Fascinating Politics

Emmet O’Neal: Louisville’s Fiscal Hawk

Since 2006, Kentucky’s 3rd district, centered in Louisville, has stood as an exception to the conservative trend of the state. From 2019 to 2023, the district’s Congressman, John Yarmuth, was chairman of the Budget Committee and came out as a friend of Modern Monetary Theory in his strong support for deficit spending and introduced the Inflation Reduction Act in 2021. However, Louisville was not always the liberal center of Kentucky; from 1903 to 1959, the district had as its representatives either Republicans or fiscally conservative Democrats and was the most likely place outside of the Appalachian region of the state to vote for a Republican representative. Its representative during the Roosevelt Administration was Democrat Emmet O’Neal (1887-1967).

An attorney by profession who also engaged in banking, O’Neal hailed from a political family; indeed, his older brother, Joseph, had briefly been mayor of Louisville in 1927. In 1934, he won election to Congress by over 13 points. In his first year in Congress, although O’Neal publicly called Roosevelt the “Savior of America” his record in Congress showed that he often differed with him, especially on government spending. In his first year, he also opposed the Public Utilities Holding Company Act and the Bituminous Coal Act. That year, O’Neal, himself a veteran of World War I, also delivered a speech in opposition to the Patman Bonus Bill, as he thought the money would be better spent on widows and orphans as well as the disabled among soldiers rather than able-bodied men and that soldiers already had preference on the work relief rolls (The Advocate-Messenger). In 1937, O’Neal expressed his limited spending beliefs, “I am a democrat but I do not believe that lavish spending will bring back prosperity. I don’t think one can save by spending a great deal more than one has. I know I can’t do it in my personal affairs, and I don’t think the government can do it” (The Oregonian).

In 1939, O’Neal gave critical support to a cut in the Works Progress Administration and an effort by Clarence Cannon (D-Mo.) to restore it failed on a voice vote. He did support work relief funding later that year. Columnist Joe Hart (1940) identified O’Neal as “an anti-New Dealer by record and the target of organized labor and the American Legion…”. He consistently voted for legislation curbing the power of organized labor until 1943, and as mentioned previously opposed bonus legislation for veterans. His record resulted in a 1940 challenge for his renomination by Leo F. Whalen, who identified himself as a “100 percent New Dealer” (The Louisville Courier-Journal). Unfortunately for supporters of the New Deal, O’Neal survived the challenge. People from the Republican side also appreciated O’Neal’s independence; a letter to the editor from a man who identified himself as a “Dyed-in-the-Wool Republican” from Louisville responded to Hart’s article with, “The electorate no longer votes as this political boss or that pressure group directs; but it choose to think for itself and elects and re-elects men of honor, men of integrity, and patriotism, and men who will not become a “rubber stamp” for the politician, for the pressure group or even for the New Deal. Such qualities of statesmanship the electorate has found in this man, Hon. Emmet O’Neal, and has wisely chosen to re-elect him and send him back to the Congress as the representative of all the people, and not the representative of a few pressure groups” (The Courier Journal, 34). On foreign policy, he was mostly loyal to the Roosevelt Administration. In 1942, UDA-New Republic released their first set of ratings, which found him to be on their side on 10 of 19 issues from 1939 to 1942. He was found favorable on 9 of 10 foreign policy issues but only favorable on 1 of the 9 domestic issues on which he voted.

In 1945, O’Neal was praised in The Cynthiana Democrat for his role on the Appropriations Committee for budget cuts, “The Appropriations Committee of the House has submitted a bill which seeks to cut the appropriations of money to be expended by some fifty-two billion dollars. Emmet O’Neal, the Louisville Congressman, is a member of this committee and is largely responsible for the cuts in these appropriations” (2).

O’Neal on Civil Rights

On the matter of civil rights, Emmet O’Neal twice opposed anti-lynching legislation, but despite this, the head of the United Government Employees, Edgar G. Brown, praised him as a friend of black people for securing them a raise for custodial work in 1938 and playing a key role in prohibiting racial discrimination in hiring in the Civil Aeronautics Authority Pilot Training Law (Atlanta Daily World). He was also far from an exception in this stance in his state, as only two Kentucky representatives supported anti-lynching legislation in his time. O’Neal also thrice supported anti-poll tax legislation as well as Rep. Adam Clayton Powell’s (D-N.Y.) amendment to cut off school lunch funds to segregated schools in 1946.

World War II

During World War II, his conservatism on domestic issues appeared to decline and in 1943 he voted to sustain President Roosevelt’s veto of the Smith-Connally Wartime Disputes Act. However, O’Neal still resisted appropriations increases in certain New Deal programs, such as several agricultural programs and opposed retaining the National Youth Administration. In 1943, Union for Democratic Action found him on their side on 11 out of 16 issues and in their follow-up issue in 1945, 2 of 4 issues. O’Neal’s support for national Democratic initiatives also increased in his opposition to most efforts to weaken price control and he would also vote against overriding President Truman’s veto of the Case labor bill in 1946. That year, however, was a bad one for Democrats, and future Senator Thruston B. Morton defeated O’Neal on Election Day by 16 points, the strong margin surprising all around, with Republicans surprised and O’Neal stating, “I didn’t know there were so many Republicans” (The Louisville Times). By contrast, in 1944, O’Neal had won reelection by almost 15 points. His DW-Nominate score stands at -0.134.

It didn’t take long for President Truman to find a new role for O’Neal, tapping him to be ambassador to the Philippines, serving from seven months. He subsequently retired from elective politics and continued to practice law. He died of a heart attack in Washington D.C. on July 18, 1967, at the age of 80. The days of O’Neal’s sort of Democrat seem long gone, and that is, in this author’s opinion, a pity.

References

A “Chip” On His Shoulder [Letter to the Editor]. (1940, April 21). The Louisville Courier-Journal, 34.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/107353757

A Congress to Win The War. (1942, May 18). The New Republic.

Retrieved from

https://archive.org/details/cainmnh_000157/mode/2up

A Congress to Win the War and the Peace. (1944, May 5). The New Republic, 110 (19), 643-58.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/1143419115

Congressmen See Oregon, Big Dam. (1937, September 7). The Oregonian, 19.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/1083476879

Coy, P. (2021, September 1). Modern Monetary Theory Has a New Friend in Congress. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Emmet O’Neal on the Bonus. (1935, March 22). The Danville Daily Messenger (Danville, Ky.), 2.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/1043373571

Emmet O’Neal Renders Great Service. (1945, November 1). The Cynthiana Democrat, 2.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/1141741813

G.O.P. Sweep Wins Congress. (1946, November 6). The Louisville Times, 1.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/1345031836

Hart, J. (1940, April 19). Emmet O’Neal Survives as a Political Paradox. The Louisville Courier-Journal, 7.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/107353642

Leo F. Whalen Will Oppose Emmet O’Neal for Congress. (1940, May 11). The Louisville Courier-Journal, 13.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/108003801

O’Neal, Emmet. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://www.voteview.com/person/7073/emmet-o-neal

Patton, J.G. & Loeb, J. (1945, February 5). Challenge to Progressives. The New Republic, 112 (6), 21-42.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/1143339882

Fascinating Politics

The Election About Nothing: 1990

Tom Foley (D-Wash.), House Speaker.

It is two months until the midterm elections, and Democrats are hoping for a wave this year, while Republicans best hope that individual candidates count more than a general feeling against them, which is what happened in the 1990 midterms. There were some issues that were in the backdrop but none constituted an overall theme, such as a general anti-incumbent theme, voter dissatisfaction with the Savings and Loan bailout, and the 1989 Supreme Court decision Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which upheld a Missouri law prohibiting public funding of abortions except to save the mother’s life on a 5-4 vote. Despite there being an anti-incumbent feeling, 96% of incumbents were returned to office this year, and those who lost did so for varying reasons. Thus, given that this election had no over-arching theme, commentators at the time dubbed it the “Seinfeld election” as the show Seinfeld, a new show at the time, was commonly known as a “show about nothing”. Although the overall bend was against the Republicans, it was only to a minor extent as far as midterms go. Republicans lost eight seats in the House, with Democrats taking seven and an Independent winning one. Can you guess who this Independent was? I’ll give you a hint: you know his name. If you can guess before I reveal it, kudos to you. An interesting detail is that the contrast in some cases between what the losing incumbents had won in 1988 and 1990 could be stark, and this speaks to a less partisan time.

