In the 1930s, the Progressive Party came to power in Wisconsin. They were a liberal offshoot of the Republican Party, breaking away because the Republicans didn’t want to support the New Deal. However, starting in 1938, Republicans were regaining power, and 1942 was another year of loss, with Progressive incumbent Bernard J. Gehrmann losing reelection to journalist and educator Alvin Edward O’Konski (1904-1987).

O’Konski was a Republican, but would prove to be his own man in office. He said of himself that “I’m a New Deal Democrat domestically and a rabid conservative internationally” (McConaughy, 130). His mix of politics constituted quite a balancing act for his primarily Scandinavian working class district in the state’s northwest. As part of his international conservatism, he was an in-demand speaker for anti-communist ethnic groups and this was one of the things he became most known for. O’Konski also had an early accomplishment as she was one of the coauthors of the G.I. Bill of Rights in 1944. Although independent, O’Konski largely got behind the conservative domestic agenda of the 80^th Congress with his support for tax reduction, anti-communist domestic legislation, and the Taft-Hartley Act and, consistent with his stated stance on foreign policy, voted against aid to Greece and Turkey as well as the Marshall Plan. He would nonetheless be one of the more supportive Republicans of the Truman Administration’s domestic policy, voting for a mandatory Fair Employment Practices Committee, middle-income housing aid, upholding price and rent controls, and against removing the natural gas from the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission. However, he proved a reliable Republican vote for the classic issue of tariffs, opposed the Brannan Plan (guaranteed minimum income for farmers), and supported the Knowland Amendment restricting federal authority over state unemployment compensation. O’Konski’s record on organized labor was, despite his support of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, mostly favorable. He had opposed the Smith-Connally Act in 1943, opposed the Case bill in 1946, supported revising the Taft-Hartley Act in 1949, opposed the 1959 Landrum-Griffin substitute to labor reform legislation, and in 1965 he supported repealing the “right to work” provision of the Taft-Hartley Act. A change in administration to one of his party, if anything, boosted his independence.

O’Konski and Eisenhower

Congressman O’Konski was not known for towing the party line as previously noted, and this wouldn’t change under President Eisenhower. Indeed, he was to Eisenhower’s left on domestic policy but far to his right on foreign policy with his refusal to support foreign aid. Life Magazine profiled O’Konski as one of the Eisenhower Administration’s Republican dissenters, noting “O’Konski opposes Eisenhower on taxes (he wants to increase personal exemptions), is against foreign aid, against reciprocal trade, against raising postal rates, against the farm program, against increasing the debt limit. He favors the Bricker Amendment” (McConaughy, 130). Indeed, Eisenhower’s farm program sought to reduce price supports and thus make agriculture more oriented to the free market, which met with opposition from several Wisconsin politicians interested in propping up the dairy industry, including Senator Joseph McCarthy. When Agriculture Secretary Ezra Taft Benson cut dairy price supports, O’Konski demanded his resignation (McConaughy, 130). In 1957, he ran for the Republican nomination to succeed the late Joseph McCarthy, but lost.

Federal vs. State Authority

On the matter of federal vs. state authority, O’Konski frequently sided with federal. He voted against the 1953 Tidelands Bill, against the 1958 and 1959 anti-preemption bills, and against the 1964 bill restricting the jurisdiction of federal courts in state legislative apportionment cases. However, O’Konski also backed local option for rent control in 1949, as previously noted supported the 1950 Knowland Amendment, and supported block grants for anti-crime programs in 1967. Speaking of federal vs. state relations…

O’Konski on Civil Rights

By and large Congressman O’Konski supported civil rights legislation. A curious vote, however, was his vote against final passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, although in his case it was certainly on the grounds that it was not strong enough, as he had voted against weakening the bill with a jury trial amendment. He supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, including opposing a Republican substitute to the latter. He supported both the proposed Civil Rights Act of 1966 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 but had voted to strike the fair housing section from the former. Consistent with what organized labor wanted, O’Konski voted to kill the Philadelphia Plan in 1969. He also drew the line at using busing as a means of school desegregation. This was a civil rights record that satisfied both the want of the north for civil rights legislation to end Jim Crow but also fit the views of socially conservative union members.

O’Konski and the Sixties

During the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, O’Konski was one of the most favorable to their domestic agendas in the GOP. He supported expanding the House Rules Committee to ease passage of legislation, the accelerated public works program, supported a strong minimum wage increase, and was one of the few Republicans to support bringing the Administration’s education bill to the House floor for consideration. He would also support federal aid to mass transit, food stamps, and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Although O’Konski supported Medicare, he also supported the Republican substitute. By contrast, on foreign policy, he could not be counted for the Democrats at all and opposed President Kennedy’s Trade Expansion Act.

