick gave
credit for the campaign s new direction to McKinley: see

”01:13, W, p- 63.

291

and Indiana were examples. In all of these success was

complete. In a few crucial states the early situation
looked so desperate that there was some question whether

any fight at all should be attempted. The risk of further

antagonizing Platt and Quay was taken when supporters in
their states agreed to make a fight, and they succeeded in
snatching enough delegates in Pennsylvania and New York

to break the solidarity of the favorite sons' support.l2

Both the leaders of the combine and McKinley felt that

the decisive clash would come in Illinois. "We must gather

up our loins there," warned Allison's manager Ret Clarkson

excitedly, "for that is the heart of it all;" the "Gettys-
burg " Dick would call it.13 If the state convention on

April 28, 1896 did less than instruct for McKinley, the

race would still be considered open. There seemed to be a

diffuse sentiment in the state favorable to McKinley but

the established organization under John R. Tanner, William
Lorimer and others held out for Senator Cullom. McKinley's

friends kept some hope of a rapprochment until late in 1895,

 

12The preconvention fights were covered widely in the

press and are documented especially well in the papers of
See also the Charles Dick interview,

Dawes and Allison.
in which he observes that McKinley seemed to desert his
New York and Pennsylvania friends after the convention
When he came to terms with Platt and Quay.

13Clarkson to Allison, Dec. 23, 1895, Allison papers
(Jones transcript); Morrow interview with Charles Dick,

Hanna papers .

292

but meanwhile someone had to be found to represent him who

could be trusted. Under the circumstances it was not to

be expected that able politicians with vested interests to
protect would fall over themselves to apply for such work. .

The man Hanna finally speculated on early in 1895 was a
thirty year old lawyer and gas company financier recently
moved to Chicago from Nebraska named Charles Gates Dawes.

He came from a prominent Marietta, Ohio, family but had

practically no political acquaintance in his new home in

In looks, age and experience he came poorly rec-

Chicago.
All he could offer were the essentials: loyalty,

ommended.
He gathered a group of lieutenants

energy and brains.
about him, amateurs and outsiders like himself, for the

most part, and started to work.]'l+

As late as Christmas of 1895, Hanna was still not

wholly convinced that aggressive measures in Illinois were

the best tactic. According to entries in Dawes' diary, it

was McKinley who showed the more aggressive Spirit on the
Hanna

subject at this time, for what reason is not clear.

9

—_

1""Dawes Journal, March 10, Dec. 23, 1895, Dawes papers
W- G. Edens to Dawes, Dec. 11, 1895, postscript by Dawes,
Dawes papers; J. P. Smith to Dawes, Dec. 30, 1895 1113.
One final move toward reconciliation failed in late Janu-
ary, 1896. See J. P. Smith to Dawes, Jan. 27, 1896, and
Dawes journal, Jan. 29, 30, 1896, both 11211- On Dawes, see
Timons, ed- 9 Melanie K1 item, pp. ix-x, and

Kohlsaat, McKinlgz to Harding, pp- 21, 22-

 

293

did not lag for long, however, but followed events closely
from the first of the county conventions through the trium-
phant climax in April.15
Two other victories in the preconvention campaign were
notable. ‘In Nebraska there was a fight similar to that in
Illinois, and Dawes had also been put in charge there in
the early stages. Then another young man, Frederick Col-
lins, took over on the ground and succeeded in winning in-
structions for McKinley against the wishes of such powers

as the railroads' attorney and senatorial candidate John M.

16

Thurston. And in Vermont, under Hedi‘ield Proctor's

guidance, the expected solidarity of New England for Tom
Reed was broken. By the end of April, success in Illinois
and Vermont made it clear to his supporters that McKinley
was safe. The New York publisher Whitelaw Reid expressed
it well when he wrote to the governor that since it was
obvious that the bosses who still held out "must either
fall in with the procession or get run over by it, you do

 

15Dawes journal, Dec. 23, 1895; J. P. Smith to Dawes,
Dec. 30, 1895, both in Dawes papers; Morrow interview with
Charles Dick, Hanna papers.

16Thurston was not against McKinley but did oppose
instructions. Another railroad attorney, ex-senator Charles
F. Manderson, was the organization's favorite son. See
Dawes to F. W. Collins, Jan. 21 (copy), Collins to Dawes,
Feb. 8, 1896; J. P. Smith to Dawes, March 3, 1896, all in

Dawes papers ; Morrow interview with Charles Dick, Hanna
papers.

