John Tyler

John Tyler is one of America’s forgotten presidents, a group I have covered before. If remembered, he is remembered as the Tyler in “Tippecanoe and Tyler too” in the 1840 presidential campaign, as the “accidental president” after President Harrison’s death, as well as for being the only former president to join the Confederacy. Also significant about him was his veto of his own party’s effort to reconstitute the Second Bank of the United States, something the Whig Party should have anticipated about him given his support for Jackson’s veto of renewing the charter of the Second Bank as a senator. However, there was a tremendous event, not remembered much today, that occurred during Tyler’s presidency that was a near miss for him but killed six people, including several members of his administration.

Captain Robert F. Stockton

February 28, 1844, was supposed to be a day of celebration, and indeed for a time it was, for it was a cruise on the USS Princeton, a massive warship that had two massive guns on it, the Oregon and the Peacemaker. In attendance included President Tyler, several members of his cabinet, Colonel David Gardiner and his daughter Julia, and Dolley Madison among many others. This vessel and its weaponry were proudly designed by its Captain Robert F. Stockton and the Swedish inventor John Ericsson, the latter who was not present on this day. Unknown to the guests on board was that Captain Stockton and Ericsson previously had argued over whether the Peacemaker was safe to fire (Baycora). The Peacemaker, unlike the Oregon, had not been tested. Furthermore, at the time, the Peacemaker was the largest naval cannon in the world at over 27,000 pounds (Baycora, Blackman). With the first shot fired that day, all was well, with the Peacemaker impressing onlookers with its mighty boom. The second shot also was a crowd pleaser, and the band played “Hail to the Chief” as the ship passed Mount Vernon (Blackman). It looked like perhaps Ericcson’s concerns had been overwrought. At roughly 3 PM most of the women went below deck for a fancy lunch, and Secretary of State Abel Upshur joked upon accidentally picking up an empty bottle of champagne for toasting the president, that the “dead bodies” must be cleared away before he could start, with Captain Stockton while handing Upshur a full bottle adding “There are plenty of living bodies to replace the dead ones” (Blackman).

Initially, the cannon was only to be fired twice, but word got to Stockton that a guest had asked for a third firing to honor George Washington. This guest turned out to be Secretary of the Navy Thomas Gilmer, and Stockton interpreted this as an order, so he proceeded (Blackman). Although urged to go outside to witness the third firing, Tyler delayed descending up to the deck. This decision may have saved his life. When Stockton fired a third time as Tyler was halfway up, the left side of the cannon exploded, propelling fiery iron and shrapnel.

An illustration of the Peacemaker disaster published shortly after.

Six people were killed, among them Upshur and Gilmer, as well as Beverly Kinnon, construction chief of the navy, American envoy to Belgium Virgil Maxcy, Colonel David Gardiner, and Tyler’s enslaved valet, Armistead. It was a grisly scene: Upshur had his arms and legs broken and his bowels torn out, Gilmer was decapitated by metal from the gun, Maxcy’s arm flew off and hit a lady on the head, Colonel Gardner’s arms and legs were blown off, and Armistead died ten minutes after being hit by a piece of the gun (Blackman). Many more were injured. This included Captain Stockton, who suffered severe facial powder burns and was inconsolable at the gruesome scene before him, and Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton, who was knocked down and suffered a concussion (Blackman). Dolley Madison, at the time 76, did her best to assist the wounded and the traumatized. Despite her composure in the face of tragedy, the event deeply impacted her. As her niece recalled, “She came in quietly, with her usual grace, spoke scarcely a word – smiled benignly – but those who knew her perceived her faltering voice and inability to stand without support. Of the horrible scene she dared not trust herself to speak, nor did she ever hear it referred to without a shudder” (Baycora). Gardiner’s daughter, Julia, who President Tyler had been seeing, fainted on hearing of her father’s death. President Tyler, who himself had wept at the sight of Upshur and Gilmer, carried her off the ship.

Julia Gardiner Tyler, who was 30 years younger than her husband!

