Editing Thomas F. Bayard (section)

== United States Senator ==

=== Reaction to Reconstruction ===
[[File:TFBayard.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Photograph of Thomas F. Bayard, {{circa|1870}}]]

Bayard's father retired from the Senate when his term ended in 1869, and the legislature elected his son to the seat with little opposition.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=23}} Bayard entered a Senate in which his fellow Democrats were greatly outnumbered by Republicans; the new president, [[Ulysses S. Grant]], was also a Republican.{{sfn|House 1940|p=48}} In the Reconstruction Era, Bayard took up the cause of the defeated South, speaking against the continued military rule of the conquered states and advocating a return to civilian (and conservative) government.{{sfn|House 1940|pp=52–54}} He protested the requirement that readmitted Southern states ratify the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], which guaranteed equal protection of the laws to all Americans. Bayard also inveighed against the continued presence of federal troops in the South.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=32–39}} He spoke against each of the three [[Enforcement Acts]], which increased the federal government's power to protect black Southerners' civil and political rights in the face of rising violence by the [[Ku Klux Klan]] and other groups.{{sfn|House 1940|pp=52–54}}

Although his protests were to little effect, Bayard continued to voice opposition to the majority party's plans for reconstructing the South.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=48}} In 1871, he was named to a joint committee sent by Congress to investigate conditions in the South. The committee, like the Congress, had a Republican majority, and their report detailed many of the Klan's outrages against the newly freed slaves. Bayard dissented, questioning the veracity of the witnesses' testimony and stating that there were few incidents of lawlessness and that the South was generally at peace.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=50}} The majority disagreed, and their findings were the basis for the [[Enforcement Act of 1871 (third act)|Third Enforcement Act]] later that year.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=51}}

As more Democrats returned to the Senate, and as Republican goals shifted elsewhere, Bayard's ideas gained some traction, but were still largely in vain. In 1873, the Senate passed a resolution he introduced that demanded that Grant disclose how much government money was being expended in enforcing Reconstruction laws in the South, and to whom it was paid; the President ignored the resolution.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=90}} The next year, Bayard opposed a Republican bill authorizing federal supervision of the upcoming election in Louisiana, attacking the Republican administration there as corrupt; he was unsuccessful, and the election was supervised by federal troops.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=92}} He spoke forcefully against the proposed [[Civil Rights Act of 1875]], which was to be the last such act for nearly a century. Again, he was unsuccessful and the bill, which guaranteed equal treatment in public accommodations regardless of race, passed Congress and became law.{{efn|The Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 in the ''[[Civil Rights Cases]]'' of 1883.}}{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=100}} Although ultimately unsuccessful, Bayard's actions endeared him to his conservative constituents, and he was elected to another six-year term in 1874.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=100}}

=== Specie resumption ===
[[File:SpecieCartoon.JPG|thumb|250px|right|A cartoon from the April 9, 1870, issue of ''[[Harper's Weekly]]'' anticipates the [[Specie Payment Resumption Act|resumption of government payments in precious-metal coins]]. "[[Brother Jonathan]]" was a personification of the United States before "[[Uncle Sam]]".]]

From the start of his congressional career, Bayard was an advocate of [[hard money (policy)|hard money]], i.e., a dollar backed by gold.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=26–27}} During the Civil War, Congress had authorized a new form of currency, redeemable not in specie (gold or silver coin) but in 6% government bonds.{{sfn|Dam 1981|p=373}} These [[United States Note]]s, popularly known as "greenbacks," had helped to finance the war when the government's gold supply did not keep pace with the expanding costs of maintaining the armies. When the crisis had passed, many in Congress (including Bayard) wanted to return the nation's currency to a [[gold standard]] as soon as possible.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=26–27}} The process of retiring the greenbacks had already begun when Bayard was elected, but stopped when many Senators and Representatives thought the fiscal contraction too severe, and likely to be harmful to the economy.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=26–27}} In 1869, Congress passed the [[Public Credit Act of 1869]], which required that the government pay its bond holders in gold, not greenbacks. Bayard thought the bill not strong enough, since it did not require removing greenbacks from circulation, and he voted against it.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=28}}