The House Races That Flipped:

In Arkansas’ 2nd district, based in Little Rock, Republican Tommy Robinson retired to run for governor, and he was succeeded by Democrat Ray Thornton, who had previously served in Congress from the 4th district from 1973 to 1979.

In California’s 1st district, Democrat Douglas Bosco lost reelection to Republican Frank Riggs. Bosco suffered from his involvement with a failed Savings and Loan institution and Riggs was able to capitalize on this and the anti-incumbent mood. Riggs would be one of the “Gang of Seven” Republican freshmen who pushed for reforms and publicized mishandling of House institutions, such as the House Bank and the Congressional Post Office.

In California’s 17th district, Republican Chip Pashayan lost reelection to Democrat Cal Dooley. Pashayan became politically vulnerable after it was revealed that he received $26,000 in campaign funds from Lincoln Savings and Loan chairman Charles Keating, which he later returned (Barrett). By contrast, he had won reelection with 71.5% of the vote in 1988.

In California’s 44th district, Democrat Jim Bates lost reelection to Republican Duke Cunningham. In 1989, Bates had the dishonorable distinction of having been the first member of Congress to be reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee for sexually harassing female staffers (Orlando Sentinel). By contrast, Bates had won reelection with 59.7% of the vote in 1988.

In Florida’s 2nd district, the voters didn’t seem to take too kindly to incumbent Bill Grant changing his affiliation from Democratic to Republican. In 1988, he had won reelection uncontested, but this year, he lost reelection by 14 points to Democrat Pete Peterson.

Although no change happened in Georgia, this was Newt Gingrich’s closest call, coming within less than a point to defeat. By contrast, he had won reelection by almost 17 points in 1988.

In Hawaii’s 1st district, Republican Pat Saiki retired to run for the Senate, and she was succeeded by Democrat Neil Abercrombie. Abercrombie had previously briefly served in Congress.

In Idaho’s 1st district, Republican Larry Craig retired to run for the Senate, and he was succeeded by moderate Democrat Larry LaRocco, who interestingly had made his pro-choice stance a centerpiece of his campaign (CQ Press). This election produced for the first (and only time) since the 88th Congress that both of Idaho’s representatives were Democrats.

In Illinois’ 16th district based in Rockford, Republican Lynn Martin retired to run for the Senate, and he was succeeded by Democrat John W. Cox Jr. However, this one was a fluke in the normally Republican district as he was defeated for reelection in 1992.

In Indiana’s 3rd district, Republican John Hiler lost reelection to Democrat Tim Roemer. Roemer was able to capitalize on him sitting on the House Banking Committee and connected him to the savings and loan crisis.

In Maryland’s 1st district, Democrat Roy Dyson fell to scandal, as stories came about about his chief of staff, Tom Pappas, engaging in strange and abusive management practices towards male staffers came out in 1988. In addition, there were rumors that the unmarried Dyson was in a relationship with Pappas, and the latter subsequently committed suicide. He had survived reelection in 1988 against Republican Wayne Gilchrest by less than a point, and this time around Gilchrest won by 14 points. Dyson never ran for Congress again, but he had a political comeback, serving in the Maryland State Senate from 1995 until his reelection defeat in 2014.

In Minnesota’s 7th district, Republican Arlan Stangeland was caught up in personal scandal; the married Stangeland had used his Congressional credit card to make hundreds of calls to a female lobbyist. He lost reelection to Democrat Collin Peterson, who would hold the seat until 2021 in this normally Republican district given his stance as a moderate. Stangeland had won reelection in 1988 by around 9 points.

In Missouri’s 2nd district, based in the St. Louis suburbs, Republican Jack Buechner lost reelection to Democrat Joan Horn by only 54 votes. By contrast, Buechner had won reelection with over 66% of the vote in 1988. His stridency in the advocacy of his positions as well as a strong campaign against him on his anti-abortion stance helped put Horn over the top (CQ Press). This election proved a fluke, as Horn would lose reelection to Republican Jim Talent in 1992, and indeed this seat has been held by Republicans since.

In New Hampshire’s 2nd district, staunchly conservative Republican Chuck Douglas lost reelection to Democrat Richard Swett by over 5 points. His public feuding with fellow Granite Stater and Bush chief of staff John Sununu had harmed his image in the district. Douglas had won his first election in 1988 comfortably with 56.8% of the vote. The last time the district had elected a Democrat was the same year of the sinking of the Titanic.

In North Carolina’s 11th district, Democrat James M. Clarke lost reelection about 1.5% to Republican Charles Taylor. Taylor would be one of the “Gang of Seven” Republican freshmen, but by 2006 he would face allegations of impropriety surrounding his business interests, and lost reelection to Democrat Health Shuler.

Although no party change occurred in Ohio, a notable result was the loss of renomination for Republican Buz Lukens of the 8th district, who had a sex scandal involving a 16-year-old. The winner of the nomination was none other than future Speaker of the House and “Gang of Seven” member John Boehner.

In Oregon’s 5th district, Republican Denny Smith lost reelection to Democrat Michael J. Kopetski by 10 points. Smith had been a director at a failed Savings and Loan institution and was accused of having attempted to influence federal regulators (Time Magazine). The warning signs were there for Smith, as in the last election Kopetski had held him to 50.2% of the vote.

In Pennsylvania’s 18th district, Democrat Doug Walgren lost reelection to future senator and presidential contender Republican Rick Santorum by almost three points on the anti-incumbent theme and that he had lost touch with the voters (CQ Press). Santorum would also be one of the “Gang of Seven”. Walgren had first been elected in 1976 and won reelection with 62.7% of the vote in 1988; he had gotten too confident.

In Rhode Island’s 2nd district, Republican Claudine Schneider retired to run for the Senate, and she was succeeded by Democrat Jack Reed, who is currently one of the state’s senators.

In Utah’s 3rd district, retiring Republican Howard C. Nielson was succeeded by conservative Democrat Bill Orton, who won the seat by 20 points and managed to hold on to it until the 1996 election.

In Vermont, Peter Smith lost reelection to Independent Bernie Sanders by 16.5%. Smith was never in a particularly commanding position, as in his first election in 1988, he had benefited from a three-way race, as the Democrats ran a candidate who got almost 19% of the vote and he had won against Sanders by under 4 points. He had also distanced himself from the tax policies of the Bush Administration by publicly disagreeing with him at a campaign event, but this didn’t help. By contrast, this time Democratic voters rallied behind Sanders, as the Democratic nominee only netted 3% of the vote. The press of the time noted that Sanders was the first Socialist to be in Congress since Victor Berger’s 1928 defeat. Laurence Barrett of Time Magazine (1990) wrote on the new representative, “A former Socialist mayor of Burlington, Sanders has railed for years against establishments of all kinds. This fall, his populist appeal seems in sync with the times.”

In Virginia, incumbent Stan Parris of the Alexandria-based 8th district, had been known for his sharp criticisms of the Democrats and the D.C. government. As Congressional Quarterly (1990) noted, “Parris, long known for conservative bombast, wearied many with his diatribes against liberals and the District of Columbia’s government” although it also noted that “The Democrat who ousted him though, James P. Moran Jr., matched him blow for rhetorical blow”. From his 1988 election, you would think that this one would go well for him too, as he won by almost 25 points. However, Moran, who was the mayor of Alexandria, defeated him by 7 points. Another factor helping Moran was his pro-choice stance. The Democrats have not had trouble holding the district since.

In Wisconsin, Robert Kastenmeier, who had represented the Madison-based 2nd district since 1959, got overconfident in his safety and had suffered an upset by moderate Republican Scott Klug, a TV journalist who won with 53% of the vote, who convincingly made the case that Kastenmeier had lost touch with the voters (CQ Press). By contrast, he had won reelection by 17 points in 1988. Democrats have not had trouble holding this district since Klug honored his term-limits pledge and retired from office in 1999.

Gubernatorial Races

Anti-incumbent sentiment had a bit more power in gubernatorial races, in which several governors lost reelection and 15 in total changed parties. Nancy Gibbs (1990) of Time Magazine noted the increased focus on state government as product of federal policy, “Throughout the 1980s, Reaganomics shifted much of the burden of government to the states — whether for providing services or finding ways to pay for them. Incumbent members of Congress can hide from their responsibility for such steps, but sitting Governors cannot. As chief executives, they directly bear the blame for policies that affect the voters. That wrath accounts for the decisions by Connecticut’s William O’Neill and Massachusetts’ Michael Dukakis not to seek another term after imposing tax increases. Special-interest money also plays a smaller role in state races — which means that voters can more easily make themselves heard”. For conservatives, this is how federalism ought to work.