Although Gardiner had been hesitant about marrying the much older Tyler, in the aftermath of this traumatic event she found she could be interested in no other man. As she wrote, “After I lost my father, I felt differently toward the president. He seemed to fill the place and to be more agreeable in every way than any younger man ever was or could be” (Thomas). Tyler and Gardiner married only months later. President Tyler in his writings explicitly blamed no one for this event, and Stockton would later briefly represent New Jersey in the Senate. However, one man may have blamed himself. Commodore William M. Crane, who supervised the construction of the USS Princeton and had disapproved of the Peacemaker, slit his own throat in his office on March 18, 1846, with his family attributing his brooding over the disaster as a cause (Prabook).

References

Baycora, F. (2021, March 4). The USS Princeton and the Disaster You’ve Never Heard Of. Historic America.

Retrieved from

The USS Princeton and the Disaster You’ve Never Heard Of — Historic America

Blackman, A. (2005, October). Fatal Cruise of the Princeton.  Naval History, 19(5).

Retrieved from

Fatal Cruise of the Princeton | Naval History Magazine – October 2005 Volume 19, Number 5 (usni.org)

Carrigan, C. (2023, February 24). A “Terrible Catastrophe”: The February 1844 Naval Gun Explosion that Almost Killed a President. Naval History and Heritage Command.

Retrieved from

A “Terrible Catastrophe”: The February 1844 Naval Gun Explosion that Almost Killed a President > The Sextant > Article View (dodlive.mil)

Thomas, H. (2024, February 13). How Tragedy Led to Love for John Tyler and Julia Gardiner. Library of Congress.

Retrieved from

https://blogs.loc.gov/headlinesandheroes/2024/02/how-tragedy-led-to-love-for-john-tyler-and-julia-gardiner

William Montgomery Crane. Prabook.

Retrieved from

William Crane (February 1, 1784 — March 18, 1846), American naval officer | World Biographical Encyclopedia (prabook.com)

On New Year’s Day 1963, a powerhouse in Oklahoma politics and one of the chief advocates for the oil industry, Senator Robert S. Kerr, dropped dead. Although a Democrat, Kerr was not particularly liked by liberals for his aforementioned staunch support of the oil industry as well as his opposition to Medicare. In his place Governor J. Howard Edmondson, who had departed office beforehand, was appointed by his successor, George Nigh. Despite Edmondson’s background as governor and his ideological orientation being a better fit for the state of Oklahoma, in 1964 he was defeated for the nomination to complete Kerr’s term by Fred Harris (1930- ), a state senator who had previously run for the Democratic nomination for governor in 1962. Harris very narrowly won a full term against Republican and celebrated football coach Bud Wilkinson 51-49%. Wilkinson was one of those candidates who would have likely won had Barry Goldwater not been at the top of the Republican ticket.

The Great Society Congress

As a senator, Harris proved a liberal in most respects, his liberalism stemming from his background as the son of poor pro-New Deal Oklahoma sharecroppers (Linnett). With the peculiar exception of Medicare, he supported Great Society legislation. His predecessor, Edmondson, had also opposed Senator Albert Gore’s (D-Tenn.) Medicare proposal in 1964. Harris’ liberalism on the issue of civil rights was particularly clear when he supported Senator Ted Kennedy’s (D-Mass.) state poll tax ban amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was opposed by President Johnson. He particularly specialized in rural issues and since Oklahoma has a large Indian population, on Indian affairs. Harris, contrary to the wishes of his constituents, voted against the Dirksen School Prayer Amendment in 1966. Harris said of his vote in a letter mailed out to 20% of voters, “I believe in the separation of church and state and I believe prayer and Bible reading should be voluntary” (Lowitt). He did, however, support Senator Dirksen’s (R-Ill.) other effort at amending the Constitution during the Great Society Congress, an amendment which would permit state legislatures to have one of their houses be based on factors other than population in response to Supreme Court “one man, one vote” decisions Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964). Whatever bouts of fiscal conservatism he had gave way to strong liberalism after winning a full term in 1966. His reelection along with his liberalism on civil rights led to his appointment by President Johnson to the Kerner Commission in response to urban riots.