In 1873, a business depression (known as the [[Panic of 1873]]), increased the pressure for retaining greenbacks, as some in Congress believed that inflating the currency would ease the economic problems. Grant's Treasury Secretary, [[William Adams Richardson]], reissued $26 million of the redeemed greenbacks, reversing the administration's previous policy of removing them from circulation.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=87–88}} This ignited a four-month debate in the Senate over whether and when the government should return to backing all of its currency with gold—including the remaining greenbacks. The majority, including Bayard, favored resumption, but in wording the resolution that passed the Senate, Republican [[John Sherman]] of Ohio left vague the exact timing; Bayard feared it would be put off indefinitely.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=87–88}} The Sherman bill also proposed to remove greenbacks from circulation by exchanging them for bonds payable in gold; in response, Bayard proposed an amendment limiting the amount of debt the government could incur.{{sfn|House 1940|p=61}} When the amendment was rejected, Bayard voted against the bill (known as the [[Specie Payment Resumption Act]]), believing that it was likely to cause inflation.{{sfn|House 1940|p=61}}

=== Election of 1876 ===
{{main|1876 United States presidential election}}

[[File:Electoral Commission (United States).jpg|thumb|270px|left|Bayard served on the [[Electoral Commission (United States)|Electoral Commission]] (pictured) that decided the disputed [[1876 United States presidential election|1876 presidential election]]]]

Bayard's popularity with his party had grown during his time in the Senate, and by 1875 he was seen as a contender for the presidency.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=100–101}} His advocacy of hard money had won him friends in some of the Northern cities, and his stance against Reconstruction made him popular throughout the South.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=104}} Competing for those same factions of the Democratic party was New York governor [[Samuel J. Tilden]], who had gained national fame for fighting the political corruption of [[William M. Tweed]]'s [[Tammany Hall]] machine in New York City.{{sfn|Robinson 1968|pp=64–67}} Other contenders included Governor [[Thomas A. Hendricks]] of Indiana and Major General [[Winfield Scott Hancock]].{{sfn|Robinson 1968|pp=64–67}} Tilden's wealth and national renown helped gather delegates to his cause, and in June 1876, he entered the convention with 404½ votes; Bayard placed fifth with 33.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=121–122}} Tilden was nominated on the second ballot.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=121–122}} Displeased with the result, Bayard nonetheless supported the Democratic nominee against Governor [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] of Ohio, the Republican candidate, speaking to large crowds in cities across the North and Midwest.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=131–132}}

On election day, the vote was close, but appeared to favor a Tilden victory.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=136}} Three days later, Tilden looked to have won 184 electoral votes, one short of a majority, while Hayes appeared to have 166 votes, with the votes of Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina still in doubt.{{efn|One of the three electors from Oregon (a state Hayes had won) was also disqualified, reducing Hayes's total to 165, and raising the disputed votes to 20.{{sfn|Robinson 1968|pp=126–128}}}}{{sfn|Robinson 1968|pp=126–128}} Each party sent their people to observe the vote in the disputed states. [[Abram Hewitt]], chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]], asked Bayard to travel to Louisiana along with several others, but Bayard refused to go.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=138–139}} The counts of the disputed ballots were inconclusive, with each state producing two sets of returns, one signed by Democratic officials, the other by Republicans, each claiming victory for their man. There was debate about which person or house of Congress was authorized to decide between the competing slates of electors, with the Republican Senate and the Democratic House each claiming priority.{{sfn|Robinson 1968|pp=145–154}} By January 1877, with the question still unresolved, Congress and President Grant agreed to submit the matter to a bipartisan [[Electoral Commission (United States)|Electoral Commission]], which would be authorized to determine the fate of the disputed electoral votes.{{sfn|Robinson 1968|pp=145–154}} Bayard supported the idea, and visited Tilden in New York to convince him that it was the only alternative to stalemate and possible renewed civil war.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=152–153}} The bill passed, with Bayard's vote, and provided for a commission of five representatives, five senators, and five Supreme Court justices.{{sfn|Robinson 1968|p=158}}