In Alaska, Alaskan Independence Party candidate Wally Hickel succeeded Democrat Steve Cowper.

In Arizona, retiring Democrat Rose Mofford was succeeded by Republican Fife Symington.

In Connecticut, retiring Democrat William O’Neill was succeeded by former Senator Lowell Weicker, who ran on the A Connecticut Party ticket.

In Florida, Republican Bob Martinez lost reelection to Democrat Lawton Chiles after breaking a promise not to raise taxes.

In Kansas, Republican Mike Hayden lost reelection to Democrat Joan Finney after breaking a promise not to raise taxes.

In Massachusetts, retiring Democrat Michael Dukakis was succeeded by Republican Bill Weld.

In Michigan, Democrat James Blanchard lost reelection to Republican John Engler.

In Minnesota, Democrat Rudy Perpich lost reelection to Republican Arne Carlson.

In Nebraska, Republican Kay Orr lost reelection to Democrat Ben Nelson.

In New Mexico, retiring Republican Garrey Carruthers was succeeded by Democrat Bruce King.

In Ohio, retiring Democrat Dick Celeste was succeeded by Republican George Voinovich, who had served as mayor of Cleveland.

In Oklahoma, retiring Republican Henry Bellmon was succeeded by Democrat David Walters.

In Rhode Island, Republican Ed DiPrete lost reelection to Democrat Bruce Sundlun due to a corruption scandal.

In Texas, retiring Republican Bill Clements was succeeded by Democrat Ann Richards. This is the last time that a Democrat has been elected governor of Texas.

In Vermont, retiring Democrat Madeleine Kunin was succeeded by Republican Richard Snelling.

Other Notes:

In Connecticut’s 5th district, Gary Franks was the first black Republican to be elected to the House since Illinois’ Oscar De Priest of Illinois had left office in 1935.

Time Magazine’s article regarding the election notes that “Most lawmakers who feel remotely threatened – as well as every House member attempting to graduate to the Senate – came out against it [the Bush Administration’s deficit-reduction package]. Braver souls who supported the unpopular combination of tax hikes and service cuts are now being savaged for their stand” (Barrett). If we want to understand why we have a debt problem in the United States, this is a part of it.

References

96 Percent of House Incumbents Re-Elected. (1990). CQ Press.

Retrieved from

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal90-1112110#_

Barrett, L.I. (1990, October 21). Housecleaning Time? Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6716187/housecleaning-time

Boys-Will-Be-Boys Syndrome. (1989, October 31). Orlando Sentinel.

Retrieved from

BOYS-WILL-BE-BOYS SYNDROME

Demos Pick Up 10 More Seats in House. (1990, November 7). Deseret News.

Retrieved from

https://www.deseret.com/1990/11/7/18889955/demos-pick-up-10-more-seats-in-house-br

Gibbs, N. (1990, November 18). “You Can’t Beat Somebody with Nobody”. Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6716475/you-cant-beat-somebody-with-nobody

Fascinating Politics

Equal Rights Amendment and Abortion – Side by Side

Peter Rodino (D-N.J.), who reintroduced ERA.

I have previously written about the close tie between the issue of abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and how the failure to attach an abortion neutral provision to the ERA resulted in its defeat. I will examine here the 1983 vote in which the ERA, being reintroduced by Rep. Peter Rodino (D-N.J.) after failing to be ratified in 1982, failed to pass on November 15th and how legislators measured up on a vote barring federal funds for abortion. The closest vote on abortion to compare with the ERA vote of 1983 is the September 22nd vote on Rep. Silvio Conte’s (R-Mass.) amendment. I have charted the vote here, with lifetime Americans for Constitutional Action scores for these individuals. Because 1984 was the last year ACA did their scoring, this is how they would have been seen in that session. There are a few legislators who are still in office now.

Abortion Restriction and ERA Vote:

Abortion and ERA Vote, 1983Download

Silvio Conte (R-Mass.), who sponsored a 1983 amendment deleting funds for abortions.

A few observations regarding these votes…

A legislator who supported ERA had a 66% chance of opposing the abortion restriction and a 40% chance of supporting.

A legislator who opposed ERA had a 93% chance of supporting the abortion restriction, and a legislator who opposed the abortion restriction had a 95% chance of supporting ERA.

Only ten representatives were opposed to both Conte’s amendment and the ERA. These were Al McCandless (R-Calif.), Richard Thomas (D-Ga.), J. Roy Rowland (D-Ga.), Robert Whittaker (R-Kan.), Earl Coleman (R-Mo.), Edwin Forsythe (R-N.J.), Tim Valentine (D-N.C.), James Martin (R-N.C.), James Broyhill (R-N.C.), and Tommy Vandergriff (D-Tex.).

Al Gore supports both ERA and abortion restriction.

Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) supports abortion restriction and opposes ERA!

John McCain supports abortion restriction and opposes the ERA.

Ed Markey, today known as one of the most liberal members of the Senate, votes for restricting abortion funding as do a majority of Massachusetts representatives! All voted for the ERA, and all but amendment sponsor Silvio Conte were Democrats, and Conte was also a liberal.

Richard Durbin of Illinois, currently Senate Minority Whip, votes for both abortion restriction and the ERA.

Chuck Schumer of New York, currently Senate Minority Leader, votes against abortion restriction and for the ERA.

2016 Republican contender John Kasich of Ohio votes for abortion restriction and against the ERA, as does current Ohio Governor Mike DeWine.

Ron Wyden of Oregon, who is a senator now, votes against abortion restriction and for the ERA.

Jamie Whitten of Mississippi is the only legislator to switch from opposing the ERA in 1971 to support in 1983. Whitten’s conservatism began waning in the mid-1970s and really started going downhill after he became chairman of the Appropriations Committee in 1979. He changed significantly to accommodate the Democratic leadership; since 1975 seniority was no longer a guarantee for a chairmanship.

Also, a word on abortion. This is one issue in which the parties truly have polarized and polarized hard over time. It is downright unimaginable today that most of North Carolina’s representatives vote against abortion restriction while 70% of Massachusetts’ representatives vote for. There is also a far greater Catholic Democrat factor here than now in support for abortion restrictions. There are some legislators here who support abortion restrictions but later oppose them. One such figure who I’ve noted before is Florida’s Bill Nelson, who performed an almost entire 180 flip as senator. With this vote you not only see the diversity of opinion within the parties on this issue but also the level of ideological diversity that existed in 1983…far less than now.

References

To amend H.R. 3913, a bill appropriating $96.16 billion in funds for the Departments of Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 1984. The Conte Amendment prohibits use of funds to perform abortions. (motion passed). Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0980334

To suspend the rules and pass H.J. Res. 1, a bill proposing a amendment to the Constitution of the United states relative to equal rights for men and women (motion failed; 2/3 required). Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0980469

Fascinating Politics

Was the Only Cop Sent to the Electric Chair in U.S. History for Crimes in Office Framed?

There are people out there, who I think are fools and communists, who subscribe to “ACAB” (All Cops Are Bastards) and would trust gangsters over cops. I usually try not to be so biased in writing, but I have a strong contempt for this viewpoint, and it is my impression that it comes from people who are both strongly left and have an overdeveloped antipathy for hypocrisy. No, I don’t like hypocrisy either, but I’d take flawed cops over flawed gangsters any day of the week. Subscribers to the ACAB view may be pleased to hear of the case of Lieutenant Charles Becker of the NYPD, who was executed in 1915 for having allegedly masterminded a murder of his partner in crime. However, there have been questions regarding his guilt. Is it possible that the only officer known to have been executed for crimes as an officer was framed?