Interestingly, O’Konski had a particularly loud voice on issues regarding the District of Columbia. He was one of the leading opponents of D.C. home rule, motioning to kill the home rule bill in 1965. He also opposed a mass transit system for the city on cost grounds, but he changed his mind. O’Konski’s combination of support for New Dealish domestic policies and his ultra-conservatism on foreign policy was a winning combo for his Fond du Lac based district, him often winning reelection by double digits, even in the difficult years of 1958 and 1964. However, he was not invincible, and the Nixon years would prove it.

Decline of Support for O’Konski

Although O’Konski had won yet another blowout election victory in 1968, his margin was cut massively for the 1970 election. He won reelection by less than three points, his worst performance so far. What made for the decline? After all, he had been keeping up with his record of anti-communism with his support for Nixon’s approach to the Vietnam War and his independence from the GOP on numerous domestic issues. The truth is as they say, politics is local, and O’Konski had fatefully backed the U.S. Navy’s Project Sanguine, that sought to install thousands of antenna in northern Wisconsin’s forests and furthermore President Nixon’s wheat deal with Russia had angered farmers (Time Magazine, 1972). Matters got worse for him when Wisconsin lost a district in the 1970 census, which resulted in his district being merged with that of Democrat Dave Obey, who was highly popular in his district. Making matters worse yet again, George McGovern was polling pretty well in this new district, him being even with Nixon, and even O’Konski himself said that “it’ll be the toughest race I have ever had. No question about that” (Time Magazine). And indeed it was, on Election Day 1972, Obey won by over 25 points, ending O’Konski’s 30-year career. Ideological assessments of him are pretty consistent: he sided with the liberal Americans for Democratic Action 45% of the time, the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action 53% of the time, and his DW-Nominate score stands at 0.067. All measures I employ thus place him, on average, in the center. O’Konski died of heart failure on July 8, 1987, at the age of 83.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Voting Records

Alvin O’Konski, 83, Former Congressman. (1987, July 9). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

McConaughy, J.L. (1954, June 21). While Eisenhower Proposes, The Old Guard Disposes. Life Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://books.google.com/books?id=bVMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125#v=onepage&q&f=false

O’Konski, Alvin Edward. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/7046/alvin-edward-o-konski

The House: Pick of the Biennial Races. (1972, November 5). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6875678/the-house-pick-of-the-biennial-races

After World War II, a new class of Republicans gained prominence; those who believed that the Republican Party needed to embrace internationalism and hold to Senator Vandenberg’s “politics stops at the water’s edge” line and tone down their opposition to New Deal policies. This sort of Republican, the sort that President Eisenhower called a “modern Republican”, fit New Jersey’s Howard Alexander Smith (1880-1966) to a tee.

As a young man, Smith attended Princeton University, where he was educated by none other than Woodrow Wilson, who he said was “the greatest teacher I ever had” and that he inspired him to enter public service (The New York Times). He subsequently attended Columbia University to earn his law degree. Smith was also in his early years influenced by progressive reformer Jacob Riis’ book, “How the Other Half Lives” on slum conditions, by the time he pursued a political career he had come to believe that increased domestic government was dangerous to individual freedom (The New York Times). Despite his view of Woodrow Wilson, Smith would not join his party. However, Wilson did impact his support for internationalism. Smith would have a long experience with foreign policy, with him working for Herbert Hoover under the United States Food Administration to feed the population of Europe after World War I. Although Smith made a lot of his money as a New York City attorney, he would move to New Jersey and served as executive secretary for Princeton University during the 1920s and be a lecturer from 1927 to 1930. His political career, however, did not start until he became active in the state’s GOP as treasurer of the New Jersey Republican State Committee. Smith would eventually serve as the head of New Jersey’s Republican Party and was a member of the Republican National Committee from 1942 to 1943.

During World War II, Smith’s chance at elected office came when Senator W. Warren Barbour died on November 22, 1943, and he ran to finish his term in 1944. He had a close race against Congressman Elmer Wene, but prevailed by under 2 points. As a senator, Smith quickly established himself as one of the chamber’s leading Republican internationalists on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In 1948, he sponsored with Rep. Karl Mundt (R-S.D.) the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act, permitting the State Department to make international broadcasts, one of these being the Voice of America. He broadly followed the conservative line on matters of taxes and organized labor. Smith was a staunchly religious man, praying every morning on matters from public policy to where he should vacation and maintaining a journal (Inboden).

