When it comes to the first senators of states, not all have had impressive starts with who they sent. However, one of Colorado’s was unquestionably a man of tremendous influence and staying power in Henry Moore Teller (1830-1914).
Although a New Yorker by birth, Teller as a young man made his way west to seek his fortune as an attorney for miners. He was from the beginning of his time in politics opposed to slavery and joined the Republican Party in the 1850s. Settling in the Colorado Territory, Teller aimed to grow the region. Like many prominent Republicans of his day, he was a businessman, establishing with Edward L. Berthoud and William A.H. Loveland the Colorado Central Railroad, with him serving as president for five years. Although Teller is noted for his opposition to the Dawes Act, many of his actions were in opposition to Indian tribes as independent of society. From 1863 to 1865, he led the Colorado militia in campaigns against the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes.
In 1876, the state of Colorado, after multiple attempts from Republicans to admit the state to the Union, is finally admitted. Sworn in as its first senators are Teller and Jerome B. Chaffee on November 15th. Chaffee didn’t remain in the Senate too long, but Teller became a mainstay in American politics for over thirty years. His record in the Senate was as a moderate Republican, and consistently supportive of bimetallism as a policy, as opposed to the favored stance of the Republican Eastern establishment of the gold standard. Silver currency stimulated the mining of silver in the West and was inflationary, thus serving to help indebted farmers reduce their debt. Thus, Teller voted to override President Hayes’ veto of the Bland-Allison Silver Purchase Act, establishing bimetallism as a policy. In 1882, President Chester Arthur nominated Teller to the post of interior secretary.
Interior Secretary
As Interior Secretary, Teller supported measures aimed at forcibly assimilating Indians into American society, including legal penalties for continuing to engage in certain tribal practices. He saw them continuing their practices as holding them back from advancement in white society and wished them to convert to Christianity. Teller also backed opening numerous Indian lands to white settlement and was strongly favorable to developing the west. After the election of Grover Cleveland, Teller was out of the Interior Department but back in the Senate.
Teller Returns to the Senate: Opposition to the Dawes Act and to Edmunds-Tucker Act
The Dawes Act of 1887 probably deserves more coverage than I’m giving it here, but it was in short an attempt at social engineering American Indian tribes to adopt individual property ownership instead of the concept of communal property, thus furthering assimilation policy. The law proved catastrophic for Indian tribes in its land allotment scheme; during the life of the Dawes Act they lost 90 million acres of land (or 2/3’s of the holdings they had in 1887), with at least some of it obtained through fraud. Teller strongly opposed allotment, warning that it would serve “to despoil the Indians of their lands and to make them vagabonds on the face of the earth” and held that “the real aim [of allotment] was to get at the Indian lands and open them up to settlement. The provisions for the apparent benefit of the Indians are but the pretext to get at his lands and occupy them. … If this were done in the name of greed, it would be bad enough; but to do it in the name of humanity … is infinitely worse” (Otis, 18-19).
Interestingly, although Teller did not vote on the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1887 which disincorporated the Church of Latter-Day Saints for polygamy, it was clear he opposed it as excessively harsh, a pretty lonely stance within the GOP, which had in its 1856 platform regarded polygamy and slavery as twin evils. Teller was ultimately a deeply respected senator in Colorado not only for his politics transcending his party affiliation but also for his advocacy for the West. He was known as the “defender of the West” and as “Colorado’s Grand Old Man” (Straayer). However, the state’s “Grand Old Man” would not remain with the “Grand Old Party”.
Estrangement from the GOP
The Panic of 1893 plunged the United States into the worst depression it had faced thus far, with rural areas especially suffering. After the repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, the repeal being backed by Bourbon Democrats and conservative Republicans, Colorado’s economy suffered horribly with numerous residents looking to leave. Although Teller opposed the Gorman-Wilson Tariff in 1894 like the other Republicans, he also supported keeping the provision imposing an income tax on the wealthy. In 1896, Teller led the walkout of the Republican National Convention when a bimetallism plank was overwhelmingly defeated (Larson, 189). Thus, he and other Republican politicians from the West refused to support William McKinley and formed the “Silver Republican Party” in protest, which backed Democrat William Jennings Bryan.
Final Years in Office: McKinley and Roosevelt
Although Teller historically supported Republican tariff policy, he opposed the Dingley Tariff in 1897, not wanting to support the GOP on this one if they would no longer accommodate bimetallism. In 1898, he sponsored the Teller Amendment, which put the Senate on record in opposition to the U.S. annexing Cuba in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War. The US would only remain in Cuba until 1902. The Silver Republican Party as a faction came to an end after the 1900 election given the passage of the Gold Standard Act and the economy had recovered by that point, but Teller did not return to the GOP as many Silver Republicans did. He switched to the Democratic Party and helped build up its support in Colorado. Teller was an interesting addition to the Democratic Party as he did not necessarily change all his core values when he entered their party, for instance retaining his old party’s Lincolnian legacy on blacks, which was beginning to make minor strides in the Democratic Party of the early 1900s. Teller did also support increasing spending on the US navy, consistent with the view of influential author Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan that the great powers of history had strong navies. By 1909, he was 78 years old and opted not to have another term. His DW-Nominate score was a 0.161, reflecting an overall moderate record. Teller departed public life in 1912 and died on February 23, 1914. The state of Colorado has numerous places named in his honor, most notably Teller County.