The Kerner Commission

The Kerner Commission was comprised of a diverse group of people, but it was Harris and Mayor John Lindsay of New York City who took the reins and were primarily responsible for the conclusion reached. Namely, that society was moving in an increasingly de facto segregated direction, and that extensive federal action and spending would be required to remedy the situation. President Johnson, having enough on his plate already, rejected the Commission’s conclusion and recommendations as did conservatives, who already thought the country was spending too much money. Harris’ work as a senator as well as on the commission got him positive attention including a particularly prominent one in Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

VP Harris?

In 1968, Hubert Humphrey was mulling over who to pick for vice president, and two names were foremost in his mind: Harris and Senator Ed Muskie of Maine. However, Harris was quite a young man to be selected vice president, being only 37 at the time of consideration. Humphrey ultimately at the last minute decided on Muskie, with age being the deciding factor. Harris instead was made a co-manager of Humphrey’s campaign as well as being placed at the head of the Democratic National Committee, a post he held until early 1970.

Strong Opponent of Nixon

When it came to President Nixon’s critics, it was difficult to find a stronger one than Senator Fred Harris. Harris had become a critic of the Vietnam War during the Johnson Administration, and in 1970 he voted for both the Cooper-Church Amendment and the McGovern-Hatfield “End the War” Amendment, the latter the first time a timetable was voted on by the Senate for withdrawing from Vietnam. Harris not only opposed Nixon’s picks of Clement Haynsworth Jr. of South Carolina and G. Harrold Carswell of Florida for the Supreme Court, but was also the only senator to vote against the nomination of Virginian Lewis F. Powell Jr. to the Supreme Court. Harris also exhibited some old-fashioned progressivism in his call to abolish the Interstate Commerce Commission (Walker). A traditionally conservative way of doing things in government is to establish regulatory commissions and place people friendly to industries in them. Harris regarded his philosophy as “new populism”, which he defined as “a fair distribution of wealth, income and power should be the specific goal of the country” (Linnett). This hearkens back to the old Populist Party of the 1890s as well as traditional progressive thought in the Democratic Party. In 1971, Harris wrote Now Is the Time, in which he encouraged numerous groups, including Black Power activists, college students, suburban housewives, and “rednecks” to join forces to politically combat socioeconomic privilege (Linnett). That year, he announced his bid for president but was unable to collect sufficient contributions to be a major contender for the Democratic nomination. Opting not to run for reelection, he was succeeded in office in 1972 by Governor Dewey Bartlett, a Republican who was pretty much the reverse of Harris. Harris to this day is the last liberal to represent the Sooner State in the Senate. Although Democrat Dave Boren would be elected to the Senate in 1978, he was a moderate. Harris’ DW-Nominate score was a -0.4, his adjusted Americans for Constitutional Action (ACA) score an 8%, and his adjusted Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) score an 84%. The main difference between the latter two organizations interpretations of Harris is that ACA tracks Harris’ strong move to the left earlier than ADA’s, but both agree that in his first year in the Senate he was a moderate liberal.

The 1976 Election and Retirement from Electoral Politics

Fred Harris was an undercard contender for the Democratic nomination for president in 1976, a favorite son if you will. He ran on his “new populism” platform, declaring the chief issue of the election to be privilege, railing against the concentration of wealth, and calling for “a widespread diffusion of economic and political power” (Mohr). His campaign slogans included, “Take the rich off welfare” and “The issue is privilege” (Linnett). Although he came in third in the Iowa caucuses, this didn’t translate into traction and his funds soon ran dry, forcing his exit from the race. He retired from electoral politics and entered academia, moving to New Mexico and serving as a professor of political science at the University of New Mexico. However, Harris has since been active in the New Mexico Democratic Party and attended Democratic National Conventions.

Unlike most of the people I write about, as of writing Harris is still alive at 93, and he’s if anything as liberal as ever. He has completely opposed the rise of Donald Trump in politics, stating in 2016 that “It really pisses me off when they talk about populists being racists, and calling George Wallace and Donald Trump populists. Trump populism is really just demagoguery. It’s not my kind of populism” (Linnett). Harris felt and still feels that he relates to the sort of person who supports Trump. He stated his view that Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment about half of Trump supporters was a major mistake, holding that “We know these people! They want someone to pay attention to them. They’re asking us, ‘What about me? Why don’t some of you talk to me about my life? I’m paying too much in taxes and not getting anything out of it” (Linnett).