29%

J" not seem to be called upon to offer them many premiums to
{ reward them for not committing suicide."17
/ Hanna's personal role in the preconvention campaign
was so pervasive and yet so sketchily recorded on paper
that it is difficult to assess in detail. He and McKinley
had telephone connections between the Canton home and
Hanna's campaign headquarters in the Perry-Payne Building
in Cleveland. They used this and messengers more often
than written messages when their consultations were not
held in person.18 Then too, the team they were building
around them included men of no little force in their own
right. Dawes was never afraid to speak up, nor were his
friends in the field. Old campaigners like Albert C. Thomp-
son and Charles Grosvenor would have felt free to act and
advise with some assurance, though their contributions are
largely unrecorded. Young Joe Smith overflowed with opin-
ions and enthusiasms that were his own even though they re-
flected the views of his chiefs to the degree that he was

allowed to answer many of their letters, sometimes in their

A

17Reid to McKinley, May 12, 1896, copy in Reid papers,
‘13:; 131,0Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washing-
’ a o

. lBLGGCh, W, p. 61+. See also the Charles Dick
lnterview, which indicates that Dick and McKinley also

were connected by telephone between their Akron and Canton
homes.

 

295

names.19 Morale was high at the start and rose higher with

each new victory.
It was during this preconvention campaign that Hanna's

successes began to enlarge his circle of enemies as well

The public image of Mark Hanna the wicked

as friends.
In March, 1896,

millionaire was spreading beyond Ohio.
he made what was ostensibly a business trip to Buffalo, but

his presence within the domain of Tom Platt awakened such

fears in the breasts of New York party leaders that the
pro-McKinley Nil M W editorial writers found

material for burlesque. Hanna
has tackled the Empire State from the Lake Front
of Buffalo, and is making arrangements to deves-
tate the face of the country from that point to
Montauk. He is coming down . . . "like the wolf on
the fold" and his "cohorts"--no: he is not yet re-
ported as having "cohorts"--but he himself "is
gleaming with silver and gold." . . . He is re-
ported to have jags and jags and swags and swags
He reeks with

and slathers and slathers of money.
it. It leaks out of his trousers pockgas as he

staggers along under the burden of it.

 

1'9See e.g., Smith to Dawes, March 3, 1896, Dawes pap-

ers: "I shall write Cheadle and Cragen of Indiana in Mr.
" Copies of these letters-~personal,

Hanna's name. . . .
spirited and encouraging--are also in the Dawes papers.

Grosvenor was looked to by reporters as the statistician

of McKinley's progress, issuing weekly claims and pro-
Phesies. See Arthur W. Dunn Egon 12113129 to, W

N. Y., 1922) I, 183. Grosvenor s role may also

ters included in Beeler, ed., 'Let-

(2 vols.,

be glimpsed in his let

ters of Col. William R. Holloway."
201921 Ion. Tribune, March 19, 1896.

296

In truth, not only the New Yorkers but New Hampshire's

Chandler took the occasion

redoubtable Senator William E.
Hanna issued a calm

to greet the "boodler" from Ohio.
statement from Buffalo pleading innocent even of plans to

go down to New York City on that trip.21 After his return
to Cleveland he heard of a second attack by Chandler and
replied this time with more of the angry hurt that he felt:

"Sewer gas must have an outlet. . . . The best way is to
let him alone," he told the press. "I care nothing for

what he thinks or says about me. . . . My reputation is as

good as his."22 But the price of his new power was becom-

ing more evident each week. On the same day the Vermont
convention instructed for McKinley the Brooklyn Young Re-

publicans Club was reported giving him its endorsement over

the protests of a minority that called his manager "the
Hanna was "not content with

worst type of political boss."
running the Republican party in Ohio [but was] endeavoring

to control it throughout the country."23 Again Hanna was
reminded that if the only way to move the Republican beast

to its destination was by use of the carrot and stick it
would be his lot to wield the stick while McKinley held out

the carrot.
211221.
22mg. , March 2%, 1896.
23mg. , April 28, 1896.

297

Hanna paid the bulk of preconvention expenses himself.