For some reason I’ve lately been on a bit of a kick for the politics of the late 19th century. There’s something tremendously fascinating about the Gilded Age as well as interpretations of the time period. From the celebrity status of numerous of its politicians to how to examine the era ideologically, it is a subject of great attention. The Gilded Age has often been characterized as a time of high partisanship but with low ideological substance, and there seems to be some truth to that. The issue of civil rights in this time was overwhelmingly partisan, with some regionality coming out on the matter of racial discrimination in interstate commerce. Both parties had inflationary wings on currency questions, although the inflationary wing was stronger among Democrats than Republicans. Republicans in this time were the party of more centralized power while the Democrats were the party of state’s rights. However, Republicans thought of this in the Hamiltonian sense, that the purpose of the government was to assist private enterprise through the imposition of protective tariffs and using such funds to build up national infrastructure, such as canals, bridges, and roads. The business ethos of the old Federalists and their emphasis on property rights is strongly alive in the modern GOP. The greatest issue that divided the parties was one that frequently served as a subject of partisan division throughout America’s history: the protective tariff.
A reformer figure in the GOP at the time was Senator George Franklin Edmunds (1828-1919) of Vermont. Edmunds was not quite as recognized in his time as his fellow Vermonter Justin Morrill, who sponsored some critical legislation in his day that still benefits many Americans, such as the Morrill Land Grant Acts that resulted in the establishment of many of the US’s universities. Elected to the Senate in 1866 following the death of Senator Solomon Foot, Edmunds proved an independent thinker. Although in some key fundamentals he could be thought of as conservative, such as his staunch support for anti-inflationary monetary policy as well as his frequent backing of tariffs, he was also often in opposition to the interests of the railroads and shipping industry and was during the 1870s and 1880s perhaps the foremost supporter of civil service reform in the Republican Party. Edmunds also served as chairman of the powerful Judiciary Committee from 1872 to 1879 and again from 1882 to 1891. He played a considerable role in the effort to convict President Andrew Johnson in 1868, falling short by a single vote. The Stalwarts called Edmunds and his band of reformers the “Half-Breeds” in that they were “half-hearted” Republicans. The term “RINO” springs to mind today. Edmunds made friends across the political aisle in his time, with his closest friendship being with Democrat Allen G. Thurman of Ohio, who he sometimes worked with on efforts to curb railroad power.
Electoral Commission
The 1876 election was one of the most contentious elections in American history, with threats of another War of the Rebellion in the air. One of the elected officials appointed to the Electoral Commission to decide the election was Edmunds. The commission’s vote ended up being 8-7 that Hayes won the election, the vote corresponding with the political affiliations of the members. Although this and the arrangement that put Hayes in office prevented a resumption of armed national division, it came at a price. Civil rights advancement for Southern blacks was hindered with the end of Reconstruction and they gradually would be rendered completely politically neutralized by Jim Crow voting laws.
Edmunds and Civil Rights
If Edmunds was thought of as a “Half Breed” for his support of civil service reform, he unwaveringly stood for black voting rights in the South and he enjoyed baiting Southern senators into making ill-considered outbursts that embarrassed the Democrats. In 1880, a Southern journalist expressed the sort of enmity that many white Southerners in politics shared for him, “When I look at that man sitting almost alone in the Senate, isolated in his gloom of hate and bitterness, stern, silent, watchful, suspicious and pitiless, I am reminded of the worst types of Puritan character…You see the impress of the pure persecuting spirit that burned witches, drove out Roger Williams, hounded Jonathan Edwards for doing his sacred duty, maligned Jefferson, and like a toad squatted at the ear of the Constitution it had failed to pervert” (Adler, 202).
Presidential Aspirant
Edmunds was a contender for the Republican nomination for president in 1880 and 1884, but he was not a major contender, and his latter bid was undercut when it was found out that on the side, he was accepting retainers for legal services for railroads and corporations. Although this was legal at the time and certainly not as damaging as Blaine’s scandal was, it was controversial. Although such payments do not appear to have impacted his judgment surrounding corporate interests and railroad legislation given that he far from always voted for proposals that benefited them.
In 1882, Edmunds was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Chester Arthur after the Stalwart of Stalwarts Roscoe Conkling refused to accept a seat, but twice refused, the post ultimately going to Samuel Blatchford. It is a commentary on the power of a senator in this time that refusing a Supreme Court nomination could be considered an optimal move. Indeed, the presidents of the Gilded Age were known as “custodial presidents” as the role was perhaps more limited in this time than any other. Starting with the dismal presidency of Andrew Johnson, a man who even his defenders acknowledged was a weak leader, the role of president was in practice subordinated to that of Congress.
In 1884, he was a minor contender for the presidency, but some prominent future politicians backed his campaign, including future President Theodore Roosevelt and future Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. After Blaine won the nomination, Edmunds refused to support his campaign, regarding him as a phony Half-Breed. He wrote of him, “It is my deliberate opinion that Senator Blaine acts as the attorney of Jay Gould. Whenever Mr. Thurman and I have settled upon legislation to bring the Pacific Railroad to terms of equity with the government, up has jumped Mr. James G. Blaine musket in hand, from behind the breastworks of Jay Gould’s lobby to fire in our faces” (Ward, 130). Although Edmunds himself didn’t endorse Cleveland, many of his supporters were “Mugwumps”, or Republicans who, inspired by Cleveland’s good government ethics, voted for him. Edmunds hardly did worse for Blaine than Roscoe Conkling, who when asked if he would campaign for Blaine stated, “Gentlemen, you have been misinformed. I have given up criminal law” (Cooper). Although Blaine often gets seen as a Half-Breed historically including formerly by me, Edmunds had a point about him and he was really somewhere in between the Stalwarts and the Half-Breeds as he had opposed President Hayes’ pushes for civil service reform. Despite Edmunds’ refusal to endorse Blaine, possibly tipping the scales to Cleveland given how incredibly close the election was, he pulled off a resounding victory in his reelection bid in 1886.