To ensure partisan balance, there would be seven Democrats and seven Republicans; the fifteenth member was to be a Supreme Court justice chosen by the other four on the commission (themselves two Republicans and two Democrats). Justice [[David Davis (Supreme Court justice)|David Davis]], an independent respected by both parties, was expected to be their choice.{{sfn|Robinson 1968|p=158}} Bayard was among the seven Democrats chosen.{{sfn|Robinson 1968|p=161}} Davis upset the careful planning by accepting election to the Senate by the state of Illinois and refusing to serve on the commission.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=170}} The remaining Supreme Court justices were all Republicans and, with the addition of Justice [[Joseph P. Bradley]] to the place intended for Davis, the commission had an 8–7 Republican majority.{{sfn|Robinson 1968|pp=159–161}} The commission met and considered all of the disputed ballots, awarding each to Hayes by an 8–7 party-line vote.{{sfn|Robinson 1968|pp=166–171}} Bayard and his fellow Democrats were outraged, and the Democratic majority in the House threatened to filibuster to prevent the results from being accepted.{{sfn|Robinson 1968|pp=171–183}} As the March 4 inauguration day approached, leaders of both parties met at [[Wormley's Hotel]] in Washington to negotiate [[Compromise of 1877|a compromise]]. Republicans promised that, in exchange for Democratic acquiescence in the committee's decision, Hayes would order federal troops to withdraw from the South and accept the election of Democratic governments in the remaining "unredeemed" states there.{{sfn|Robinson 1968|pp=182–184}} The Democrats agreed and the filibuster ended.{{sfn|Robinson 1968|pp=185–189}} Tilden later blamed Bayard, among others, for his role in creating the Electoral Commission, but Bayard defended his position, believing that the only alternative to the result was civil war.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=199–200}}

=== Gold standard ===
[[File:1856-S double eagle obverse.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Bayard was a strong supporter of gold-backed currency]]

In 1873, Congress had passed a [[Coinage Act of 1873|Coinage Act]] that regulated which coins were legal tender. The list of legal coins duplicated that of the previous coinage act, leaving off only the silver dollar and three smaller coins.{{sfn|Friedman 1990|pp=1163–1165}} The rationale in the Treasury report accompanying the draft bill was that to mint a gold dollar and a silver dollar with different intrinsic values was problematic; as the silver dollar did not circulate and the gold did, it made sense to drop the unused coin.{{sfn|Friedman 1990|pp=1163–1165}} The bill passed easily, with Bayard's support, but quickly thereafter became unpopular.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=205}} Opponents of the bill would later call this omission the "Crime of '73," and would mean it literally, circulating tales of bribery of Congressmen by foreign agents.{{sfn|Friedman 1990|pp=1165–1167}}

Over the next few years, pressure to reintroduce silver coinage grew, and cut across party lines.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=205}} In 1877, Republican Senator [[Stanley Matthews (judge)|Stanley Matthews]] of Ohio introduced a resolution to pay the national debt in silver instead of gold.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=207–208}} Bayard joined several Republicans in speaking and voting against the measure, calling it "folly," but it passed the Senate 42 to 20.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=209}} Meanwhile, Democrat [[Richard P. Bland]] of Missouri furthered the silver cause from the House, proposing a [[free silver]] bill that would require the United States to buy as much silver as miners could sell the government and strike it into coins, a system that would increase the money supply and aid debtors.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=206–207}}

In short, silver miners would sell the government metal worth fifty to seventy cents, and receive back a silver dollar. [[William B. Allison]], a pro-silver Republican from Iowa, offered an amendment in the Senate requiring the purchase of two to four million dollars per month of silver, but not allowing private deposit of silver at the mints.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=206–207}} Thus, the [[seignorage]], or difference between the face value of the coin and the worth of the metal contained within it accrued to the government's credit, not private citizens. Bayard saw the whole effort as the path to inflation and economic ruin.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=210}} Again, he spoke against the bill, but like the Matthews resolution, the [[Bland–Allison Act]] passed both houses of Congress in 1878. President Hayes shared Bayard's fear of inflation, and vetoed the bill, but Congress mustered the two-thirds vote necessary to overturn the veto, and it became law.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=210}}