In 1950, Smith led the fight against including foreign aid programs in budget cuts; he was successful in preventing a cut in Marshall Plan assistance but the Senate rejected his effort to exempt Point IV aid. Although Smith initially opposed a loan to Francoist Spain in 1949, the following year he voted along with most senators for a loan; the Korean War had since begun. In 1951, he figured prominently in the “Great Debate” over how many troops the U.S. could commit to Europe without Congressional authorization as part of NATO, and opposed the limitation adopted by the Senate. However, the following year Smith voted to limit presidential authority to participate in NATO military planning. He had a difficult vote when in 1951, he was the deciding vote on whether the Senate would proceed with the nomination of Philip Jessup as a delegate to the UN General Assembly. Jessup had been one of the State Department officials critical of Nationalist China and had bought the narrative pushed by the communists that they were democratic. Smith had strongly supported Nationalist China and his decision became more complex after Senator Joseph McCarthy had accused Jessup of being a conscious agent of the communist conspiracy. Smith reasoned in his decision, “I have known Philip Jessup for many years and I have absolute confidence in his integrity, ability and loyalty to his country. I am convinced that he has not and never had any connection with the Communist Party” but added, “the real issue raised by Dr. Jessup’s nomination in the light of past and present events is the approval or disapproval of our overall Far Eastern policy. Dr. Jessup has been identified with those forces in and outside the Administration which were responsible for the Far Eastern policy which has led to the present crisis. He was editor of the China white paper…He participated in the unfortunate events which led to the summary dismissal of General MacArthur. He is the symbol of a group attitude toward Asia which seems to have been proven completely unsound. This is not a case of mere difference of opinion. This is an issue that may well involve the future of Asia and the world” (Time Magazine). Therefore, despite pressures on him to rebut McCarthy’s accusations by voting to confirm, Smith voted to reject the nomination. Truman, however, gave him a recess appointment. However, Smith was far from a supporter of McCarthy’s style. He voted for the nomination of Charles Bohlen as Ambassador to the USSR in 1953, to which McCarthy led the opposition, and opposed McCarthy’s 1953 effort to cut foreign aid to nations that trade with Red China. He would unsurprisingly vote for McCarthy’s censure. Smith initially opposed the St. Lawrence Seaway and successfully motioned to kill its construction in 1948. However, President Eisenhower’s support for the Seaway may have moved him to vote for the 1954 Wiley-Dondero Act to construct it. That year, consistent with his internationalism, he opposed the Bricker Amendment to restrain what the president could do with executive orders, which failed Senate ratification by one vote.

Although Smith’s record was mostly supportive of civil rights measures, he was also cautious, believing that using force to achieve desegregation was unwise, stating, “you’ll never do it with paratroopers” (The New York Times). Although he voted against the jury trial amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 he voted for Anderson-Aiken-Case Amendment, deleting the section permitting the Attorney General to enter into civil suits for preventative relief in civil rights cases, even if all remedies had not been exhausted. On revelations of union corruption, in 1958 Smith supported most proposals to curb the power of organized labor. By contrast, his considerably more liberal Republican colleague Clifford Case opposed the 1958 proposals. That year, Smiith sided with the Eisenhower Administration in its opposition to the Anti-Preemption bill to curb the Supreme Court’s authority to review state anti-subversive laws.

By 1957, Smith was 77 years old and conflicted on retirement. On one hand, he was cognizant of his aging but on the other he wanted his party to avoid a bruising primary, but ultimately his age as well as Congressman Robert Kean announcing his run motivated his dropping out. All three metrics I like to use paint a picture of a moderate: he sided with the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action 61% of the time, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action 40% of the time, and he has a DW-Nominate score of 0.159. Smith no doubt fit the mold of the “modern Republican” or the “country club Republican” His nephew, Peter H. Dominick, would serve in the House as a Republican from Colorado from 1961 to 1963 and then senator from 1963 to 1975. Sadly, Smith’s son, H. Alexander Jr., predeceased him in 1964. Smith died of a stroke on October 27, 1966 at the age of 86.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Voting Records

Inboden, W. (2008). Religion and American foreign policy, 1945-1960. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Retrieved from

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/religion-and-american-foreign-policy-19451960/guided-by-god-the-unusual-decisionmaking-of-senator-h-alexander-smith/0A45A8602B5E4B9EBDFFEB1040FAEFA6

H. Alexander Smith, 86, Dies. (1966, October 28). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Smith, Howard Alexander. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/8635/howard-alexander-smith

The Congress: Difficult Vote. (1951, October 28). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6886457/the-congress-difficult-vote/

William S. Vare (R-Penn.), whose right to serve in the Senate was successfully contested.

When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, it set three requirements for being a senator, they are as follows:

“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen” (U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3).

After the War of the Rebellion, requirements were added that senators not have engaged in rebellion or treason. For conservatives on this issue, these were all that were required for seating. The circumstances of state elections were a state matter, whether widespread voting irregularities or violations of campaign finance law had occurred or not, and that any investigations should occur after, not before seating. For the ever-reform minded progressives, this would simply not do, and the 1920s in particular was a time for challenging elections. In that decade, there were seven contests of Senate elections. These were of Truman Newberry of Michigan, Earle Mayfield of Texas, Thomas Schall of Minnesota, Sam Bratton of New Mexico, Smith Brookhart of Iowa, William Vare of Pennsylvania, and Frank Smith of Illinois.