Anti-Polygamy Legislation
Edmunds was the point man in the Senate in cracking down on polygamy, sponsoring two laws in opposition. First was the Edmunds Act in 1882, which provided for enforcement of the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, making the practice of polygamy a criminal offense punishable by up to 5 years in prison and stripped numerous civil rights from polygamists, including suffrage, holding public office, and serving on juries (Cornell University). President Lincoln had suspended enforcement during the War of the Rebellion as an incentive for Brigham Young to keep out of the conflict. This law was followed up with the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1887, which disincorporated the Church of Latter-Day Saints and the Perpetual Emigration Fund for promoting polygamy. These stances were entirely consistent with the Republican Party’s foundation, as in its first convention in 1856 their platform had condemned polygamy and slavery as the “twin relics of barbarism”. The law passed by such a margin that it would be overridden if President Cleveland vetoed it, but he didn’t like the law either, so he simply let the act become law without his signature. The Edmunds-Tucker Act would be repealed in 1978.
Anti-Trust Legislation
In 1890, Senator Edmunds turned his sights on the growing power and influence of trusts. Despite the name of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Senator John Sherman of Ohio was only the senator who introduced the measure, and it was quite vague in concept, something that Edmunds feared had potential to curb honest private enterprise (Welch, 70). He worked with George Frisbie Hoar (R-Mass.) to finalize the measure. Edmunds also insisted on unions being subject to anti-trust laws (Encyclopedia Britannica). The approach of Edmunds and Hoar was in keeping with the philosophy of the Half-Breeds on business. As historian Richard E. Welch (1968) writes, “The Half-Breeds distrusted the growing economic and political power of industrial combinations, but distrusted even more those who would endanger economic expansion by indiscriminate attacks on Big Business” (70). The Republicans of old were quite far from New Dealers in philosophy, including the Half-Breeds. Both Edmunds and Hoar saw the legislation as preserving free enterprise while providing the legal framework to curb bad actors.
Post-Senate Legal Career
In 1891, Edmunds resigned the Senate to practice law in Philadelphia. Edmunds’ DW-Nominate score seems to reflect his independence well, with him getting a 0.274. As an attorney, he tackled numerous major cases, his foremost one was arguing for the unconstitutionality of the income tax before the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895), which he won on a 5-4 vote. Despite his high minded stances, Edmunds was condemned as a “senatorial bribe-taker” in 1921 by Richard Pettigrew, a former South Dakota Republican senator who by that time had become a pro-Bolshevik radical (Pettigrew, 215-16). He was referring to Edmunds getting paid retainers for legal counsel by railroads and corporations while in office that impacted support for him in 1884. Edmunds would after his legal career retire to Pasadena, California. In 1910, Edmunds came out against the proposed 16th Amendment and explained his reasons in an open letter to Senator William Dillingham. and outlived most of his Gilded Age colleagues; he even lived to see the death of Theodore Roosevelt, dying on February 27, 1919 at the age of 91. Although he has a public school named after him in Burlington, Vermont, ironically the foremost places named after him are on the other side of the nation: the city of Edmonds, Washington, is actually a clerical error, a misspelling of Edmunds (Edmonds Historical Museum, 47). The Edmunds Glacier of Mount Rainier, Washington, is also named after him.
George Edmunds reminds me in some ways of Nikki Haley. Note that I wrote in some ways, as she has been willing to support the front-runner. I doubt the same could be said for Edmunds if he were serving today. His concerns about Blaine seem a bit quaint compared to what has been alleged about the current front-runner. Perhaps Edmunds knew his career could survive a repudiation of Blaine’s candidacy while many other Republicans know that many of their primary voters seem to trust in whoever Trump endorses. And they’d better be on his endorsement list come primary time.
References
Adler, S. (1934). (Ph. D. diss.) The Senatorial Career of George Franklin Edmunds, 1866-1891. University of Illinois.
Pettigrew, R.F. (1921). Triumphant plutocracy: the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, 215-16. The Founding and Beginning of Edmonds, Washington, 1876-1906. Edmonds Historical Museum.
Most people do not know of senators from history, especially those who did not run for president. One senator who is very much worth remembering, however, is Roscoe Conkling of New York (1829-1888). His iron political grip on New York, a vital swing state in his time, produced divisions within the Republican Party itself.
In 1858, the Republican Party was a young organization, and elected to Congress from New York that year was Roscoe Conkling (1829-1888). Formerly the mayor of Utica, Conkling was such a striking figure in Washington that if he were serving today, one might call him “Congressman Chad”. By profession a successful lawyer, he was a strapping young buck who was always committed to self-improvement. This meant strength of body and mind, making him exercise a great deal including through horseback riding and boxing. Conkling was also tremendously well-read, and his memory was such that he could read books and documents and be able to recite much of them afterwards. He could deliver speeches for hours without stumbling on a single word or losing anyone’s attention. Conkling also did not smoke and seldom drank. All this, including his height of 6’3″ and his reputation as “Lord Roscoe” made him a hit with the ladies of Washington. When Republican representatives were concerned for the safety of the aging Thaddeus Stevens (R-Penn.) as his words for Southern Democrats were often harsh, considering the brutal beating inflicted on Senator Charles Sumner in 1856, Conkling served as his bodyguard. He condemned President Buchanan during the secession crisis as being “petrified by fear, or vacillating between determination and doubt, while the rebels snatched him from his nerveless grasp the ensign of the Republic, and waved before his eyes the banner of secession…” (National Park Service, Part 1). However, there were negative aspects to Conkling. He wasn’t particularly popular among his fellow legislators, as he had a well-deserved reputation for arrogance. Conkling was humorless, often disagreeable, easily offended, and was known to strut about as opposed to walk. This, combined with him having a distinctive blonde curl on his forehead as well as his loudly colored vests and bowties, made him a gold mine for political cartoonists of the era.