A few friends helped in the later stages, but his own share

has been estimated at $100,000. Dick remembered that some-

time in the fall of 1895 he got a glimpse of the books that
showed £60,000 charged to Hanna then.2h There is a record

of $6,000 sent the following February by Philander 0. Knox

and four of his Pittsburgh friends. Both McKinley and

Hanna sent their thanks for the help, and nowhere is the

difference in their styles more evident tran in these two

letters. The candidate wrote three sentences:

I am deeply grateful for the remembrance of your-
self and friends received a few days ago. It was
most considerate and generous and accompanied as
it was by expressions of friendship, is all the
more gratefully appreciated. Will you please re-
ceive for yourself and convey to the gentlemen
associated with you my sincere thanks for this
manifestation of the good will which I want you

to know I will always cherish. With warm personal

assurances to yourself. 2
I am your faithful friend 5

Hanna wrote :

I was made 2151 this morning on receipt of your
cheque in remitting contributions from Pitts
friends to the McKinley campaign fund (in which

you cut such a W figure). I assure you
it came at an opportune time for just now the

 

21"Hanna to John Hay, Oct. 7, 1895, Hey papers, Manu-
script Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.;
Croly, m, p. 181+; Charles Dick interview.

(7’
2“McKinley to Knox, Feb. 29, 1896, Knox papers, Manu-
script Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.;
I'eplying to Knox and others to McKinley, Feb. 26, 1896,

McKinley papers .

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

298

"combine" are making a terrible fight against us
in the south where money is such a potent factor.
I do not propose to bgy_any support with money
given into my hands but will be obliged to keep
a large number of men actively in the field to
keep our lines intact. Then we have to pay
travelling expenses to most of the delegates to
the Convention. So while the fight is kept up
we will have to stand by our leaders. Thus far
we have held our own--having gotten 10 out of 12
delegates chosen in Ga.

I do not see any of our Iron Manfrs. on your
list and particularly Mr. Frick. Will you see
them or shall I write to them direct. I had in-
tended going to Pitts before this but am chained
at home by important matters in connection with
the campaign which come up every dag However
will be glad to cooperate with you. 6

A contrast in personal styles and in the roles they fitted--
one the smiling public man, safe distant and dignified; the
other the hard-headed colloquial and confiding manager.
Some indication of where the money went in these

months has already been given. Printing and mailing costs
were also heavy. "McKinley has plastered the land from his
literary bureau," Clarkson complained at the height of the
struggle.27 Newspapers friendly to the cause were sometimes
mailed to elected delegates for their edification. Buttons

and banners were distributed in quantity.28 Hanna's

 

26Hanna to Knox, Feb. 28, 1896, ibi .

27c1arkson to Allison, March 10, 1896, Allison papers
(transcript by H. Wayne Morgan). See also C. M. Depew to
L. P. Morton, March , 1896, Levi P. Morton papers, New
York Public Library, New York City.

28J. P. Smith to Dawes, March 17, 1896- Samuel Roberts,
Lexington, Ky., to J. P. Smith, April 6, 1896; both in
Dawes papers.

299

assertion that votes were not being purchased outright was
i supported by more direct evidence than the letter to the
donors quoted above. In January he had written a worker in
the south--perhaps it was the Texan who threatened to "bust
the bank"--that "you are laboring under the impression that
there is a liberal fund provided for distribution. Such is
not the case. I am personally providing what seems to be
necessary for such expenses as are legitimate. . . . We
will not find fault with you if you secure no districts
which cannot be won on the merits of Mr. McKinley as a can-
didate."29 Early in February he sent out $500 with a warn-
ing that he was still the campaign's sole provider and that
he had to borrow the money he was enclosing. In short, the
evidence suggests that it was Hanna's skill in stretching
the available dollars rather than in collecting new ones
that made it possible to finance the campaign successfully.3)
It was not entirely by choice that so much depended on
Ifima '5 money, though as he explained to John Hay in Octo—
her, he hesitated to seek outside assistance until he was

sure of who McKinley's real friends were.31 In the fall of

 

29Quoted in Croly, Hanna, p. 185.
301.2141. Note also Dawes journal, Feb. 1, 1896 ("Hanna

is being greatly disappointed in his canvass for funds"),
Dawes papers.

31Hanna to Hay, Oct. 7, 1895, Hay papers.