NYPD Lieutenant Charles Becker (1870-1915)

Like much of the NYPD of the time, Lt. Becker was no saint. While many NYPD officers looked the other way with illegal establishments, Becker had a partner in illicit business in Herman “Beansie” Rosenthal, who established an illegal casino in 1912. Only a month after Rosenthal’s casino opened, Becker’s men raided the establishment, an effort to please the new reformer police commissioner, Rhinelander Waldo. Rosenthal was furious over this betrayal and thus he went public, giving reporter Herbert Bayard Swope the story that Becker held a mortgage over the property and got 20% of the profits from this establishment, and he was scheduled to testify in court on this matter on July 16th. However, only hours before, he was gunned down by four gangsters known as Lefty Louie, Whitey Lewis, Dago Frank and Gyp the Blood (Crime Files). Although Becker had a formidable defense counsel, including former Congressman and Winston Churchill mentor W. Bourke Cockran, the timing of the murder as well as Becker having a strong motive and means to pull off this hit plus testimony from three prisoners resulted in Lt. Becker being executed by electric chair on July 30, 1915, after being convicted of masterminding a hit on ol’ Beansie. Although Becker is not a sympathetic figure as a dirty cop, there have been some doubts surrounding his guilt.

The Case For Becker’s Innocence

Although Becker, as noted, was not a saint, a murderer he may not have been. There were some significant issues regarding Becker’s trial. There was, for instance, only one witness to Becker allegedly conspiring, a waiter who claimed to have overheard him with the conspirators. Furthermore, the three prisoners had very strong motive to testify against Becker; they were trying to save themselves from the electric chair. There was also no firm tie ever established between Becker and the four gangsters who were also executed for their role. Also, Becker’s first trial was overturned by the court of appeals for being “shockingly against the weight of evidence” (Snow). The judge in the case was also intensely biased against Becker and it showed in the trial, thus the overturning. However, a second trial resulted in conviction. In 1927, former police reporter Henry H. Klein wrote a book that claimed that Becker was the victim of a conspiracy between politicians and gamblers. He wrote, “It was primarily to save their own lives that Rose, Webber and Vallon, with the aid of Schepps, ‘framed’ Becker, and it was only because of the anxiety of certain politicians to keep their names out of the gambling scandal that the frame-up succeeded. Becker, though an intelligent man was no mental match for either the gamblers or the politicians. No sooner were Rose and Vallon arrested than the job of keeping names out of the scandal and out of the trial was put up to (the late) ‘Big Tom Foley, and though many statements were issued from the District Attorney’s office, none of them, so far as the writer can learn, contained the names of any politicians or any important gamblers” (The New York Times). Other authors later wrote accounts alleging that Becker had been framed, including Andy Logan’s Against the Evidence (1970) and Mike Dash’s Satan’s Circus (2006). Furthermore, Becker was far from the only person who wanted “Beansie” dead for spilling his guts. Indeed, the four gangsters who shot him were normally paid by mobster Jack Zelig (Crime Files). Zelig was going to testify for the prosecution, but he was murdered by another gangster before this could happen, which although the story was that it was a financial beef between them, suspicion fell once again on Becker, but he was not prosecuted. Becker was, per this narrative, a convenient individual to sacrifice in the name of police reform, the careers of certain political actors, and to further the political career of the crusading prosecutor, Charles S. Whitman, who would be elected governor in 1914 and who signed off on Becker’s execution. The best case for Becker frankly is that many people had the motive and means to place a hit on “Beansie”.

The Case for Becker’s Guilt

As an officer, Becker went hard into an “I am the law” sort of policing. Historian Richard Snow (1978) described him as “a ruthless believer in the efficacy of the nightstick”, frequently using brutality in the course of his duties, thus murder may have also been in his repertoire. The narrative of the prosecution against Becker is that through gambler “Bald Jack” Rose he got gangster Jack Zelig to supply four gangsters to take out Rosenthal. However, Zelig denied that he agreed to supply the four gangsters (Levine). Furthermore, there was some damaging testimony against him from Rose, who testified that Becker had said to him, “It was a pleasing sight to me to see that squealing Jew lying there and … I would [like to] have cut out his tongue and hung it on the Times Building as a warning to future squealers” (Snow). Worse yet, a witness presumably for the defense, Jewish gambler Morris Luban, testified that he, Rose, and Becker had been at a Turkish bathhouse the week before the murder. Luban said that he heard Becker say that if Rose and his gang didn’t take out Rosenthal, that he’d have to do so himself (Forward). And, as noted before, Becker had strong motive to want to have Rosenthal killed and quick, as he was due to testify against him when he was murdered. Becker had the means and the motive for the crime.

So…was Lieutenant Becker framed? I can’t say I’m sure, and this is simply because here were many people who had reason to want Rosenthal dead for snitching to the press and who could have hired the four colorfully nicknamed gangsters to take him out. Becker’s widow, for one, believed that he was framed for the murder, and she had inscribed on his headstone:

Charles Becker

Murdered July 30,1915

By Governor Whitman

References

Klein’s Book Calls Becker Innocent. (1927, April 25). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Levine, A. (2023, April 30). The Hectic, Violent, and Relatively Short Life of Big Jack Zelig. Tablet Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/community/articles/death-gangster-big-jack-zelig-lower-east-side

Looking Back. (2012, October 12). Forward.

Retrieved from

https://forward.com/culture/163912/looking-back-october-12-2012

Roberts, S. (2012, July 15). 100 Years After a Murder, Questions About a Police Officer’s Guilt. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

https://archive.nytimes.com/cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/100-years-after-a-murder-questions-about-a-police-officers-guilt

Snow, R.F. (1978, December). Charles Becker. American Heritage, 30(1).

Retrieved from

https://www.americanheritage.com/charles-becker

The Gambler, the Policeman, and a killer named Gyp the Blood. Crime Files.

Retrieved from

The Gambler, the Policeman, and a killer named Gyp the Blood
Fascinating Politics

“If-by-Whiskey”: A Classic All-American Fallacy

Noah S. “Soggy” Sweat Jr.

Although Prohibition was nationally repealed in 1933, there were states that held on to it much longer. 1952, Mississippi was one of those states and had been the first to adopt it in 1908 and the first to ratify the national amendment in 1918. The debate in 1952 was on to keep or repeal it, and a 29-year-old state legislator, Noah S. “Soggy” Sweat Jr. (1922-1996), had the idea of how to approach this contentious issue as he was reaching the end of his five-year term in the state House. He delivered the following speech before the Mississippi State Legislature on April 4, 1952:

“My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, this is how I feel about whiskey:

If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise” (Marquez).

He managed to simultaneously please and antagonize both sides of the issue. Sweat recounted that it had taken him two months to write the brief speech, and it has since been legendary in Mississippi politics as well as of the United States. This speech gave rise to the logical fallacy, “If-by-Whiskey”, which is defined by Logically Fallacious as:

“A response to a question that is contingent on the questioner’s opinions and makes use of words with strong connotations.  This fallacy appears to support both sides of an issue — a tactic common in politics.”

After his stint in the state legislature, Sweat served as district attorney for two terms, and from 1966 to 1974 he was a circuit judge. The position, incidentally, that won in 1952 was continuing Prohibition; Mississippi was the final state to repeal it, doing so in 1966!

References

If-By-Whiskey. Logically Fallacious.

Retrieved from

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/If-By-Whiskey

Marquez, S. (2026, May 7). Noah “Soggy” Sweat’s “The Whiskey Speech” to be presented at Two Mississippi Museums. Magnolia Tribune.

Retrieved from

Noah “Soggy” Sweat’s “The Whiskey Speech” to be presented at Two Mississippi Museums
Fascinating Politics

The Rise and Fall of J. Herbert Burke

Earlier this year, I wrote about the rise and fall of Edward Gurney, one of Florida’s early post-World War II Republicans, and there is a similar rise and fall for another one of them, J. Herbert Burke (1911-1993). Many who identified as Republicans in the post-World War II era were Northern transplants; Gurney had been born and raised in Portland, Maine and Burke was born and raised in Chicago and both men moved to Florida after World War II. Having graduated from Kent College of Law in Chicago, he practiced in the city from 1940 to 1949. Burke also served in France in World War II, rising to the rank of captain and being awarded a Purple Heart and Bronze Star as well as having earned the European Theater Medal and the American Theater Ribbon. In 1949, Burke moved to Hollywood, Florida, where he continued to practice law and became politically active, being elected a Republican committeeman in Broward County in 1952.