Conkling was on much better terms with Buchanan’s successor, Abraham Lincoln. Although his first choice had been Senator William Seward of New York, Conkling stood by Lincoln. While he often backed typical Republican positions such as high tariffs with the Morrill Tariff, he didn’t always agree with the president. For instance, he voted against the Legal Tender Act of 1862, refusing to accept fiat paper currency even as an emergency measure. That year, Conkling lost reelection to War Democrat Francis Kernan, his former law professor. Conkling in turn defeated Kernan for reelection in 1864, but both men remained good friends throughout. After the War of the Rebellion, Conkling stood as a Radical Republican. To be clear, the term “Radical Republican” means believing in a punitive approach to the South as well as strongly standing for the rights of freedmen and has no greater issue implications for the politics of the time. He clashed not only with Democrats but also with his fellow Republicans, including prominent ones in James G. Blaine and James A. Garfield. It was particularly bitter with the former, and their bad relations began in 1866, when after several exchanges on the House floor Blaine said, “The contempt of that large-minded gentleman is so wilting; his haughty disdain, his grandiloquent swell, his majestic, super-eminent, overpowering turkey-gobbler strut has been so crushing to myself and all the members of this House that I know it was an act of the greatest temerity of me to venture upon a controversy with him” (National Park Service, Part I). Conkling never forgave Blaine and would continually battle him for power and influence in the Republican Party after. In 1867, Congressman Conkling became Senator Conkling.
The Senate
In the Senate, Conkling staunchly supported the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, and the effort to convict him fell only one vote short. When it came to presidents, he would easily have his best relationship with Johnson’s successor, Ulysses S. Grant. Conkling undoubtedly found his greatest ally in his good friend Grant. He at the time was competing with Reuben Fenton, New York’s other senator, for patronage in the state, and he was quite the success on that front. Fenton thought it was a good idea to suck up to Grant, which he despised, and by contrast respected Conkling sticking to his guns respectfully (National Park Service, Part II). Grant thus heeded Conkling on many matters, including who to appoint to positions in New York, especially the customs collector of the Port of New York, the port that took in the most tariff revenue. Conkling selected Thomas Murphy for the position, but Murphy proved so antagonistic to other Republicans that he was replaced with Chester Arthur in 1871, a highly competent administrator loyal to Conkling. Chauncey Depew, a railroad executive and a senator himself, attested to his rise to power, “Conkling was a born leader, very autocratic and dictatorial…He immediately began to remove [Reuben] Fenton officials and to replace them with members of his own organization. As there was no civil service at that time and public officers were necessarily active politicians, Senator Conkling in a few years destroyed the organization which Fenton had built up as governor, and became master of the Republican party in the State” (The Lehrman Institute). Conkling’s power got to the point that anyone who wanted to have a state job had to get his seal of approval. Elihu Root, a GOP statesman, further attested to Conkling’s power, “I do not remember how many years, Mr. Conkling was the supreme ruler in this state; the Governor did not count, the legislatures did not count; comptrollers and Secretaries and what-not, did not count. It was what Mr. Conkling said” (Lamphier, 135).
In 1873, Grant nominated Conkling to succeed the late Salmon P. Chase as chief justice of the Supreme Court, a position he declined…he preferred to run his New York machine and saw himself as Grant’s successor. He also assisted Grant in numerous ways, such as when he led the push to oust Charles Sumner from his chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after his opposition proved key to the defeat of the annexation of Santo Domingo (now known as Dominican Republic). The president often heeded his advice on legislation as well; for instance, both he and Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton Fish, economic conservatives, advised him to veto the popular Inflation Act of 1874, which he did. The following year, to the gratitude of black Americans, Conkling walked black Senator Blanche K. Bruce of Mississippi down the Senate aisle. This was a task usually reserved for the senator’s colleague in the state, but Mississippi Senator James Alcorn, a rival who would later support the disenfranchisement of black voters in Mississippi, wanted nothing to do with Bruce. Conkling and Bruce developed a close friendship, and numerous black parents would name their boys “Roscoe Conkling” in the following years in his honor, Bruce himself being among them.
In 1876, Conkling ran for the Republican nomination, but after his bid failed to attract much support, he managed to score a victory by pledging New York to Rutherford B. Hayes, thereby blocking former Speaker James G. Blaine’s path to the White House. After Hayes came out for civil service reform during the presidential campaign, Conkling’s efforts for Hayes slowed down, and Hayes lost New York in the presidential election. Had he won New York, there would have been no Constitutional crisis from this election. Incidentally, Conkling ended up believing that Hayes had actually lost the election and gave a propagandistic assist to Democrats by referring to him by the names they did, such as “Rutherfraud B. Hayes” and “his fraudulency”. Conkling derided civil service reform as “snivel service reform”, believing that state politicians should have free reign in their state’s affairs, a most convenient principle for him. He was not personally corrupt…no evidence has arisen that he profited from his office and although he was a target of investigation for the Credit Mobilier Scandal, documentary evidence cleared him of wrongdoing. Conkling had made his fortune legitimately; he hungered for power rather than money. However, numerous underlings were corrupt and profited off their offices.
As president, Hayes tried to appoint people to prominent positions in New York independent of Conkling’s approval. This resulted in several failed nominations, including one Theodore Roosevelt Sr. for customs collector for the Port of New York, the post formerly held by Conkling man Chester Arthur, who Hayes had fired. Ultimately Hayes managed to replace Conkling men Arthur and Alonzo Cornell with Edwin Merritt and Silas Burt in 1879. He did, however, consistent with his position favoring hard money, back Hayes’ veto of the bimetallist Bland-Allison Act in 1878.
