Was Lincoln convention really the good old days?

In his moving farewell speech to the Republicans in New Orleans,Ronald Reagan joked about remembering his own first Republicanconvention, how great Lincoln's speech was back there in 1860. Itwas only a joke, of course, not literally true of Reagan - but notany more true of Lincoln. Neither man was in Chicago when theRepublicans nominated their "rail-splitter" candidate.

Lincoln was impatiently waiting out the results downstate in hisSpringfield home, while his agents worked out the defeat of WilliamSeward, the real favorite of the Republican delegates that year.

Nor did Lincoln rush up to Chicago, a quick rail trip, after hisnomination was secured. The dramatic arrival of the nominee at theconvention was something Franklin Roosevelt would pioneer in 1932,using the comparatively primitive technology of aviation.

Those who think modern television too intrusive may have preferred the "goodold days" when communication was primarily through politicalintermediaries. So true was this that Charles Evans Hughes lost thepresidential election of 1916 because his campaign manager blocked ameeting with Hiram Johnson of California, out of a private politicalfeud - and California's electoral vote, just barely lost to Hughes asit was, would have carried the day.

In 1860, Lincoln let his lieutenants do all the dirty work thatled to his nomination in the specially built "wigwam" of Chicago.That was probably the most corrupt convention in our history, asreported by Murat Halstead. Joseph Medill of the Chicago Tribuneshowed what a press lord could do in back rooms when no intrusivecameras were watching. Seward delegates were physically kept out ofthe wigwam. Ballots were not printed during the period when Sewardheld a clear lead. Posts in a Lincoln administration were promisedas bribes (and Lincoln fulfilled the commitments).

Lincoln was chosen because his opposition to slavery was vaguerthan Seward's; his supporters recommended him because he had less ofa record to defend. He built on that recommendation by refusing togive a single campaign speech, or even a statement in response toeditors' questions, during the campaign. He argued that discussingthe issues would be divisive.

People remember the Lincoln who debated Stephen Douglas for theSenate in 1858, not the Lincoln who refused to debate the presidencyin 1860.

Political conventions have come in for a good deal of criticismthis year. But if President Reagan, or his fellow countrymen, reallyremembered what the Lincoln convention was like, they might be lessharsh about our current arrangements.

It is a striking irony that the worst Republican conventiongave us one of our best presidents. But we cannot always count onthe blessings of corruption; better TV at the front door than thepress lords in the back room.

Garry Wills' column is distributed by Universal Press Syndicate.