y "nobody could have done better,"
but his zeal never flagged and hence he did much to secure results.
Like Mr. Wilson, he knew every member, and he never hesitated to set
forth his views. He always had a following, and in those days it was
safe to follow him. In 1872 he became alienated from General Grant
and consequently from the Republican Party. His influence was
potential with Mr. Sumner, and it is not an over estimate of that
influence to assume that he was responsible in a large degree for the
defection of Mr. Sumner. Following that election, Mr. Bird became a
member of the Democratic Party, but upon what ground it is not easy to
conjecture. His whole life had been a protest against that party, and
much of his public career had been directed to its defeat. During the
war and the period of reconstruction, he had been its earnest and even
bitter antagonist. Mr. Bird was a public spirited man, and he was
especially liberal towards men and causes in whose fortunes or fate he
had become interested. Upon the close of the war there was a tendency
in the public mind to advance the successful military men to posts of
honor and power in civil life. Some were chosen to the Senate and the
House, some were appointed to important diplomatic places, and General
Grant was elected President. Many of the politicians were disturbed,
and chief among them was Mr. Chase, who allowed the use of his name as
a candidate for the Presidency in the Democratic Convention of 1868.
From that time many persons who had been conspicuous as anti-slavery
men before the war, separated from the Republican Party and joined the
Democracy. Mr. Bird was one of many such.

There were a small number of men who had been members of the Convention
of 1820 who were members of the Convention of 1853. Of these Mr.
Robert Rantoul, of Beverly, was conspicuous, partly on account of his
age, partly on account of his services and character, and partly as
the father of Robert Rantoul, Jr. He was a noticeable figure in the
Convention of 1853. Mr. Rantoul, Jr., had died at Washington the
preceding year. His death was a public loss, and especially so to the
anti-slavery wing of the Democratic Party to which he maintained his
allegiance up to the time of his death. He had, however, taken issue
with the party upon the Fugitive Slave Act, and for his hostility to
that measure he was excluded from the Democratic Convention of 1852,
although he had been duly e