Indiscretions in Washington
I mentioned earlier that Conkling was a hit with the ladies, but he was married. While he denied accusations that he was a womanizer, it was an open secret in Washington was that he was carrying on an affair with Kate Chase Sprague, the wife of former Senator William Sprague of Rhode Island, an insecure narcissist and abusive alcoholic. His only great virtue for the marriage seemed to be his wealth, much of the latter he had lost in the Panic of 1873. There was a rather famous incident surrounding this in 1879 in which Sprague chased Conkling out of his home with a shotgun.
Conkling Goes to Bat for Grant: 1880
Senator Roscoe Conkling, keen to have a Stalwart in office as opposed to Rutherford B. Hayes, who had through his single term crossed him in multiple ways, pushed for Grant get the nod again. There was indeed a real chance this could happen, but Grant had competition in former Senator John Sherman of Ohio as well as Conkling’s old rival Blaine. Although Grant won the first ballot, the threshold for winning the nomination wasn’t reached until the 35th ballot, by which point Sherman and Blaine had thrown their support to the dark horse candidate, Congressman James A. Garfield of Ohio. To please the Stalwarts, Conkling’s old right-hand man, Chester Arthur, was selected as the nominee for vice president.
Conkling vs. Garfield
President Garfield, like his fellow Ohioan Hayes, challenged Conkling’s authority in his nominations. He nominated a candidate for customs collector of the Port of New York in William Robertson, a former Fenton man, and in response Conkling “raged and roared like a bull for three mortal hours” and decried a violation of “senatorial courtesy” to which Garfield responded that he was the president rather than “the registering clerk of the United States Senate” (U.S. Senate). After Garfield was able to secure his nominee for customs collector of the Port of New York, Conkling and his protege, Senator Thomas C. Platt, resigned the Senate in protest on May 16, 1881, so they could be reelected by the state legislature in a show of power and support in New York. However, the men had miscalculated in trying to make loyalty to Garfield or loyalty to Conkling an issue for the state legislature, and in the meantime Garfield had been shot by Charles Guiteau, a deranged office-seeker who when he did it proclaimed, “I am a Stalwart” (Mitchell). The state legislature instead elected Republicans Elbridge Lapham and Warner Miller to the Senate. With this failed gambit, Conkling’s political career was over, and he returned to practicing law. Conkling’s DW-Nominate score stands at a 0.306, on the right side of Republican senators of his time. Platt would become a political boss in his own right but would not return to the Senate until 1897.
Although President Arthur nominated Conkling to the Supreme Court and the Senate voted to confirm him, he refused to serve. There were two reasons for Conkling to do so. First, he wanted a more active lifestyle than the Supreme Court would give him, and second, he was bitter over Chester Arthur’s embrace of a civil service, viewing it as a betrayal. Conkling to this day is one of only two men to refuse a Supreme Court nomination twice.
Conkling and the 14th Amendment as a Vehicle for Corporate Rights
In 1882, Conkling argued before the Supreme Court in San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that as a member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the 14th Amendment, that there was a debate about the distinction between “persons” and “citizens” and that this debate revealed that corporations were intended for coverage. Although enhanced legal protections for corporations certainly fit the ideology of the former Whigs, of which central framer John A. Bingham of Ohio and Conkling were formerly of, 14th Amendment scholar Howard Jay Graham found in the 1960s that Conkling had almost certainly deliberately misrepresented and misquoted the Globe regarding Congress’s proceedings to help his client. While the idea of corporations as persons as a legal fiction predates the adoption of the 14th Amendment, it is understandable that this episode would give people the idea that the concept was born in illegitimacy.
Conkling vs. The Great Blizzard of 1888
On March 12, 1888, New York City faced the Great Blizzard of 1888, and although Conkling could have taken a carriage to get from his office to his home, but the carriage driver was charging an exorbitant (although affordable for Conkling) rate, which he refused to pay and opted to walk the three miles home. Conkling made it to Union Square, about halfway to his destination, before collapsing from exposure. Although this episode was of some embarrassment to him, it was much worse than that; it had weakened his immune system and he contracted pneumonia. This pneumonia progressed into meningitis, which killed him on April 18th at the age of 58. Both Conkling’s end in politics and of life was brought about by his own arrogance. As Chauncey Depew said of him, “Roscoe Conkling was created by nature for a great career” and that his lost potential “was entirely his own fault. Physically he was the handsomest man of his time. His mental equipment nearly approached genius…His oratorical gifts were of the highest order, and he was a debater of rare power and resources. But his intolerable egotism deprived him of the vision necessary for supreme leadership….[H]is wonderful gifts were wholly devoted to partisan discussions and local issues” (National Park Service, Part II).
References
Both New York Senators Resign. United States Senate.
In 1859, the state of Oregon was admitted to the union. By the time of the election of Abraham Lincoln, the state’s two senators were Republican Edward Baker and Democrat Joseph Lane. Baker, formerly an Illinois politician and a close friend of Abraham Lincoln’s, would serve as a colonel in the War of the Rebellion and would be the only senator killed in the conflict, and indeed he has the distinction of being the only senator killed in any military conflict. Joseph Lane was a different story.
Joseph Lane
Joseph Lane (1801-1881) was described by his friend, Robert Dale Owen, an Indiana Democrat (and socialist) thusly, “In politics Gen. Lane is a Democrat of the Jefferson and Jackson school…His native powers of debate and his intimate acquaintance with facts and records have enabled him at all times, in political and Presidential conflicts on the “stump,” to overwhelm the opponents of Democracy” (Southern Oregon History, Revised). He had served as the first governor of the Oregon Territory under President Polk after several military successes in the Mexican-American War, and in this position, he combatted Indian tribes as well as negotiated and signed two treaties with them.