=== Clashes with Hayes ===
The elections of 1878 returned control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats for the first time since before the Civil War. The new Democratic majority passed an army [[appropriation bill]] in 1879 with a [[Rider (legislation)|rider]] that repealed the [[Enforcement Acts]].{{sfn|Hoogenboom 1995|pp=392–402}} Those Acts, passed during Reconstruction, made it a crime to prevent someone from voting because of his race and allowed the use of federal troops to supervise elections. Bayard supported the effort, which passed both houses and sent to the President.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=230}} Hayes was determined to preserve the law to protect black voters, and he vetoed the appropriation.{{sfn|Hoogenboom 1995|pp=392–402}} Bayard spoke in favor of the bill, believing the time had come to end the military's involvement in Southern politics.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=230}} The Democrats did not have enough votes to override the veto, but they passed a new bill with the same rider. Hayes vetoed this as well, and the process was repeated three times more.{{sfn|Hoogenboom 1995|pp=392–402}} Finally, Hayes signed an appropriation without the rider, but Congress refused to pass another bill to fund federal marshals, who were vital to the enforcement of the Force Acts.{{sfn|Hoogenboom 1995|pp=392–402}} The election laws remained in effect, but the funds to enforce them were cut off.{{sfn|Hoogenboom 1995|pp=392–402}}

Bayard also clashed with Hayes on the issue of Chinese immigration. In 1868, the Senate had ratified the [[Burlingame Treaty]] with China, allowing an unrestricted flow of [[Chinese American history|Chinese immigrants]] into the country. Bayard criticized the treaty because it treated Americans and the Chinese as equal races, when he believed the latter was inferior.<ref>Beth Lew-Williams, The Chinese Must Go: Violence, Exclusion, and the Making of the Alien in America, 173 Harvard University Press (Cambridge 2018).</ref> As the economy soured after the Panic of 1873, Chinese immigrants were blamed for depressing workmen's wages.{{sfn|Hoogenboom 1995|p=387}} During the [[Great Railroad Strike of 1877]], anti-Chinese riots broke out in San Francisco, and a [[Third party (United States)|third party]], the [[Workingman's Party]], was formed with an emphasis on stopping Chinese immigration.{{sfn|Hoogenboom 1995|p=387}} Bayard favored some restriction on Chinese immigration and voted in favor of a Chinese Exclusion Act in 1879, which passed both houses that year.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=229–230}} Hayes vetoed the bill, believing that the United States should not abrogate treaties without negotiation.{{sfn|Hoogenboom 1995|pp=388–389}} The veto drew praise among some New England Republicans, but was bitterly denounced in the West.{{sfn|Hoogenboom 1995|pp=388–389}} After the veto, [[United States Assistant Secretary of State|Assistant Secretary of State]] [[Frederick W. Seward]] suggested that both countries work together to reduce immigration.{{sfn|Hoogenboom 1995|pp=390–391}} Congress passed a new law to that effect, the [[Chinese Exclusion Act]], in 1882.{{sfn|Hoogenboom 1995|pp=390–391}} Bayard supported this new act, which became law with President [[Chester A. Arthur]]'s signature that year.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=302}}

=== Election of 1880 ===
{{main|1880 United States presidential election}}

[[File:1880 DNC.jpg|thumb|The 1880 Democratic National Convention in Cincinnati's [[Music Hall (Cincinnati)|Music Hall]]]]

As the [[1880 United States presidential election|election of 1880]] drew near, Bayard was again regarded as a likely candidate.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=213}} Hayes had pledged himself to a one-term presidency, which meant the Republicans would not have the advantage of incumbency. On the Democratic side, Tilden was regarded as the natural choice, as many Democrats were still convinced he had been robbed of the office in 1876.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=213}} Tilden's supporters saw Bayard as a rival, and sought to smear him by suggesting he had colluded with Republicans to defeat Tilden in 1876.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=213}} Meanwhile, in the House, Tilden supporter [[Clarkson Nott Potter]] of New York began an investigation into the 1876 election, hoping that evidence of Republican malfeasance would harm that party's candidate in 1880.{{sfn|Guenther 1983|pp=283–284}} In fact, the Potter committee's investigation had the opposite effect, uncovering telegrams from Tilden's nephew, [[William Tilden Pelton]], that offered bribes to Southern Republicans in the disputed states to help Tilden claim their votes.{{sfn|Guenther 1983|pp=289–291}}{{efn|The Pelton telegrams were in cipher, which the committee was able to decrypt. Republicans had also sent ciphered dispatches, but the committee was unable to decode them.{{sfn|Guenther 1983|p=291}}}} The telegrams doomed Tilden's hopes for the nomination, and boosted Bayard's chance among the erstwhile Tilden supporters.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=220–221}}