In 1954, conservative Democrat Dwight L. Rogers was reelected to Congress, but died on December 1st. A special election was held to succeed him, with his son, Paul Rogers, running as a Democrat and Republican J. Herbert Burke making a go. Florida had had a long history of Democratic dominance, but President Eisenhower winning the state in 1952 as well as Bill Cramer’s election to Congress in 1954, the first Republican to be elected to Congress from Florida since 1882, made Burke’s run plausible. However, the younger Rogers won by about 16.5 points on January 11, 1955. However, President Eisenhower was sufficiently impressed with Burke to give him a job as a member of the Southeastern Advisory Board of Small Business. He would proceed with his career in law as well as in local politics until redistricting opened up an opportunity for him.

Redistricting can easily start, entrench, or wreck careers in Washington, and it was massively helpful in starting Burke’s. In 1966, Florida was forced to redistrict due to the “one man, one vote” rulings of the Supreme Court, and this resulted in the creation of a new Republican district in Florida based in Hollywood. He was only the third Republican to be elected from Florida in the 20th century, winning by 22 points.

Congressman Burke

For almost all of his Congressional career, Burke was considered a respectable conservative, and in the earliest part of his career he was considered ultra-conservative. In 1967, the New York Times reported that he was among the freshmen considered to be leading the conservative backlash against the Johnson Administration, with the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action (ACA) finding nothing wrong with his 1967 record. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) only found him to be correct on one of fifteen votes they considered markers of liberalism, which was a civil rights bill. Burke also had an accomplishment in his first term in his investigation of the Tennessee Valley Authority for using a large increase in funding to expand its functions beyond electricity and flood control (The Chicago Tribune). Burke was also one of the more favorable Florida representatives to civil rights, having been one of five representatives to have voted for the first version of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the vote ADA counted, but he voted against adding fair housing to the legislation in 1968). He was also one of only two Florida representatives to vote against killing the Philadelphia Plan in 1969. However, Burke far from usually embraced President Nixon when he turned away from the conservative position, and in 1970 he voted against the Administration-backed Family Assistance Plan, which had won support from a number of otherwise conservative Republicans. He argued that this proposal would lead to increased taxation and “socialism” (Langeveld). In 1968, he had spearheaded an investigation into the Tennessee Valley Authority for expanding its business beyond electricity and flood control, He also However, his foremost work was primarily on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

As a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Burke strongly advocated for Ukraine and Byelorussia to be expelled from the UN as they served to give the USSR two more votes and that they “have been transformed into one constituent part of one vast slave state created from the blood of countless millions of murdered people who believe in their independence and who lost their lives because of that basic belief that we take for granted” (Langeveld). His anti-communism also, however, translated into turning a blind eye to human rights violations from nations aligned with the US on at least one occasion. After Australian diplomat James Dunn testified in 1977 to atrocities occurring in East Timor by the Indonesian military, he wrote, “I have my own suspicions regarding what might be behind the testimony, and I agree with you that it is in all our best interests to bury the Timor issue quickly and completely” (Langeveld).

In 1974, the Watergate scandal damaged the GOP’s prospects, and Burke only won reelection by 2 points. He had won reelection by over 25 points in 1972, and his opposition to granting immunity to President Nixon may have saved him from losing. After this election, his conservatism somewhat moderated, and he won reelection by 8 points in 1976. All seemed well in 1978, that is, up until the early morning of May 27th.

On May 27th, Burke was arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct as well as non-violently resisting arrest in a Ft. Lauderdale bar with nude go-go dancers, where per the police report he was “belligerent and verbally abusive” and “yelling, shouting, disrupting business” (Langeveld). He claimed that he was unjustly arrested and that he had overheard two men talking about engaging in a drug deal and followed them to the club to investigate. Contrary to this narrative and in keeping with him being drunk, he had written on the wall of his cell, “My name is J.H. Burke. The time is 12:20 a.m. I have not been charged. I want to make a charge against the (illegible) by the Dania police. I was molested by the Dania police without right of counsel with charges being made against me. I was abused, molested, abused and prevented from calling a lawyer, a friend or making a complaint. J. Herbert Burke” (Langeveld). He subsequently tried to persuade the bar’s manager, Joseph Dangles, to provide false testimony to exculpate him. This resulted in a charge of witness tampering being added to the case, and he ultimately pled guilty to the original charges and “no contest” to witness tampering, which landed him a $177.50 fine and three months’ probation (Langeveld).

This incident severely compromised support for Burke’s reelection, and Democratic sheriff Edward Stack ran against him. Although Stack was far from a perfect candidate himself, he prevailed by 23 points. Burke’s political career was over, never running again for public office. His agreement rate with ACA and ADA are almost the inverse: 88% and 11% respectively. Burke’s DW-Nominate score places him as more of a moderate conservative at 0.241. The usually Republican district would return to form in 1980 with the election of E. Clay Shaw by 10 points. Burke died of a heart attack on June 16, 1993, at the age of 82. Burke’s story was an inspiration for Floridian Carl Hiaasen to write the Florida-based crime thriller Strip Tease in 1993, which was adapted into a critically panned 1996 film with Burt Reynolds and Demi Moore.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Voting Records

Burke, J. Herbert. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/11007/j-herbert-burke

Hunter, M. (1967, September 6). Shift to the Right in Congress Seen. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

J. Herbert Burke, former congressman. (1993, June 23). The Chicago Tribune, 131.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/article/chicago-tribune-obituary-for-j-herbert/37315588

Langeveld, D. (2009, October 8). J. Herbert Burke: only there for the articles. The Downfall Dictionary.

Retrieved from

https://downfalldictionary.blogspot.com/2009/10/j-herbert-burke-only-there-for-articles.html

Fascinating Politics

1968: The North Carolina Faithless Elector Case

Dr. Lloyd W. Bailey (1928-2020), the Nixon elector who prompted the first Congressional vote to disapprove of an electoral vote cast.

Ever since the Electoral College was created, there have been numerous criticisms and real or possible pitfalls pointed out. Indeed, in my area, there are quite a few critics. One of the potential pitfalls are the electors themselves, and whether their votes will be in comport with the will of the people. I say for this one that it is a “potential” pitfall as no elector’s independent decision has changed the outcome of a presidential election. There have been a few famous instances of faithless electors as well as efforts to curb the phenomenon.

The 1968 election was a three-way race between Republican Richard Nixon, Democrat Hubert Humphrey, and American Independent George Wallace. Wallace had no realistic chance of winning the election, but he did have a chance of serving as kingmaker, and that is what his campaign was shooting for. Had Wallace been able to serve as a kingmaker, he could have extracted a pledge from the winning candidate that would have hindered the progression of civil rights in the South. The Wallace campaign got just a little closer to this potential outcome when Dr. Lloyd W. Bailey, an elector pledged to Nixon, cast his vote for Wallace. This had no chance of changing the election, and Bailey said that if his vote would have changed the election, he would have stuck with Nixon. This was a big news story at the time, and created the best political environment in history for the repeal of the Electoral College. At the start of 1969, Rep. James G. O’Hara (D-Mich.) filed the first ever objection to an electoral vote in history. Sen. Edmund Muskie (D-Me.) did likewise for the Senate. Their hope in this matter was to discourage future faithless electors by invalidating this vote and to uphold “the integrity of this election under the present system and to effectively dramatize the dangers of continuing to operate under this outmoded, haphazard and undemocratic method of electing a President” ( They had the backing of the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Emanuel Celler (D-N.Y.). He spoke in favor of the objection, stating, “Whether or not electors are pledged, whether or not they are named, whether or not their names appear on the ballot, whether or not the law provides sanctions if they should fail to vote in accordance with the electorate’s wishes, the universal – and I say “universal” – understanding in the United States today and in the 20th century particularly is that the electoral college exercises a ministerial, an agency function and effectuates the expressed wishes of the people. Indeed most electors consider themselves irrevocably committed to support the presidential candidate on whose ticket they were elected or on which they were elected” and concluded, “…I intend to support the proposed challenge to the vote cast by the elector from North Carolina. I do so recognizing that the disposition of this challenged vote will not affect the result of the presidential election. However, I believe it most appropriate and essential that the Congress give effect to the view now held by the overwhelming majority of our people that when the vote of an electorate is cast for President, it shall not be nullified or abrogated by any elector” (Congressional Record, 149). However, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, William McCulloch of Ohio, was in opposition. He argued, “Today, the objectors ask us to circumvent the [constitutional] amending process. They ask us to do what we have criticized so often before—to read into the Constitution what we wish the law to be. . . . They ask us to adopt a view which not only differs from but which is diametrically opposed to the way the Constitution was written” and held that Congress should only engage in objections in instances in which two returns were received, such as in the 1876 election (U.S. House).