A North Carolinian by birth and upbringing, he served as both a defender of slavery (not a popular position there, despite the state’s NIMBY provision regarding black people in its original constitution). Most unacceptably for the people of Oregon, however, he also defended secession, and as such a prominent Northerner to do so he was nominated for vice president by the Southern Democrats. Lane had presidential ambitions, and if a fusionist scheme in the Electoral College had succeeded, Lane would have been president (John, 2014). One of his sons, John, would enlist with the Confederate Army and Joseph Lane’s Confederate sympathizing ended his career for good. His DW-Nominate score was a -0.654. One of his sons, LaFayette Lane, would serve a term in the House, and his grandson, Harry, would serve as a senator during the Wilson Administration. Lane to this day has Lane County named after him, a matter of recent controversy.
Benjamin Stark
Most senators of history are forgotten by the public, but Benjamin Stark (1820-1892) is so obscure that if one performs a Google search for his name, the first result is “Benjen Stark” from Game of Thrones. Stark was Baker’s successor in the Senate who served just under a year and was considerably different from his predecessor. A Louisianan by birth, although he started as a Whig, he was a “cotton Whig” as opposed to a “conscience Whig”, staunchly favoring the institution of slavery. Thus, when the Whig Party fell apart, he joined the Democrats. While in office, many Republicans accused him of having Confederate sympathies. Indeed, The Oregon Statesman condemned him as a “secessionist of the rankest dye and the craziest professions…as far as words spoken can constitute treason; he is a traitor as infamous as any that disgraces northern soil” (Abbott). A proposal to expel him ultimately failed by only five votes. Stark was not long in office as he did not opt to run for a full term, being succeeded by fellow Democrat Benjamin Harding, who would vote for the 13th Amendment. Stark’s DW-Nominate score was a -0.336. He would later serve in the Connecticut House. In 2018, Southwest Stark Street in Portland was renamed to Southwest Harvey Milk Street. While there would be no more Confederate-sympathizing senators, there was a governor…later on.
Sylvester Pennoyer
The Oregon of the late 19th century was quite a Republican place, but its voters from time to time made exceptions. One of them was Democrat Sylvester Pennoyer (1831-1902). Although Pennoyer during the War of the Rebellion was strongly supportive of slavery and as an outgrowth of his Jacksonian state’s rights views sympathized with the Confederacy, by the 1880s the issues had shifted, and many of Oregon’s working-class voters were focusing on Chinese labor. They elected Pennoyer governor in 1886 on an anti-Chinese labor and pro-white labor platform. Opposition to Chinese laborers was popular in the West in general, with opponents often claiming they couldn’t be assimilated, and most importantly, they were a source of competition to white labor. Pennoyer, like numerous labor advocates of the late 19th century, was only standing for the white men among the laborers.
Dealing with Republican majorities in the state legislature, Pennoyer didn’t accomplish much in his time as governor aside from establishing a commission to regulate railroads. As governor, he refused to call out the militia in 1888 to stop a strike against the Corvallis and Eastern Railroad until workers were paid what they were owed and was the first governor to establish Labor Day. In 1894, Pennoyer refused to intervene when members of Coxey’s Army stole a train to travel to Washington to present a petition for employment (Oregon History Project). Pennoyer was also the first major Oregon politician to call for an income tax.
Pennoyer vs. Presidents
Sylvester Pennoyer, consistent with his populism as well as his state’s rights views, conflicted with both Presidents Harrison and Cleveland. When President Harrison in 1891 proposed to meet Pennoyer at the Oregon border, he insisted that as governor he was an equal to President Harrison and that he meet him at his office in Salem. They ultimately agreed to meet at the Salem train depot, but Pennoyer made a point of arriving 10 minutes late, making Harrison and a crowd wait in the rain (John, 2010). In 1893, President Cleveland, having previously paid an indemnity to the Chinese government over the Rock Springs massacre of 1885 in Wyoming in which 28 Chinese miners were killed by rioting white miners, was interested in avoiding more anti-Chinese violence. He sent Pennoyer a telegram asking him to do whatever he legally could to prevent expected anti-Chinese violence, to which Pennoyer telegraphed Cleveland’s Secretary of State, “I will attend to my business, let the President attend to his” (Rosman). That same year, Pennoyer bolted the Democratic Party for the Populists and endorsed their left-wing platform, including free coinage of silver and the adoption of an income tax. An opponent of President Cleveland and his “Bourbon” Democratic faction, he tried to prevent state’s ceremonial cannon from firing to celebrate President Grover Cleveland’s inauguration in 1893. He stated his justification, “No permission will be given to use state cannon for firing a salute over the inauguration of a Wall Street plutocrat as president of the United States” (John, 2010). However, the state Democratic Party managed to, under the fraudulent pretense of an unpaid bill, have Marion County’s sheriff confiscate the cannon and it was fired on time. Pennoyer’s eccentric, abrasive, and stubborn political nature resulted in his political foes referring to him as “Sylpester Annoyer” and “Pennoyer the Annoyer”.