Truman Newberry: The Price of Crossing Henry Ford

Although the election happened in 1918, the case of Truman Newberry dragged into the 1920s. President Wilson had recruited Ford to run for the Senate to advance his message for peace and the League of Nations. He ran for both the Democratic and Republican nominations, believing that the Michigan public would overwhelmingly embrace him, the esteemed automaker. However, only the Democrats nominated him, with another wealthy individual, Truman Newberry, winning the Republican nomination. Ford was peeved that the Republicans didn’t nominate him, and although the race was close, Newberry won. He had spent a lot of money financing attacks against Ford’s pacifism, his anti-Semitism, and having allegedly engaged in extraordinary efforts to prevent his son Edsel from being drafted (U.S. Senate, Newberry). Newberry proved to be a staunch conservative who proved a thorn in Wilson’s side, including on the League of Nations. However, Newberry’s campaign had received and spent over $175,000, far above the $3,750 limit imposed by Michigan state law as well as the Federal Corrupt Practices Act on primary spending (U.S. Senate, Newberry). Although Newberry claimed ignorance of illegal campaign contributions and spending, that is not what the evidence indicated. He was indicted on November 29, 1919 along with 134 associates and convicted of violating the Federal Corrupt Practices Act on March 20, 1920, but he appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 in Newberry v. United States that the section of the Corrupt Practices Act that covered state primaries was unconstitutional and 9-0 that the judge in the case had given erroneous jury instructions (U.S. Senate, Newberry). Republicans in the 67^th Congress managed to block an effort to unseat Newberry and

voted 46-41 that he was the elected senator from Michigan. Republicans asserted that his Navy service in New York City at the time of the primary precluded extensive knowledge about campaign spending, the Democratic minority disagreed, asserting that he knew full well (U.S. Senate, Newberry). the 1922 midterms promised a much more difficult Senate and progressive Republicans were keen on joining with Democrats to oust Newberry. Thus, he opted to resign instead of facing a grueling battle.

In the end, Ford did get his way. Newberry was out, and his successor was James Couzens. Although Couzens was a Republican, he was on the party’s progressive wing and was formerly vice president of Ford Motors, thus far more palatable to Henry Ford. Newberry would never run for public office again and Couzens would remain in the Senate until his death in 1936.

Schall vs. Johnson: Bull Moose v. Farmer-Labor

On April 28, 1923, Minnesota’s longtime Republican senator, Knute Nelson, died at the age of 80. Nelson had been a moderate conservative, but the Minnesota GOP was getting a challenge from the state’s Farmer-Labor Party, which was an economically progressive break-away from the GOP, and they succeeded in electing Magnus Johnson. However, Republicans picked a strong candidate for a full term in Thomas D. Schall, who had a history as a Bull Moose Republican, and he defeated Johnson by less than 8,000 votes in the 1924 election. Johnson challenged the election, claiming excessive campaign spending, scurrilous allegations against him, . The testimony of eight pro-Johnson witnesses did not produce any evidence connecting Schall to wrongdoing, and the investigating committee unanimously recommended that he be seated, and the Senate agreed (U.S. Senate, Schall). Schall would serve in the Senate until he was killed when a motorist accidentally struck him in 1935, and Magnus Johnson served a term in the House from 1933 to 1935, dying in 1936.

Mayfield vs. Peddy: A Quixotic Challenge

In 1922, the Senate election in Texas was Democrat Earle B. Mayfield against George E.B. Peddy, who was running both as a Republican and an Independent. Once the primaries were over, the winner was not in doubt as at the time statewide races (and indeed most other races in Texas) the winner was going to be a Democrat. On Election Day, Mayfield was elected, with strong support from the Ku Klux Klan, with 2/3’s of the vote. What was Peddy’s case for challenging the election? He challenged the procedures of the Democratic primary, excessive expenditures, voter fraud, and cited KKK involvement (U.S. Senate, Mayfield). However, Mayfield’s lead was insurmountably strong, even if there were shady practices he was going to be the winner in the general election given that the state was still part of the “Solid South” at the time. The Senate dismissed the challenge. Mayfield’s electoral fortunes had risen with the Klan, and they fell with the Klan too. He was defeated for renomination in 1928 by Congressman Tom Connally, who ran against him on an anti-Klan platform.

Brookhart vs. Steck: Progressive Republican vs. Moderate Democrat

In this case, the Senate outright rejected the election result and seated Democrat Daniel Steck. This was in part the product of Democratic partisanship but also in part the product of infighting between the conservative and progressive factions of the Republican Party. The controversy began when Brookhart, who had been elected in a special election to succeed William S. Kenyon, was running for a full term as a Republican. However, instead of endorsing Republican nominee Calvin Coolidge, he endorsed Progressive Robert La Follette of Wisconsin and campaigned for him after his nomination. This enraged many rank-and-file Iowa Republicans, who considered this trickery. The election reflected Republican faction tensions in this historically Republican state, with Brookhart only winning in official returns by around 800 votes to Democrat Daniel Steck, who was running as a moderate. Some conservatives in the GOP preferred reducing their majority by one because they found Steck ideologically preferable. In this case, despite the voters having voted for Brookhart, the full Senate voted to seat Steck. This was interestingly not a party-line vote, and there were seven Democrats who voted for Brookhart, including Mississippi’s Hubert Stephens, who wrote in defense of Brookhart’s election. A majority of Republicans voted for Brookhart, even a number of dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, although this was not out of sympathy for the views of Brookhart, rather because they did not believe the Senate should be rejecting winners of the state’s vote. In 1926, Brookhart successfully rebuked the Senate’s ruling on him when he defeated incumbent Albert B. Cummins for renomination and was elected. There is no better revenge than success, and there was no challenge that time.