As Tilden's star began to fade, many Democrats looked to Bayard. He remained popular in the Eastern cities for his conservatism and hard money beliefs, but many in the South, including Senator [[Augustus Hill Garland]] of [[Arkansas]], advised Bayard to embrace silver to help halt the defections of Southern and Western Democrats to the new [[Greenback Party]].{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=236–237}} Bayard declined to do so. He was also reluctant to strike a deal with John Kelly of New York, whose Tammany faction of the Democratic party was currently at odds with the Tilden machine there.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=217–220}} After the party rift caused the defeat of the Democratic governor in [[1879 New York state election|New York's 1879 election]], many Tilden adherents began to think their candidate could not win his home state, and drifted to Bayard, among others.{{sfn|Clancy 1958|pp=63–65}} Tilden's supporters attempted to weaken Bayard in February 1880 by publishing the speech he gave in Dover in 1861, in which he said that the United States should acquiesce in Southern secession.{{sfn|Clancy 1958|pp=66–67}} At the same time, Bayard's uncompromising stance on the money question pushed some Democrats to support Major General Winfield Scott Hancock, who had not been identified with either extreme in the gold-silver debate and had a military record that appealed to Northerners.{{sfn|Clancy 1958|pp=68–70}}

Leading up to [[1880 Democratic National Convention|the convention]] in [[Cincinnati]], Tilden remained ambiguous about his intentions.{{sfn|Clancy 1958|pp=76–77}} [[George Gray (Delaware politician)|George Gray]], Delaware's attorney general, placed Bayard's name in nomination, calling the senator "a veteran, covered in scars of many a hard-fought battle, where the principles of constitutional liberty have been at stake&nbsp;... Bayard is a statesman who will need no introduction to the American people."{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=279}} When the convention took its first ballot on June 23, Bayard placed second with 153½ votes, trailing only Hancock, who had 171.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=280}} On the second ballot, the delegates broke for Hancock, and he was nominated.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=280}} The Southern delegates, whom Bayard thought would be most loyal to him, were among the first to desert him.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=281}} The convention nominated [[William Hayden English]] of [[Indiana]], a Bayard supporter and hard-money man, for vice president, and then closed.{{sfn|Clancy 1958|pp=140–141}} Bayard's supporters were disappointed, but he supported the ticket as usual, in the interest of party unity.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=285–288}} Hancock and English fought to a near-draw in the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote to [[James A. Garfield]] and Chester A. Arthur by 214 to 155.{{sfn|Clancy 1958|p=242}}

===Budget surplus and civil service reform===
The Delaware legislature re-elected Bayard to the Senate for a third term in 1881 without serious opposition.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=295}} The Senate in the [[47th United States Congress|47th Congress]] was evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, with the new vice president, Arthur, holding the tie-breaking vote.{{efn|The Senate contained 37 Democrats, 37 Republicans, and two independents, one of which caucused with each major party.}} After spending the special session of March 1881 in an intra-Republican Party fight over the confirmation of Garfield's cabinet nominees, the Senate went into recess until October.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=296–299}} By that time, [[Assassination of James A. Garfield|Garfield had been assassinated]] and Arthur was president.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=296–299}} When the Senate reconvened, the Democrats held the majority briefly, and Bayard was elected [[President pro tempore of the United States Senate|president pro tempore]] on October 10; Republicans regained the majority three days later as Republican latecomers arrived and were sworn in, and David Davis took over the office.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|pp=296–299}}