Congress voted on both the O’Hara and Muskie resolutions, but both failed, the O’Hara objection 169-229 and the Muskie objection 33-58. Interestingly, House Minority Leader Gerald Ford (R-Mich.) supported O’Hara’s objection, as did many Michiganders. Maine’s delegation joined Muskie in support as well.

The Ideology of the Vote

Nearly all of the most conservative members of Congress agreed with McCulloch’s objection and voted against. There were also, even more interestingly, some very liberal legislators who voted against the objection, such as California’s Philip Burton. However, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action considered voting for the objections to be the liberal position. All black politicians save for Senator Edward Brooke (R-Mass.), who happened to be the only black Republican legislator at the time, voted for the objection.

The vote is detailed here, with lifetime ACA agreement rates for legislators:

Muskie Elector Objection, 1969Download
O’Hara Elector Objection, 1969Download

8/21/26 Correction: There were a few errors on the ACA scores in the O’Hara Elector Objection, which I have fixed.

References

Congress and the Case of the Faithless Elector. (2020, November 17). U.S. House of Representatives.

Retrieved from

https://history.house.gov/Blog/2020/November/11-17-Faithless-Electors

Counting Electoral Votes – Joint Session of the House and Senate Held Pursuant to the Provisions of Senate Concurrent Resolution 1. (1969, January 6). Congressional Record, 145-172.

Retrieved from

https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1969/01/06/house-section

Counting of the Electoral Vote. (1969, January 6). Congressional Record, 197-246.

Retrieved from

https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1969/01/06/senate-section

Fascinating Politics

Edith Green: The Beaver State’s Education Champion

That Oregon today votes Democratic seems to go without saying, but it didn’t used to be this way. Indeed, the state had a considerable history of Republican voting, and for most of FDR’s presidency, both of its senators were Republicans. From 1943 to 1953, the entire delegation to Congress from Oregon was Republican. However, just because one was a Republican, it far from automatically meant that a conservative line was followed, and this proved quite true with Senator Wayne Morse, who broke the Republican unity when he switched to Independent in 1953. Morse was a liberal, and he was popular. Liberalism was starting to gain traction in the state, and the liberal position was popular on some issues in the state, such as public ownership of power. The Republicans and President Eisenhower had moved hard in the direction of private ownership of power, and that rubbed many Oregonians the wrong way. Enter Edith Starrett Green (1910-1987).

In the 1950s, Green was an outsider in multiple ways. First, she was a Democrat, and second, there had only been one woman previously elected to represent the state in Congress in Portland’s Nan Honeyman, and she had lost reelection after one term. Green had been a teacher by profession in her younger years, teaching public school in Salem from 1930 to 1941 and afterwards was a lobbyist for the Oregon Education Association and director of the Oregon Congress of Parents and Teachers. It probably goes without saying that in her career her big emphasis would be on education. In 1952, Green made her first run for public office by running for Secretary of State. Although she lost, she had lost narrowly in a good Republican year. In 1954, Green set her eyes on the Portland-based 3rd district. Its representative during that time was Homer D. Angell, who had defeated Honeyman back in 1938 and was moderate and pro-organized labor, having voted against the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. However, by 1954, he was 79 years old and got defeated for renomination by 41-year-old Tom McCall, who would later be elected governor. Despite a fresh face, voter support for the GOP was declining and it was a midterm, which tends to work against the president’s party. Green defeated McCall with 52% of the vote, and had little trouble winning her district afterwards, even though Portland voted for Nixon in 1960.

Congresswoman Green

As a member of Congress, she started out as a New Deal liberal, much as Nan Honeyman had been, and called for an equal pay law (which would be enacted in 1963). From 1955 to 1964, she only dissented with the liberal Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) twice (she opposed flood control funding and a foreign aid increase in 1957). She strongly supported the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s, but was the only woman to oppose an effort to tack on sex as a protected class to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Green believed that this could kill the bill and that separate legislation should address sex discrimination, stating, “For every discrimination that I have suffered, the Negro woman has suffered ten times that amount of discrimination” (O’Dea, 288-289). She strongly supported New Frontier and Great Society programs but she notably dissented on the bill repealing the “right to work” section of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1965, a bit of a sign of things to come. That year, as chairwoman of the subcommittee on higher education, Green introduced the Higher Education Act of 1965, which was easily adopted during the Great Society Congress and was part of President Johnson’s efforts to use the federal government to the betterment of education. Green had also played major roles in drafting the National Defense Education Act in 1958 and the Higher Education Facilities Act in 1963. However, Green’s politics would increasingly diverge from the national Democratic line.

The Nixon Years: A Turn to the Right

Beginning in the latter part of the Johnson Administration, Green started dissenting with the liberal line a bit more and even moved a bit to the right on her signature issue of education. She started supporting measures giving states more authority and in 1969 she proposed a substitute to extending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act backed by the Nixon Administration which reduced the length of its extension from five to two years, thus funding for the law would come for review by Congress sooner. Green became increasingly skeptical of the efficacy of numerous federal social programs, and in 1969 was one of the sponsors of a proposal, opposed by the Nixon Administration, to transfer functions of numerous anti-poverty programs to the states. Indeed, her increasing skepticism of the federal role in education led her to coin the term “educational-industrial complex” to critique extensive federal involvement in education (Hunter). One issue Green continued to remain liberal on among others was in her opposition to the Vietnam War. In 1967, she had been one of only 18 representatives to support an amendment giving the sense of Congress that bombing of North Vietnam should come to an end. In 1972, she sponsored with Sen. Birch Bayh (D-Ind.) and Rep. Patsy Mink (D-Haw.) a lasting achievement in Title IX, banning sex discrimination in educational institutions receiving federal funding.

In 1974, Green opted to retire from Congress. Evaluations on her stand as rather similar; she sided with ADA 71% of the time, the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action 25% of the time, and her DW-Nominate score is -0.243, all indicating moderate liberalism for her overall career. Her activities after her career focused primarily on education, serving as a member of the State Board of Higher Education and taught at Warner Pacific College. Demonstrating further how much had politically changed in twenty years, Green endorsed President Ford in 1976 and served as co-chairwoman for “National Democrats for Gerald Ford”. In 1981, President Reagan tapped Green to serve on the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships. She died of cancer on April 21, 1987, at the age of 77. To this day, Edith Green is the most impactful female federal legislator that Oregon has elected.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Voting Records

Cogswell, P. (2022, December 12). Edith Starrett Green. Oregon Encyclopedia.

Retrieved from

https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/green_edith_starrett_1910_1987_

Green, Edith Starrett. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/3775/edith-starrett-green

Hunter, M. (1981, April 3). Cuts in U.S. Aid to Education to Have Wide Impact. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

O’Dea, S. (2006). From suffrage to the Senate: America’s political women: an encyclopedia of leaders, causes & issues (2nd ed.), Vol 1. Millerton, NY: Gray House Publishing.

Fascinating Politics

The 1912 Congressional Election: The Winds of Change

The 1912 election was highly impactful on the Congressional level, with a number of prominent incumbents being turned out and the entrance of the Progressive Party in Congress. The majorities the Democrats got in the House and Senate ensured that much of President Wilson’s progressive agenda would be passed in his first two years. I will write a separate post about the 1912 presidential election, as that deserves one.

The House

Champ Clark (D-Mo.), Speaker of the House

This election was a boon for the Democrats, as Republicans lost 28 seats while Democrats gained 62. The Democrats won a lot of the new seats added from the 1910 census, while the newly formed Progressive Party won 10 seats. Part of the reason Republicans took significant losses was because of the third-party Progressive candidates.

In California, Republican William Kent in the 1st district opted to run for reelection as an Independent and won, while Republican James Needham lost reelection to Democrat Denver Church in the 7th district. Republican William Stephens, now in the 10th district, ran for reelection as a Progressive and won. In the 11th district, Republican Sylvester Smith’s retirement resulted in the election of Democrat William Kettner.

In Connecticut, Democrats had a clean sweep of the delegation, although the wins all around were close. In the 1st district, future Democratic Senator Augustine Lonergan succeeded retiring Republican E. Stevens Henry, Republican John Q. Tilson lost reelection to Democrat Thomas L. Reilly in the 3rd district, and Republican Ebenezer J. Hill lost to Democrat Jeremiah Donovan. Tilson and Hill would win back their seats in 1914, with Tilson later serving as majority leader.