The Republican establishment would ultimately oust Brookhart in the 1932 nomination contest, but the seat would be won by Democrat Louis Murphy, with Brookhart running as an independent Progressive candidate. Whether Brookhart would have won as a Republican in 1932 we can only speculate.

Bratton vs. Bursum: A Nothing-burger Challenge

Although New Mexico had been a Republican state when it was first admitted, by the 1920s Democrats were starting to gain power, and 1924 promised to be a close election between incumbent Holm O. Bursum, a high-tariff conservative Republican, and Judge Sam G. Bratton, a progressive Democrat. On Election Day, although New Mexico easily voted for President Coolidge, they did not do likewise for Bursum, with Bratton winning by 2.5%. Bursum challenged the election, claiming voter fraud. He claimed that eligible Indians were denied the vote while aliens, minors, college students voting from outside of their homes, and ex-cons were illegally allowed to vote (U.S. Senate). Although the Senate pushed Burusm to produce his evidence of such wrongdoing, he delayed for weeks and when he finally presented his evidence, although it reduced Bratton’s margin of victory, it fell far short of the irregularities alleged and Bratton kept his seat. Bursum would not seek public office again while Bratton would resign from the Senate in 1933 to accept a presidential appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Democratic dominance of New Mexico would follow, with Republicans only making consistent gains starting in the late 1960s.

The Senate Contends with Big City Political Machinery: The Cases of Vare and Smith

Big city politics have had a reputation for corruption, and this was certainly the case with the Republican machines existing in Philadelphia and Chicago in the 1920s. In 1926, Congressman William S. Vare, the head of the Philadelphia machine, had defeated incumbent George W. Pepper for renomination. Pennsylvania was a very Republican state at that time and had not voted for a Democrat since 1856. The Democratic challenger was former Secretary of Labor William B. Wilson. The official results put Vare over the top with 54.6% of the vote as opposed to Wilson’s 43.1%, which was a respectable result for a Democrat at the time. It should also be noted that Wilson was leading until Philadelphia was counted (Hill). There was considerable doubt in the outcome and many did not want Philadelphia’s boss to be senator. The doubt in the Senate election in Pennsylvania was such that the state’s progressive Republican governor, Gifford Pinchot, refused to certify the election, instead stating that Vare “appears” to have been elected (Hill). However, Pinchot was finishing his term, and his successor, John Fisher, certified Vare.

The other highly contested race was Republican Frank L. Smith’s win with 46.9% of the vote, with Democrat George E. Brennan netting 43.1% of the vote. Smith had defeated incumbent William B. McKinley, who died shortly after his loss, on the issue of the U.S. joining the World Court. He received considerable campaign contributions from the controversial Samuel Insull, the holding company baron who played a major role in setting up America’s electrical grid. The problem? Smith chaired the Illinois Commerce Commission, which regulated utilities. This led to allegations of corruption by Smith, that he was giving Insull an easy ride in exchange for campaign financing. Senator Thaddeus Caraway (D-Ark.) took up the mantle against him. Obtaining information about spending on the Illinois race was not so cut-and-dry for the Senate, as the case of Newberry v. United States put primary campaigns out of the reach of regulation by the Senate and Illinois had no law capping campaign expenditures (U.S. Senate, Smith).

Vare and Smith were elected with strong support of corrupt political machines and extensive evidence was presented of illicit voting practices and excessive campaign financing. Conservatives held that because Vare and Smith met Constitutional requirements that they should be seated and then investigations into their elections proceed, but the fiercely independent William Borah (R-Idaho) was not having it, stating that the Senate had the right to deny them seating and considered doing so acting in the Senate’s preservation (Hill). Although the Senate concluded that despite voting irregularities that Vare had won the election, but that such widespread irregularities and excessive campaign spending had tainted his victory. Vare spoke in his defense, “How unfair and unjust my accusers have been in attempting to twist mere clerical irregularities and technicalities into acts of political fraud and conspiracy!” (Hill) Both were denied seating, although neither Wilson nor Brennan were ruled the winners. Ultimately Pennsylvania Republican Joseph Grundy, a prominent and staunchly conservative industrialist and lobbyist, was appointed interim senator while in Illinois, Republican Otis Glenn won the special election against future Chicago mayor Anton Cermak. The stress of the investigation broke Vare’s health, and he suffered a stroke on August 2, 1928, from which he never fully recovered. Although Vare tried to get back in as a Republican in 1930, the Republican organization turned on him and selected James J. Davis, Secretary of Labor under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, instead. Curiously, Vare would attempt a comeback by running for the Democratic nomination for the Senate in 1932, but he suffered another stroke, ending any prospects of return. He died of a heart attack on August 7, 1934.