Two Thanksgivings and Political Success
Pennoyer’s governorship also resulted in two years in which Oregonians celebrated two Thanksgivings. Pennoyer opted to announce Thanksgiving as the fourth Thursday of November in 1893, thus Oregon technically had two Thanksgivings, one on the fourth and one on the fifth week of November (Rosman). He did it again the next year. Pennoyer didn’t explain his motivations for this…perhaps he wanted to beat Cleveland to the punch on Thanksgiving, or perhaps he had made a mistake in 1893 and refused to change course. The Oregonian wrote of the matter, “The accident that November has five Thursdays this year gave Pennoyer the opportunity to again claim his independence” (Rosman). A national Thanksgiving controversy would arise during FDR’s presidency, and a compromise in 1942 set Thanksgiving nationally to the day Pennoyer did. So, one might say that in the long run, Pennoyer won, and in a far greater way than he ever expected to do.
Pennoyer also was the first ever Oregon governor to serve two terms, and the only Democrat to do so until John Kitzhaber, who served from 1995 to 2003. Although Pennoyer left the governor’s mansion in 1895, he had run instead for Portland’s mayor and won. As Portland’s mayor he fired the entire police force to replace the police chief (Marsh). Pennoyer’s influence carried on, as he mentored George Chamberlain, who would serve as the state’s attorney general, governor, and senator.
I figure it was appropriate to feature a picture of Theodore Roosevelt, given that his third party outpolled one of the two major parties.
A substantial factor in this election, despite the conviction of Donald Trump of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records (which could be overturned on appeal), I think will remain the candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a man who frankly would not be getting any consideration for president if it were not for his last name. I think it is worthwhile looking at elections in which a third-party candidate took 5% or more of the vote from the election to see how it impacted the race. Perhaps this will be a controversial move on my part, but I have excluded the 1948 election despite there being two other candidates. The reason is both the State’s Rights Party (Dixiecrats) and the Progressive Party of Henry Wallace combined didn’t get 5%, even though Thurmond won four states.
Elections in Which the President’s Party Won with a Third-Party Candidate Who Got At Least 5% of the Vote:
1832
In 1828, Andrew Jackson had achieved a populist victory in his defeat of President John Quincy Adams. Opponents to Jackson’s reelection in 1832 included Henry Clay of the newly formed Whig Party, the Anti-Masonic Party with William Wirt, and John Floyd of the Nullifier Party. Jackson in this election scored a clear majority for reelection given his power in the western states, with Wirt winning Vermont and Floyd, more extreme than the Democrats of the day on questions of state’s rights, winning South Carolina. The Whig Party just wasn’t ready quite yet to win an election, particularly not against Jackson, seen by many as representative of the “common man” of his day.
1856
Although the Democrats had an incredibly troubled presidency with Franklin Pierce, Pierce did not get renominated, with the Democrats picking a man who had been out of the country for most of Pierce’s presidency in James Buchanan. This was the first presidential election of the newly formed Republican Party with John C. Fremont, and the American Party (“Know Nothing”) with former President Millard Fillmore. Fremont only had appeal in the anti-slavery North, and Buchanan was able to pull off some significant wins in the North, including his home state of Pennsylvania.
1924
Although the Republicans had a fracture from Robert La Follette’s split from the party that won the state of Wisconsin and commanded 16% of the vote, the Democratic Party’s fracture was even more substantial, producing a weakened compromise candidate in John W. Davis. Coolidge getting the majority of the vote demonstrated that conservatism was the preferred ideology of the election.
1996
Ross Perot’s second run as an Independent didn’t work nearly as well for him as his first, as the economy was good and rising in 1996, with him scoring 8% of the vote.
Elections in Which the President’s Party Lost:
1824
1824 may be a bit of a strained example and one of interpretation, as this was the election in which the dominant party, Jefferson’s “Democratic-Republicans”, collapsed into factions, and this requires me counting the factions as parties. John Quincy Adams winning this controversial election of four candidates I suppose was a departure from the Democratic-Republican’s Jeffersonian origins, with the losses of Jackson and William H. Crawford of the Old Republicans constituting the loss of the truest Jeffersonians.
1848
The 1848 election saw the loss of Democratic nominee Lewis Cass, aiming to succeed Democrat James K. Polk, with war hero Zachary Taylor of the Whig Party. The third-party candidate was former President Martin Van Buren of the Free Soil Party. Although he won no states, he got 10% of the vote. The Free Soil Party stands as the first distinctly anti-slavery party to run a presidential candidate.
1860
The tensions leading up to the War of the Rebellion have boiled over by this point and the Democratic Party as a unified force has collapsed, with there being four candidates for president: Republican Abraham Lincoln, Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge (who would side with the Confederacy), Constitutional Union candidate John Bell (who would also side with the Confederacy), and Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas (who would remain loyal to the Union). This election was interesting because the candidate who scored the most electoral votes aside from Lincoln was Breckinridge, but he came in third in popular votes, while Stephen Douglas came second in popular votes but came in dead last in the electoral vote, only winning Missouri. Lincoln only won the election with 39.8% of the vote, as if the highly fractured nature of the United States needed to be highlighted more.
1892
The 1890 midterm elections were a pretty good indicator that the presidency of Republican Benjamin Harrison was in trouble, and this would only get worse with the entry into the election of the Populist Party’s candidate, James B. Weaver, who netted 8.5% of the vote from agricultural regions of the countrie. Weaver would only serve to cost Harrison states he would have probably won otherwise, including the newly admitted Idaho and North Dakota.
1912
The 1912 election stands out in a number of ways. It constitutes a horrible election for conservatism with the leading contenders being Democrat Woodrow Wilson and Progressive (Bull Moose) Theodore Roosevelt. The Republican ticket actually came in third, both on popular and electoral votes, with Taft only prevailing in Utah and Vermont. The Socialist Party’s candidate, who I wrote about previously, got 6% of the vote. In its time, it served as a complete repudiation of the Taft Administration and as a ringing endorsement of progressive politics. Had Theodore Roosevelt lived to 1920, he would have run for president once more.
