126, Mr. Colfax followed with 125, and Mr. Wilson with 119. Mr.
Curtin had 51, and the remainder were scattering. Several of the minor
candidates immediately dropped out, and on the second ballot the vote
for Wade was raised to 170, for Colfax to 145, and for Fenton to 144.
The third and fourth ballots showed nearly equal gains for Wade and
Colfax, while Fenton made no increase. All other names were withdrawn.
Wade had been weakened by the fact that after the first ballot his own
State of Ohio had given several votes for Colfax, to whom the tide now
turned with great strength. Iowa was the first State to break solidly.
Pennsylvania turned her vote to Colfax instead of Wade whose friends
had confidently counted upon it. Other changes rapidly followed, until
the fifth ballot, as finally announced, showed 541 for Colfax, 38 for
Wade, and 69 for Fenton. The result was received with general and
hearty satisfaction, and the Convention adjourned with undoubting
faith in a great victory for Grant and Colfax. General Grant's brief
letter of acceptance followed within a week, and its key-note was
found in the memorable expression, "Let us have peace!" It was spoken
in a way and came from a source which gave it peculiar strength and
significance.

The Democratic National Convention of 1868 was invested with remarkable
interest, less from any expectation that it would seriously contest and
jeopard Republican ascendency, than from the several personal issues
which entered into it, and the audacious public policies which would be
urged upon it. The general drift of the party was clear and
unmistakable, but its personal choice and the tone of its declarations
would determine how bold a stand it would take before the country.
Would it openly proclaim the doctrine of paying the public debt in
depreciated paper money, and emphasize its action by nominating Mr.
George H. Pendleton, the most distinct and conspicuous champion of the
financial heresy? Would it attempt a discussion and review of its
tendency and designs, and make what would approach a new departure,
in appearance if not in fact, by going outside of its own ranks and
nominating Chief Justice Chase? Would the recreancy of President
Johnson to his own party and his hope of Democratic support find any
considerable response? And aside from the issue of virtually
repudiating the public debt, would the party now re-assert its hostile
and revolutionary attitude towards t