References

Expulsion Case of Truman Newberry of Michigan. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/expulsion/102TrumanNewberry_expulsion.htm

Hill, R. (2026, March 15). The Boss of Philadelphia: William S. Vare of Pennsylvania. The Knoxville Focus.

Retrieved from

https://www.knoxfocus.com/archives/this-weeks-focus/the-boss-of-philadelphia-william-s-vare-of-pennsylvania/

The Election Case of Daniel F. Steck v. Smith W. Brookhart. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators/contested-senate-elections/105Steck_Brookhart.htm

The Election Case of Frank L. Smith of Illinois. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators/contested-senate-elections/110Frank_Smith.htm

The Election Case of George E.B. Peddy v. Earle Mayfield. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators/contested-senate-elections/103Peddy_Mayfield.htm

The Election Case of Holm O. Bursum v. Sam G. Bratton of New Mexico. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators/contested-senate-elections/107Bursum_Bratton.htm

The Election Case of Magnus Johnson v. Thomas D. Schall. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators/contested-senate-elections/106Johnson_Schall.htm

The Election Case of William B. Wilson v. William S. Vare of Pennsylvania. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators/contested-senate-elections/109Wilson_Vare.htm

We have come to that time of year again, Earth Day. This day was the brainchild of a prominent liberal senator from Wisconsin, Gaylord Anton Nelson (1916-2005). 1958 proved, as I have written in the past, a massive boon for liberals. One of the victors was State Senator Gaylord Nelson, who was elected Wisconsin’s governor. As a state, Wisconsin had not been historically strong for Democrats. Indeed, it was considered shocking when Grover Cleveland won the state in 1892, and the liberal lane for decades was occupied by the progressive wing of the Republican Party, which came to prominence with the rise of Robert La Follette. Indeed, Democrats would not be able to make sustainable gains in the state until the 1950s, and Nelson’s victory was only the second time in the 20^th century that a Democrat was elected governor. He had been in the State Senate since 1948, and had a reputation as a staunch liberal, and indeed he won on a strongly liberal platform. As governor, he along with Senator William Proxmire and future Governor Patrick Lucey were the fathers of the modern Democratic Party in the Badger State. He established a state Youth Conservation Corps, based off of the Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression, and the Outdoor Recreation Acquisition Project, which resulted in the purchase of 1 million acres for public parks. Nelson was not overwhelmingly popular at this time, and he was limited in what he could do because both houses of the legislature still had a Republican majority. In 1960, he clinched reelection by three points. Nelson’s second term would serve as a platform for the next office he wanted: Senator.

Winning Against Wiley

By 1962, Wisconsin’s longtime senior senator, Alexander Wiley, was 78 years old and past his prime. Nelson took advantage both of the age difference and Wiley’s increasing irritability by energetically campaigning across the state and attacking the conservative aspects of his voting record. On Election Day, Nelson won by 5 points. The Democratic class of ‘62, which included George McGovern, was quite a liberal one indeed, and Nelson proved one of the most liberal senators. A staunch supporter of civil rights legislation, he was present at the August 28, 1963 March on Washington in which King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial. He backed the Great Society to a hilt, and although he voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution he was an early critic of the Vietnam War. Nelson could at times vote a conservative position on foreign policy, such as voting to cut foreign aid in 1965. After a resounding reelection by 23 points in 1968, Nelson proved among the staunchest foes of the Nixon Administration. In 1973, he was one of only three senators to vote against the confirmation of Gerald Ford as vice president. However, Nelson’s foremost legacy was on the environment. In September 1969, he delivered a speech in Seattle in which he proposed the creation of Earth Day as a grassroots demonstration in response to the January and February 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill which was the worst spill in US history at the time, with the first Earth Day happening on April 22, 1970. Nelson recalled the idea came to him after reading about nationwide teach-ins against the Vietnam War, “It suddenly dawned on me, why not a nationwide teach-in on the environment?” (Thulin) Unsurprisingly, he was one of the strongest champions of environmental regulations. Nelson dismissed the notion that economic development should take precedence over environmental protection, stating, “The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around” (Nelson).

In 1970, Nelson held hearings on the safety of birth control pills, with many witnesses testifying their concerns that the pill could be causing cancer. The result of the hearings was a new law that warnings of potential side effects now had to be included on the labels. Although a staunch liberal like Senator George McGovern (D-S.D.) and a supporter, he declined an offer to be his running mate. In 1974, for many Wisconsinites, his opposition to Nixon was looking pretty good, and he was reelected by his largest margin yet, 26 points, against future Congressman Tom Petri.