1968
The 1968 election stood as a referendum of the Johnson Administration as well as the Vietnam War, and although Republican Richard Nixon’s win was narrow, there was a substantial third-party presence in George Wallace of the American Independent Party. Wallace, a segregationist, won 13.5% of the vote and five Southern states. The combined vote of the Republicans and the American Independent Party indicated a deep dissatisfaction with the Johnson Administration.
1980
The 1980 election constituted a referendum of the Carter Administration and was largely a repudiation of liberalism. Complicating matters was the entry of Congressman John B. Anderson (R-Ill.) as an Independent. Although once a staunch conservative, Anderson had moderated considerably in his career, and felt he could not support Reagan. His presence on the ticket probably cost Carter a few states, such as Massachusetts, which Reagan barely won. Although some of Anderson’s vote may have gone to Carter, some of it would have gone to Reagan as well. In other words, Anderson simply highlighted Carter’s lack of popularity rather than serving to spoil his efforts or guarantee Reagan’s win.
1992
Let’s face facts: George H.W. Bush was not a particularly inspiring president or candidate. However, I think he was a good man and honestly a decent president, he just lacked the touch that men like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had with the American public. To make matters worse, Bush had a recession on his hands, and he seemed out of touch. Although in retrospect, this recession was not particularly bad, it nonetheless opened the door for others. One of these people was Independent Ross Perot, CEO of Electronic Data Systems and Perot Systems, who was in some ways a precursor as a candidate of Donald Trump, namely in his critiques of “free trade” and his emphasis on illegal immigration. Although Republican partisans have argued that Bush would have won the election had Perot not entered, this is unknowable (Trende).
Overall, I say watch RFK Jr.’s polling when it comes to whether Biden gets another term or Trump pulls through. RFK Jr. is a bit of a wildcat choice, as I can see him eating into Biden’s base as well as Trump’s with his anti-establishment message. Just to be clear, RFK Jr. has zero chance of winning this election, but I think he has a good shot at being a spoiler. If he gets 5% or more, the history I have presented tells us Biden has a 1 in 3 chance of winning.
References
Trende, S. (2019, July 10). We Don’t Know Whether Perot Cost Bush in 1992. RealClearPolitics.
On May 30, 2024, former President Donald Trump was convicted of felony business record fraud over his hush money payments to Stormy Daniels that has produced the predictable divides and is destined for appeals. Believe it or not, a candidate running for president while a convicted felon, or even in jail, is not unprecedented. This was the case with the Socialist Party candidate Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926).
Debs was originally a Democratic politician who was twice elected City Clerk for Terre Haute, Indiana, and served a term in the Indiana House from 1885 to 1887. He then became a union activist, but was frustrated with unions being hindered by not standing together, leading him the found and head the American Railway Union (Constantine, 30). During the Pullman Strike of 1894, Debs’s union despite his counsel not to held a sympathy strike did so by boycotting the use of Pullman cars on all railroads with his union. He proceeded to defy a court injunction to halt the boycott, and was imprisoned for six months (Constantine, 30-31). While in prison, he was radicalized and in 1897 he announced that he was a socialist, and a socialist he would remain. Debs was the Socialist Party’s candidate in 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, and finally, 1920. In 1912, he had his best performance as he received 6% of the vote and even won four counties, a record high performance for the Socialist Party. It was noted in 1912 that Wilson and Roosevelt had “stolen Debs’ thunder” by embracing some planks of his platform (Constantine, 31). Debs called for policies in the 1912 platform that were later embraced in the United States including the establishment of a minimum wage, old age insurance, and adoption of the income tax. The latter was embraced by both the Democratic and Progressive platforms. Indeed, some of his planks we take for granted today. Part of Debs’ socialism was opposition to the US entering World War I, and on June 16, 1918, he made a speech in which he encouraged draft resistance. This was enough for President Wilson’s Justice Department to indict him for sedition under the 1918 Sedition Act, a law that constitutes one of the most severe infringements on civil liberties in US history. Debs was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment on September 18, 1918, and after his appeal to the Supreme Court was unanimously rejected in Debs v. United States, he started serving his sentence in 1919.
Despite his felony conviction and imprisonment, Debs decided to run for president, and received 3.4% of the vote, his second-best performance. However, 1920 wasn’t a total loss for the Socialist Party: Socialist Meyer London was elected to Congress that year, regaining the New York City seat he had lost in the 1918 election. By 1921, his health, declining even before he went to prison, was considerably worsening. Although Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, known for the “First Red Scare”, advocated he be released on health grounds, President Wilson refused to commute his sentence. His successor Warren Harding did so on December 23rd, with his release to occur on Christmas Day. Despite how some may view it now and that Harding had voted against the Sedition Act as a senator, this was not a repudiation of his conviction, rather a compassionate release. Harding said to Debs upon him visiting the White House on the 26th, “Well, I’ve heard so damned much about you, Mr. Debs, that I am now glad to meet you personally” (Robenhalt). Debs’ poor health persisted, and despite the urgings of his supporters he opted not to run again in 1924, endorsing Progressive candidate Robert La Follette. He also rejected calls for him join the Communist Party and condemned the USSR for its suppression of freedom of speech (Constantine, 33). Debs died of heart failure on October 20, 1926. If he had been made to serve his full sentence, he would indeed have died in prison. Debs is regarded as a hero by Bernie Sanders and other socialists today, not only as a compelling leader, but also as a man willing to face the penitentiary for his convictions.
References
Constantine, J.R. (1991, August). Eugene V. Debs: an American paradox. Monthly Labor Review.
Mad Politics: The Bizarre, Fascinating, and Unknown of American Political History 