atever asperities had grown
out of political of factional differences, and had quickened anew the
grateful sense of his inestimable services in the war. There was no
fear that General Grant would abuse a trust, however frequently or
however long he might be invested with it. But the limit of two terms
had become an unwritten part of the code of the Republic, and the
people felt that to disregard the principle might entail dangers which
they would not care to risk. They believed that the example of
Washington if now reinforced by the example of Grant would determine
the question for the future, and assure a regular and orderly change of
rulers, which is the strongest guarantee against the approach of tyranny.

While it was altogether probable that the feeling among the people
against a third term would be stimulated by other aspirants to the
Presidency, it was altogether impossible that they could cause the
feeling. The interesting question at issue was whether the precedents
of the Government should be discredited. The National Convention was
to meet in June, but as early as February State Conventions were called
in Pennsylvania and New York to choose delegates, with the intention
of securing unanimity in favor of General Grant's nomination. The
rights of Congressional districts to select their own delegates had
been indirectly affirmed in the National Convention of 1876, when the
Unit Rule was overridden and the right of each individual delegate to
cast his own vote was established. But against this authoritative
monition the design now was to have the States vote as a unit, and
accordingly the Conventions in both the great States adopted
instructions to that effect. The opposition to this course was very
strong, the resolutions being carried in Pennsylvania by a majority of
only twenty, while in New York, in a total vote of three hundred and
ninety-seven, the majority was but thirty-eight. The delegations of
both States included men who were known to be opposed to General
Grant's nomination and who represented districts avowedly in accord
with that view, but it was hoped by the leaders that the assumption
of the State Conventions to pass instructions might control individual
judgment.

The action of the Pennsylvania and New York Conventions increased the
public agitation. A strong conviction that their proceedings had been
precipitated and did not reflect the true judgment of the Republican
masses was rapi