The 1980 Election

Nelson’s rise to high political office came in the excellent liberal year of 1958, but 1980 was for Republicans what 1958 had been for Democrats. The political climate had substantially changed since his landslide reelection in 1974, and Nelson was swept away in the Reagan wave, losing by two points to former Congressman Bob Kasten. His ultra-liberalism was shown in multiple measures; he sided with the liberal Americans for Democratic Action 94% of the time, the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action 8% of the time, and has a -0.567 from DW-Nominate, making him one of the most liberal senators of his day. In 1995, President Clinton awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his service and efforts for environmental protection, and the proclamation for the award read, “As the father of Earth Day, he is the grandfather of all that grew out of that event: the Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Water Drinking Act’ (The New York Times). And it wasn’t just Democrats who praised him. Republican Melvin Laird, who as a conservative representative from Wisconsin had frequently disagreed with him, praised his service, “Gaylord’s contributions in the fields of conservation reform and environmental improvement are a living memorial to him” (The New York Times).

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Voting Records

Gaylord Nelson, Former Senator Who Founded Earth Day, Dies at 89. (2005, July 3). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Medicine: The Pill on Trial. (1970, January 25). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6816452/medicine-the-pill-on-trial/

Nelson, G. (2002). Beyond Earth Day, fulfilling the promise. Madison, WI.: University of Wisconsin Press.

Nelson, Gaylord Anton. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/10816/gaylord-anton-nelson

Thulin, L. (2019, April 22). Earth Day. Smithsonian Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-oil-spill-50-years-ago-inspired-first-earth-day-180972007/

By 1930, Senator Furnifold M. Simmons had long been a powerful presence in North Carolina. He had been a senator since 1901 and had led the “white supremacy” campaign of 1898 that resulted in the Democrats coming back to power in the long run which also came with it the insurrection that overthrew the multiracial government of Wilmington, which had been the largest city in the state at the time. Although ideologically he could be thought of as a Wilsonian progressive, Simmons resolutely supported Prohibition. Thus, a problem arose for him when the Democratic Party nominated New York Governor Al Smith. Smith was against Prohibition and he had also risen in politics through New York City’s notorious Tammany Hall machine. Both were reason enough for Simmons to endorse Herbert Hoover over Smith. Simmons’ endorsement carried a lot of weight in the state and Hoover won both election and North Carolina. The last time a Republican had won North Carolina was in 1872. However, by 1930 the Great Depression had started and Hoover was very unpopular. This and that Simmons had not cultivated younger politicians made him vulnerable, and stepping in to challenge him was Josiah William Bailey (1873-1946).

Bailey had strong religious convictions as a Baptist, and after his father’s death in 1895 served as the editor of the North Carolina Baptist Convention’s newspaper the Biblical Recorder, and from 1903 to 1907, he headed the state’s Anti-Saloon League, but resigned when the organization started pushing for prohibition rather than temperance, not believing that the former would work (Moore). In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson tapped Bailey to be collector of revenue for the eastern district of North Carolina, and it was there that he gained practical experience on government efficiency, and managed to reduce the cost of collections by 65% (Moore). He served in this role until 1921 In 1914, Bailey pushed with Clarence Poe of the Progressive Farmer a platform for the Democratic Party Convention which included among its planks state primaries, increased assistance to public health and education, stronger regulation of freight and insurance rates, and strengthening child labor laws (Moore). This platform was not adopted, but it established Bailey’s reputation at the time as a progressive. By the early 1920s, Bailey became independent of the Simmons political machine and in 1924 he ran a reformist campaign in the Democratic primary for governor. Although he lost, he was now a known and credible political quantity in the state.

