Meaning: The quote by Michael Beschloss, a renowned historian, touches upon the historical significance of political conventions in the United States. It reflects on the often arduous and protracted nature of the nomination process during these conventions, highlighting the complex dynamics and divisions that could arise among the delegates. To fully understand the quote, it is essential to delve into the historical context of political conventions and their role in shaping the American political landscape.

Political conventions have been a cornerstone of the American democratic process since the early 19th century. They serve as gatherings where party members, delegates, and officials come together to select their party's nominee for the upcoming presidential election. These events have been instrumental in shaping the course of American politics, often serving as the stage for the introduction of new ideas, the resolution of internal conflicts, and the emergence of influential political figures.

The period in which conventions "really did business," as Beschloss describes it, points to a time when these events held significant sway over the nomination process. In the early days of American politics, conventions were characterized by intense debates, strategic maneuvering, and the culmination of prolonged decision-making processes. The nomination of a presidential candidate was not a foregone conclusion but rather a result of intricate negotiations and deliberations among the delegates.

The quote also alludes to the inherent divisions that could emerge among the delegates during these conventions. The delegates, representing diverse factions within the party, often held divergent views and allegiances, leading to contentious and protracted nomination battles. The process of selecting a nominee could extend over multiple rounds of voting, as each ballot failed to produce a clear consensus. This dynamic mirrors the complex and often tumultuous nature of American politics, where competing interests and ideologies vie for prominence within the party structure.

Beschloss's observation underscores the historical reality that the road to selecting a presidential nominee was not always smooth or predetermined. Instead, it was marked by uncertainty, contention, and the need for persistent negotiation and compromise. The prolonged nature of the nomination process reflects the intricate balance of power and influence within the party, as well as the evolving dynamics of American society and politics.

In conclusion, Michael Beschloss's quote encapsulates the historical significance of political conventions in the United States and the challenging nature of the nomination process. It sheds light on the complex interplay of factors that shaped these events, from the divisions among delegates to the prolonged deliberations required to reach a final nominee. By exploring the historical context of political conventions, we gain a deeper understanding of the enduring impact these gatherings have had on American democracy and the political landscape.