"John Sherman."
I understood that the health of Governor Dennison, who had faithfully represented me in the national convention, was somewhat impaired by his confinement there, and invited him to join me in a sail on the Chesapeake Bay, spending a few days at different points. He accepted and we had a very enjoyable trip for about ten days.
During this trip I wrote, for the 4th of July issue of the New York "Independent," an article on Virginia and state rights. I had promised to do this some time before but could not find an opportunity, and availed myself of the quiet of the cruise to fulfill my promise. The history of Virginia has always had for me a peculiar interest, mainly because of the leading part taken by that state in the American Revolution. The great natural resources of the state had been neglected, the fertility of the soil on the eastern shore had been exhausted, and no efforts had been made to develop the vast mineral wealth in the mountains along its western border. The destruction of slavery and the breaking up of the large farms and plantations had discouraged its people, and I thought, by an impartial statement of its undeveloped resources, I might excite their attention and that of citizens of other states to the wealth under its soil. This article, written in a friendly spirit, excited the attention and approval of many citizens of the state, and brought me many letters of thanks.
In time I became thoroughly advised of what occurred at the Chicago convention and had become entirely reconciled to the result, though frequently afterwards I heard incidents and details which occasioned me great pain and which seemed to establish the want of sincerity on the part of some of the delegates, and tended to show that for some time before the meeting of the convention the nomination of General Garfield had been agreed upon. After its close I had numerous letters from delegates of other states, complaining bitterly of the conduct of the Ohio delegation and giving this as a reason why they had not voted for me. I was assured that large portions of the Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and other delegations, had notified General Foster that they were ready to vote for me whenever their vote was required, but no such request came from him. The matter had been made the subject of public discussion in the newspapers. I was content with the result, but was deeply wounded by what I could not but regard as a breach of faith on the part of some of the Ohio delegation, and especially of Governor Foster, who had been fully advised of my feelings in regard to his course. I received a letter from him, on the 23rd of June, answering the allegations that had been publicly made in regard to him, and explaining his action. In reply I wrote him the following letter:
"Washington, D. C., June 30, 1880. "Dear Sir:—Your letter of the 23rd came while I was still absent on the Chesapeake Bay. I regret that I did not see you, for a free conversation would be far more satisfactory than letter writing.
"I wish to be perfectly frank with you, as since I first became acquainted with you I have felt for you warm friendship, and have always had entire confidence in you. I confess, however, that the information I received in regard to your operations at Chicago had greatly weakened this feeling and left a painful impression upon my mind that you had not done by me as I would have done by you under like circumstances. Your letter chased away much of this impression, and, perhaps, the better way would be for me to write no more, but to treat your letter as entirely satisfactory and conclusive. Still I think it right for me to give you the general basis of the impressions I had formed.
"My first impulse was to send you at once a mass of letters from delegates and others attending the convention, but this would only create a controversy, and, perhaps, betray confidence, which I could not do. The general purport of these letters is that, while you spoke freely and kindly of me, yet there was always a kind of reserve in favor of Blaine and a hesitation in pressing me that indicated a divided opinion, that partly by the divisions in the Ohio delegation and partly by the halfway support of yourself, and, perhaps others, the Ohio delegation lost its moral strength and, practically, defeated me before any ballot was had.
"This general impression I could have passed by, but it was distinctly stated to me, by delegates and friends of delegates present at the convention, that they proffered the votes of large portions of their respective delegations to you with the understanding that they were to be cast for me whenever you indicated the proper moment. This was specifically said as to Indiana, Massachusetts, Connecticut and the Blaine portion of the Pennsylvania delegation. It was said that you prevented Massachusetts from voting for me from about the tenth to the fifteenth ballot on Monday, that nine of the Connecticut delegates held themselves ready to vote for me on your call, but that you put it off, and Harrison is quoted as saying that twenty-six votes from Indiana were ready to be cast for me on Monday, at any time after a few ballots, but they were withheld on account of representations from the Ohio delegation. Mr. Billings, of Vermont, is quoted as saying that the Vermont delegation, with two or three exceptions, were ready to vote for me, but were discontented with the position taken by you, and doubted whether you desired their vote for me.
"These and many other allegations of similar import, coming one after the other, led me to believe that you had changed the position you took in the early part of the canvass, and had come to the conclusion that it was not wise to nominate me, and that other arrangements for your future influenced you in changing your opinion. This impression caused me more pain than anything that has transpired since the beginning of the contest.
"I assure you I have no regrets over the results of the convention. Indeed, the moment it was over, I felt a sense of relief that I had not had for six months.