Bailey, who as editor of the Biblical Recorder had backed Simmons’ white supremacy campaign of 1898, hammered him for party disloyalty and this approach worked, with Bailey winning the nomination. Simmons gracefully accepted defeat and had no regrets about his decision to oppose Smith. Although Bailey had campaigned against Simmons on party disloyalty, he would ironically prove far more at odds with his party’s philosophy than Simmons had ever been. Indeed, Bailey had very distinct ideas about right and wrong. As the left-wing publication The Nation noted about him, he was a “diligent scholar whose devotion to abstract principles of right and wrong, and specifically to righteousness in civil and political affairs, borders on fanaticism…He is a brilliant but painstaking student whose mind quickly cuts through to the heart of a thing, with a logic that is irrefutable, and a command of language probably unequalled by any other living North Carolinian” (Tucker). While he campaigned for FDR in 1932, during the first 100 days of the New Deal, Bailey voted against the Agricultural Adjustment Act, being the only North Carolinian to do so. His stance was in contrast to his history of having been a progressive reformer in the 1910s and 1920s. Bailey did support some measures such as the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority, FDR’s gold measures, and Social Security. In FDR’s first term, Bailey served as a sometimes supporter and sometimes opponent of the New Deal. In 1935, Bailey was one of five Democratic senators to oppose the Wagner Act, commonly regarded as the Magna Carta of labor rights. He would consistently oppose legislation to increase the power of organized labor and support legislation to reduce it. Although Bailey was not blind to social problems and wasn’t necessarily opposing every measure to address them, he had his limitations which he saw as consistent with Jeffersonianism, stating, “Being a Baptist, I am liberal, and believe in liberty. Being a Democrat, I am a liberal and believe in liberty. Once we abandon the voluntary principles, we run squarely into Communism. . . . There can be no half-way control” (Tucker). Bailey was not willing, however, to go strong in opposition until after the 1936 election, but the next year he really went after the philosophy of the New Deal. In 1937, Bailey joined Burton K. Wheeler (D-Mont.) and Vice President John Nance Garner in leading the opposition to FDR’s “court packing plan” and delivered a powerful speech against on the Senate floor. In 1937, he and a group of conservative Democrats and Republicans crafted the “Conservative Manifesto”, with he and Arthur Vandenberg (R-Mich.) being the primary authors. This was a ten point document that outlined conservative alternatives to New Deal programs. This document, however, was prematurely leaked to The New York Times and when inquiries were made about who authored it, Bailey stepped up and admitted it while other Democrats were silent. Vandenberg and Warren Austin (R-Vt.) also stepped up and admitted themselves as participating in the drafting. The reason others were shying away from their involvement was because the ten point plan bore resemblance to what the American Liberty League had been calling for, and President Roosevelt had successfully painted the organization to the public as simply a vehicle for economic privilege. Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Charles McNary (R-Ore.), who had leaked the Manifesto, did so as he was concerned that this would overshadow a planned Republican platform and stated, “Anyone who signs that thing is going to have a Liberty League tag put on him” (Moore, 31-32). Bailey’s record on domestic issues after Roosevelt’s reelection was considerably more conservative on domestic issues, and he sought a program that involved lower spending, more emphasis on state’s rights, and more emphasis on free enterprise to help recovery. He stated, stated, “We do not have a Government at Washington. It is a gift enterprise and the gifts are at the expense of those who work and earn and save. Our President is not actuated by principle, but by fears. He will try to head off anything in order that he may stay at the head. I expect him to run for a third term, and if I am living, I expect to fight a good and last fight” (Moore, 26). Bailey’s leading role in the Conservative Manifesto presaged an overall shift in the state’s politics to the right, and one could consider him as an agent of change in the state who served the role that Republican George Aiken served for his state. Both men believed that in their views they were upholding their party’s traditional values but were often differing with their own parties. Bailey led the shift of North Carolina away from the national party, while Aiken led the shift of Vermont’s Republican party away from the Coolidge-style conservatism that characterized it during the 1930s. The collaboration of Bailey and Republican Vandenberg as central authors also could be marked as the start of the bipartisan Conservative Coalition which started to have pull after the 1938 midterms.

While Bailey was at odds with President Roosevelt on domestic policy, he was strongly supportive on foreign policy, backing all his major initiatives. Indeed, he contrasted considerably with his colleague, Robert Rice Reynolds, who had been much more supportive of New Deal programs but had voted against all of the president’s prewar initiatives save for the peacetime draft. Bailey was again back to the status of moderate opposition to President Roosevelt’s agenda. He was also an internationalist, and opposed the unsuccessful Revercomb (R-W.V.) amendment to require participation in international organizations be by treaty only. Although he had supported much of the president’s war policies, he was against a postwar direction of more government spending and emphasis on the public sector. However, Bailey’s role in the postwar world would be limited; in 1945, his health began to decline and on December 15, 1946, he died in office of a cerebral hemorrhage. Bailey’s DW-Nominate score is a -0.118, which although seems rather low given his domestic conservatism, party-line and procedural votes also get counted. By Democratic standards, he does fit on the party’s conservative wing. Indeed, as noted before, Bailey was the start of North Carolina’s shift to the right and away from the national Democratic Party politics. Although he is largely a forgotten figure, he got some recognition as one of the people profiled in Garland S. Tucker III’s 2015 book, Conservative Heroes: Fourteen Leaders Who Shaped America, From Jefferson to Reagan.

References

Bailey, Josiah William. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/349/josiah-william-bailey

Moore, J.R. (1979). Bailey, Josiah William. NCpedia.

Retrieved from

https://www.ncpedia.org/biography/bailey-josiah-william

Moore, J.R. (1965). Senator Josiah W. Bailey and the “Conservative Manifesto” of 1937. The Journal of Southern History, 31(1), 21-39.

Retrieved from

Click to access new-deal-critics2.pdf

Tucker, G.S. Obscure no more: N.C. Senator Josiah Bailey. Walter Magazine.

Retrieved from

Obscure no more: N.C. Senator Josiah Bailey

Woods, T.E. (2015, August 28). A Missing History of Conservatism. The American Conservative.

Retrieved from

A Missing History of Conservatism