Democrats won Delaware’s sole district with Franklin Brockson, succeeding retiring Republican William Heald.

In Illinois, ten Republicans lost reelection; William Wilson of the 3rd district to Democrat George Gorman, George Foss of the 10th district to Progressive Charles Thomson, Charles Fuller of the 12th district to Progressive William Hinebaugh, James McKinney of the 14th district to Democrat Clyde Tavenner, George W. Prince of the 15th district to Democrat Stephen Hoxworth, John Sterling of the 17th district to Democrat Louis FitzHenry, Joe Cannon of the 18th district to Democrat Frank O’Hair, William B. McKinley of the 19th district to Democrat Charles Borchers, William Rodenberg of the 22nd district to Democrat William Baltz, and Napoleon Thistlewood tof the 25th district to Democrat Robert Hill. Republicans did, however, unseat Democrat Lynden Evans in the Chicago-based 9th district with Fred Britten. The most notable loss was of course Joe Cannon, who had been House Speaker from 1903 to 1911. Wilson, Foss, Fuller, Sterling, Cannon, McKinley, and Rodenberg would be returned to office in the 1914 election.

In Indiana, the state’s sole Republican representative, Edgar Crumpacker of the 10th district, lost reelection to Democrat John B. Peterson. However, the district would return to form with the election of William Wood in 1914.

In Iowa, two seats flipped to the Democrats with Republican Charles E. Pickett losing reelection to Democrat Maurice Connolly in the 3rd district. In the 6th district, Republican Nathan Kendall withdrew from reelection, with Democrat Sanford Kirkpatrick succeeding him. However, Republicans still had 8 of 11 districts; Iowa was still a strong Republican state despite Woodrow Wilson’s win.

In Kansas, Republicans Fred Jackson, Rollin Rees, and Isaac Young lost reelection in the 4th, 5th, and 6th districts to Democrats Dudley Doolittle, Guy Helvering, and John Connelly respectively. Democrats would interestingly hold a majority of the Kansas delegation until the 1918 election, making the Wilson presidency the height of power for Democrats in Kansas. .

In Kentucky, although no changes occurred in the state’s partisan composition, future Senate Majority Leader and Vice President Alben W. Barkley won in the at-the-time strongly Democratic 1st district.

In Maine, Republicans actually regained some ground; Democrat Samuel Gould lost reelection to Republican Forrest Goodwin in the 3rd district, leaving Republicans with a 3-1 edge in the state delegation.

In Maryland, Republicans lost their sole representative in Thomas Parran of the 5th district, with Democrat Frank O. Smith winning.

In Massachusetts, Republican Samuel W. McCall of the 8th district was succeeded by Democrat Frederick Deitrick while Republican Robert O. Harris in the 14th district lost reelection to Democrat Edward Gilmore. However, Republican Samuel Winslow defeated Democratic incumbent John Thayer in the 4th district.

In Michigan, Republicans William Wedemeyer, George A. Loud, and H. Olin Young of the 2nd, 10th, and 12th districts lost reelection to Democrat Samuel Beakes, Progressive Roy Woodruff, and Progressive William J. MacDonald respectively. Although Loud would regain his seat in 1914, Woodruff would later be elected as a Republican in 1920 and serve until 1953, with him becoming extremely conservative by FDR’s second term. In Michigan’s 5th district, however, Democrat Edwin Sweet lost reelection to Republican Carl Mapes.

In Missouri, Republican Leonidas C. Dyer of the 12th district appeared to have won reelection, but in 1914 the result was overturned and his opponent, Democrat Michael Gill, was seated for the rest of the session. Dyer would win his seat back in 1914.

In Montana, Republican Charles Pray lost reelection, and since Montana added a district, Democrats Tom Stout and John M. Evans were elected at-Large.

In New Hampshire, both of the state’s Republican representatives, Cyrus Sulloway and Frank Currier, went down to defeat by Democrats Eugene Reed and Raymond Stevens. Republicans would regain both seats in 1914, with Sulloway returning.

In New Jersey, Democrats nearly swept the board, with the only Republican remaining to represent the state was William Browning of the 1st district. In the 2nd district, Republican John Gardner lost reelection to Democrat J. Thompson Baker and in the 4th Republican Ira Wood retired and was succeeded by Democrat Allan B. Walsh, He would, however, be joined by two Republicans during the 63rd Congress: Republican Dow Drukker would win a special election in the 7th district following the death of Democrat Robert G. Bremner and Republican R. Wayne Parker would be seated for the lame-duck session of Congress after Democratic incumbent Walter I. McCoy opted to resign to accept an appointment as a justice of the Washington D.C. Supreme Court.

In New York, Progressive Walter Chandler succeeded retiring Republican John Andrus in the 19th district, while Democrats Henry Bruckner and Joseph Goulden succeeded departing Republicans in the 22nd and 23rd districts. In the 25th district, Republican Theron Akin, who came to identify himself as a “Progressive Republican”, lost the Progressive nomination to John C. Bucher, who lost to Democrat Benjamin Taylor. In the 35th and 40th districts, Republicans Michael Driscoll and James Simmons lost reelection to Democrats John Clancy and Robert H. Gittins respectively.

In Ohio, the House Republican delegation was already in bad shape at only five representatives and it was shrunk to three. Future Speaker of the House Nicholas Longworth lost reelection to Democrat Stanley Bowdle in the 1st district as did Republicans Edward L. Taylor and L.Paul Howland in the 12th and 22nd districts to Democrats Clement Brumbaugh and William Gordon respectively. However, Republican Simeon Fess gained an open Democratic seat in the 6th district.

In Pennsylvania, although Roosevelt won the state, Democrats made gains down-ticket given the Republican-Progressive split, including Democrat J. Washington Logue winning an open Republican seat in the 6th district, which was part of the at-the-time Republican stronghold of Philadelphia. Seven Republicans outside of Philadelphia lost reelection: Charles Bowman of the 11th district to Democrat John J. Casey, Benjamin K. Focht of the 17th district to Democrat Franklin Dershem, Jesse Hartman of the 19th district to Democrat Warren Bailey, Daniel Lafean in the 20th district to Democrat Andrew Brodbeck, Charles Matthews in the 24th district to Progressive Henry Temple, and Peter Speer in the 28th district to Progressive Willis Hulings. Another notable defeat was progressive-leaning Republican Melville Kelly’s primary defeat of John Dalzell in the 30th district; Dalzell had been one of Speaker Joe Cannon’s (R-Ill.) top conservative lieutenants on the Rules Committee. Democrats also lost two seats; William B. Wilson in the 15th district to Republican Edgar Kiess, and Curtis H. Gregg in the 22nd district to Republican Abraham Keister. Wilson would serve as Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary of Labor for the entirety of his presidency.

In Rhode Island, Democrats came out with a 2-1 delegation; Rhode Island was given an additional Congressional district from the 1910 census, with future Senator Peter Gerry succeeding the late Republican George Utter in the 2nd district.

Although no partisan changes occurred in the at-the-time solidly Democratic Texas, Sam Rayburn was elected to his first term this year. He was the longest serving House Speaker in American history and one of its most consequential, serving from 1940 to 1947, 1949 to 1953, and from 1955 until his death in 1961.

In Washington, two more seats were added, and these at-Large districts were won by Progressives James Bryan and Jacob Falconer, following the vote of the state for Roosevelt. However, Republican Stanton Warburton in the 2nd district, who had chosen to run for reelection as a Progressive, lost to Republican Albert Johnson.

In West Virginia, although Wilson won the state, the down-ticket results did not work out so well for Democrats, as Adam Littlepage of the 3rd district and John M. Hamilton of the 4th district lost reelection to Republicans Samuel Avis and Hunter Moss Jr. However, Littlepage would regain his seat in the 1914 election.

In Wisconsin, the elections were a bit quirky.

In the 4th district, Republican William Cary ran for reelection on a “non-partisan” line and won the Democratic nomination and won.

In the 5th district, Republican William Stafford won back his seat from Socialist Victor Berger. Stafford and Berger would duke it out for this district, with Berger being defeated for the last time by Stafford in 1928.

Republican James Davidson of the 6th district lost reelection to Democrat Michael Reilly, but he would win his seat back in 1916.