Among the issues confronting the Senate was the surplus of government funds. With high revenue held over from wartime taxes, the federal government had collected more than it spent since 1866; by 1882 the surplus reached $145 million.{{sfn|Reeves 1975|pp=328–329}} Opinions varied on how to [[Balanced budget|balance the budget]]; the Democrats wished to lower [[tariff]]s, in order to reduce revenues and the cost of imported goods, while Republicans believed that high tariffs ensured high wages in manufacturing and mining. They preferred the government spend more on [[internal improvements]] and pensions for Civil War soldiers while reducing [[excise]] taxes.{{sfn|Reeves 1975|pp=328–329}} Bayard did not oppose some veterans' pensions, but worried that pensions would require continued high tariffs, which he opposed.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=300}} He supported the movement for a commission to examine the tariff and suggest improvements, but opposed the resulting [[Tariff of 1883]], which reduced tariffs by an average of 1.47%.{{sfnm|Tansill 1946||1pp=300–301, 308–309|Reeves 1975||2pp=334–335}} Congressional Republicans also sought to deplete the surplus through a Rivers and Harbors Act that increased spending on internal improvements; Bayard opposed the bill and was gratified when Arthur vetoed it against his own party's wishes.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=307}}

Bayard and Arthur also agreed on the need for civil service reform. Garfield's assassination by a deranged office seeker amplified the public demand for civil service reform.{{sfn|Reeves 1975|pp=320–324}} Leaders of both parties, including Bayard, realized that they could attract the votes of reformers by turning against the [[spoils system]] and, by 1882, a bipartisan effort began in favor of reform.{{sfn|Reeves 1975|pp=320–324}} In 1880, Democratic Senator [[George H. Pendleton]] of Ohio introduced legislation that required selection of civil servants based on merit as determined by an [[Civil service examination|examination]], but the bill did not pass.{{sfn|Reeves 1975|pp=320–324}} After the 1882 congressional elections, in which Democrats campaigned successfully on the reform issue, the Pendleton bill was proposed again, and again Bayard supported it, saying that "the offices of this Government are created&nbsp;... for the public service and not for the private use of incumbents."{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=307}} The Senate approved the bill 38–5 and the House soon concurred by a vote of 155–47.{{sfn|Reeves 1975|pp=320–324}} Arthur signed the [[Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act]] into law on January&nbsp;16, 1883.{{sfn|Reeves 1975|pp=320–324}}

===Election of 1884===
[[File:Interstate Industrial Exposition Building.png|thumb|Both the Republicans and Democrats held their conventions at Chicago's Interstate Industrial Exposition Hall in 1884.]]
{{main|1884 United States presidential election}}
Despite his rebukes at the Democratic national conventions in 1876 and 1880, Bayard was again considered among the leading candidates for the nomination in 1884.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=310}} Tilden again was ambiguous about his willingness to run, but by 1883 New York's new governor, [[Grover Cleveland]], began to surpass Tilden as a likely candidate.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=310}} After Tilden definitively bowed out in June 1884, many of his former supporters began to flock to Bayard.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=314}} Many Democrats were concerned with Cleveland's ability to carry his home state after he, like Tilden before him, became embroiled in a feud with the Tammany Hall wing of the party.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=317}} At the same time, the Tammany Democrats became more friendly to Bayard.{{sfn|Blodgett 1992|p=151}}

By the time the Democrats had assembled in Chicago on July 8, 1884, to begin their convention, the Republicans had already picked their nominee: [[James G. Blaine]] of [[Maine]]. Blaine's nomination turned many reform-minded Republicans (known as [[Mugwump]]s) away from their party. Bayard and Cleveland, seen as honest politicians, were the Democrats most favored by the renegade Republican faction.{{sfn|Blodgett 1992|pp=149–150}} Bayard was optimistic at the start of [[1884 Democratic National Convention|the convention]], but the results of the first ballot ran heavily against him: 170 votes to Cleveland's 392.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=332}} The reason was the same as in 1880: as Representative [[Robert S. Stevens (politician)|Robert S. Stevens]] of New York said, "I believe if he were President his Administration would be one in which every American citizen would take pride. I believe he is a patriot, but it would be a suicidal attempt to nominate him. His [1861] Dover speech would be sent into every household in the North."{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=325}} The voting the next day demonstrated the point, as Cleveland was nominated on the second ballot.{{sfn|Tansill 1946|p=332}}

The resulting campaign between Cleveland and Blaine focused more on scandal and mudslinging than the issues of the day.{{sfn|Welch 1988|p=33}} In the end, Cleveland eked out a narrow victory. Carrying New York was crucial for the Democrat; a shift of just 550 votes in that state would have given the election to Blaine.{{sfn|Welch 1988|pp=40–41}} Instead, Cleveland carried his home state and a Democrat was elected president for the first time since 1856.