Republican Elmer Morse was placed in the same district as Democrat Thomas Konop in the 9th and lost the election.

The Senate

The Democrats would gain four seats in the Senate while Republicans lost seven. There were notably a few elections in which there were public referendums that although were not legally binding, the state legislatures chose to honor the results.

Majority Leader John W. Kern (D-Ind.), who was William Jennings Bryan’s running mate in 1908.

In Colorado, retiring Republican Simon Guggenheim was succeeded by Democrat John F. Shafroth.

In Delaware, Republican Harry A. Richardson lost reelection to Democrat Willard Saulsbury Jr.

In Illinois, the Senate election was a bit of a mess; the aging Republican Shelby Cullom, who had first been elected to Congress in 1864, lost renomination and Republican William Lorimer had been been voided in 1912 due to corruption. An agreement was reached in the Illinois legislature to elect Democrat J. Hamilton Lewis and Republican Lawrence Y. Sherman.

In Kansas, Democrat William Howard Thompson won the Senate election after Republican Charles Curtis was defeated for renomination by Walter R. Stubbs. Thompson would be the second-to-last Democrat to represent the state in the Senate.

In Maine, Republicans would have one of their few victories, as Democrat Obadiah Gardner, specially appointed to the Senate in 1911, lost the election to Republican Edwin Burleigh.

In Montana, Republican Joseph Dixon opted to run for reelection as a Progressive, but lost to Democrat Thomas J. Walsh, who would serve in the Senate for twenty years as a progressive crusader and would die just before he could become FDR’s attorney general.

In New Hampshire, a vacant Republican seat was won by Democrat Henry Hollis.

In New Jersey, Republican Frank Briggs lost reelection to Democrat William Hughes.

In Oregon, Republican Jonathan Bourne opted to run for reelection as a member of the “Popular Government Party”, but lost to Democrat Harry Lane.

In Tennessee, Democrats regained a seat that was only held by Republican Newell Sanders as he was an interim appointment. The victor, John K. Shields, would later prove a royal pain in the neck for President Wilson.

In West Virginia, in keeping with that state’s down-ticket trend, Democratic appointee Clarence Watson lost the election to Republican Nathan Goff Jr., who had been Secretary of the Navy during the Hayes Administration.

Fascinating Politics

Great Conservatives from American History #33: Charles Wiggins – The Great Nixon Defender

The year 1966 constituted a backlash against the policies of the Johnson Administration, and some incumbents went down who were thought to be in good shape in their districts. Republican attorney and mayor of El Monte Charles Edward Wiggins (1927-2000) challenged incumbent Democrat Ronald B. Cameron in the 25th district in Orange County. Cameron had previously defeated Republican John Rousselot in 1962, as he had attracted great controversy for being a prominent member of the John Birch Society. However, Wiggins could not be painted in the same light, and on Election Day 1966 he ousted Cameron by 5 points. This would be Wiggins’ toughest election as he would prove popular in his district.

Wiggins on Policy

At first, it may have seemed like Wiggins was going to be an extreme conservative; in 1967 the liberal Americans for Democratic Action found him in agreement on none of the 15 votes they had tallied as most important, and this included a civil rights bill that had the support of all but 25 Republicans. However, he would prove that he had more layers than just ultra-conservative; as a member of the House Judiciary Committee he was involved in the consideration of Constitutional amendments, and he was regularly against further amendments; in 1971, he was one of 19 representatives to vote against the 18-year-old vote and one of 24 to vote against the Equal Rights Amendment, but in the same year he also voted against the School Prayer Amendment. In 1978, Wiggins voted against an amendment letting Washington D.C. elect representatives. However, this didn’t mean he was against autonomy for D.C., as in 1973 he voted for the law permitting D.C. to elect its own mayor and city council. He also wasn’t opposed to all efforts to amend the Constitution; in 1969 he voted in favor of an amendment scrapping the Electoral College. His political stances had some variance; although in 1969 he supported killing the Philadelphia Plan (affirmative action precursor) he also supported expanding the government’s ability to enforce anti-discrimination laws in 1971. Wiggins was a staunch supporter of President Nixon’s policy on Vietnam and although he was in opposition to most anti-poverty programs, he did support the creation of the Legal Services Corporation to help provide legal assistance to the poor. In 1974, he was one of 48 representatives to vote against the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments in 1974, which provided for federal funding of presidential campaigns, limitations on campaign contributions, and the establishment of the Federal Election Commission. On economics, Wiggins supported free market approaches to policy and was in opposition to price control on gas. He was also fiscally conservative, voting to sustain the vetoes of Presidents Nixon and Ford on spending. However, Wiggins backed a few hot-button positions unpopular with rank and file conservatives, such as voting for the New York City bailout in 1975, against the Hyde Amendment in 1976, and his support for the Panama Canal Treaties. He also went against President Ford on voting to override his veto of the bill providing for national standards for strip mining in 1975. Wiggins opposed the 1975 Voting Rights Act extension and led the push for an alternative formula for coverage under the act, one more lenient than what existed, namely he called for a standard of coverage based on minority turnout rates.

Wiggins and Watergate

Wiggins was one of the three leaders of the defense of the Nixon Administration during the Watergate hearings. Their strategy, per The New York Times (2000) was “…to construe the evidence as narrowly as possible, require ironclad proof and propose benign explanations of information damaging to the president” (Pace). However, upon the release of the Watergate tapes, he changed his mind and supported impeachment, but wanted the president to resign to avoid dragging things out. Wiggins lamented where he had to stand, stating, “Such a conclusion was a sad and personally wrenching one for me to reach, because I regarded–and still do regard–myself as a friend of the president and his family and one still willing, proudly, to claim his achievements” (Nelson & Weinstein). Although Wiggins’ defense of Nixon certainly harmed his political prospects, he nonetheless prevailed in reelection in 1974, winning by 15 points. In 1978, Wiggins opted to retire to private legal practice, and he was succeeded by the much more conservative William Dannemeyer. His DW-Nominate score is a 0.359, he was in agreement with the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action 79% of the time, and in agreement with the liberal Americans for Democratic Action 15% of the time. However, he was not out of government for good.

Judge Wiggins

In 1984, President Reagan tapped Wiggins to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and he issued some substantive rulings. In 1994, he upheld the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in Holmes v. California National Guard, finding that it was not in violation of the 1st and 5th Amendments (Nelson & Weinstein) In 1996, Wiggins assumed senior status (semi-retirement for judges). In 1998, he testified before Congress during the Clinton impeachment hearings and urged a “nay” vote as he found the charges too vague (Pace). He was in poor health in his last years, suffering from diabetes and heart disease, dying on March 2, 2000 at the age of 72.

Conclusion

The inclusion of Wiggins may seem odd, but in truth on most matters he was conservative and was a man who thought for himself, unafraid to take unpopular positions, whether in opposition to consensus or his party’s preferences. I tremendously value the latter, which is why the current era of politics is disturbing to me. Pardon the late aside, but I see two political cults present in American politics: the Cult of Trump and the Cult of Social Justice, the latter which seems to be increasingly going mask off in its favorability to communism, and the former which tries very very hard to form a greater ideological philosophy from whatever President Trump wishes. The truth about President Trump is that although yes he is a man of the right, he is also temperamental and often acts based on his whims, whether for good or ill. Seeing people twist like pretzels in justification for some of the things he does (such as imposing tariffs so broad and slipshod that they included islands with penguins rather than humans as residents) is simultaneously amusing and disheartening. Choose systems and philosophies, not men, and don’t insist on 100% agreement with you as it is not realistic, and there is also a non-zero chance that you are wrong (GASP!). President Reagan was right when he said that someone who is 80% your friend and ally in politics is not 20% your enemy. Use your own brains, people! Don’t merely be a mouthpiece for others.

Bonus:

Wiggins’ press conference explaining his position on Watergate after the release of the Watergate tapes:

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Voting Records

Nelson, S.S. & Weinstein,H. (2000, March 4). U.S. Judge Charles E. Wiggins; Backed Nixon During Watergate. The Los Angeles Times.

Retrieved from

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-mar-04-mn-5189-story.html

Pace, E. (2000, March 8). Charles Wiggins, 72, Dies; Led Nixon’s Defense in Hearings. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Wiggins, Charles Edward. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/11055/charles-edward-wiggins