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

ADA Voting Records

Harris, Fred Roy. Voteview.

Retrieved from

Voteview | Sen. HARRIS, Fred Roy (Democrat, OK): Sen. HARRIS is more liberal than 88% of the 92nd Senate, and more liberal than 79% of Democrats

Linnett, R. (2016, December 31). What the ‘Godfather of Populism’ Thinks of Donald Trump. Politico.

Retrieved from

What the ‘Godfather of Populism’ Thinks of Donald Trump – POLITICO Magazine

Lowitt, R. Harris, Fred Roy. The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture.

Retrieved from

https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry?entry=HA033

Mohr, C. (1976, April 9). Harris Quits Active Role In Presidential Campaign. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Harris Quits Active Role In Presidential Campaign – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Walker, J. (2009, November 1). Five Face of Jerry Brown. The American Conservative.

Retrieved from

Five Faces of Jerry Brown – The American Conservative

Sargent Shriver, director of the Office of Economic Opportunity.

Sixty years ago, August 20, 1964, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the flagship law of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty” came into effect. Although the New Deal had worked to alleviate poverty during the Great Depression, it had not constituted a consistent federal commitment to alleviating the roots of poverty. The focus on poverty was renewed with a best-selling book by Democratic Socialists of America founder Michael Harrington, The Other America (1962), in which he argued that the American poverty rate was much higher than was widely believed at the time. President Kennedy became aware of this book and rest assured, had he lived, he too would have pursued anti-poverty legislation. This legislation came in the form of the Economic Opportunity Act, sponsored by Senator Pat McNamara (D-Mich.), an ultra-liberal who was a champion of Walter Reuther and his United Auto Workers. In the House, the sponsor was a bit of a different figure in Representative Phil Landrum (D-Ga.), who had a conservative reputation and indeed had ticked off organized labor for his sponsorship of the Landrum-Griffin Act in 1959, that as part of anti-corruption reforms curbed the ability of labor unions in certain areas. This measure established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), through which anti-poverty programs were to be administered. These programs included among others the Job Corps for job training and basic education for young people, the Neighborhood Youth Corps for young people from poor families, and Volunteers in Service to America to recruit and train volunteers to coordinate with organizations to combat poverty. Most controversially, this measure bypassed states to authorize funds for localities through the OEO director. President Lyndon B. Johnson said of the measure in his State of the Union Address, “This administration today here and now declares unconditional war on poverty in America. I urge this Congress and all Americans to join me in that effort […] Poverty is a national problem, requiring improved national organization and support. But this attack, to be effective, must also be organized at the State and local level. For the war against poverty will not be won here in Washington. It must be won in the field, in every private home, in every public office, from the courthouse to the White House. Very often, a lack of jobs and money is not the cause of poverty, but the symptom. Our aim is not only to relieve the symptoms of poverty but to cure it–and above all, to prevent it. No single piece of legislation, however, is going to suffice” (Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library and Museum).  

The vote on the Economic Opportunity Act was achieved after a compromise in which governors were granted a veto over such programs which could be overridden by the Office of Economic Opportunity director. In practice, almost all vetoes issued by governors were overridden by OEO director Sargent Shriver (Merced Community Action Agency). The Senate vote came out 61-34 (D 51-12, R 10-22) on July 23, 1964, with the high margins being helped by the fact that Senate Republicans got slaughtered in the 1958 midterms, all with far more liberal Democratic replacements. The Senate Republicans are also on average more liberal than the House Republicans, thus they oppose by over 2-1 (as opposed to the House), Northern Democrats are almost unified (only Frank Lausche of Ohio votes nay) and Southern Democrats are split. The House vote came out to 226-185 (D 204-40, R 22-145) on August 8, 1964, and was a show of unity from Northern Democrats, who are overwhelmingly liberal, of overwhelming opposition from Republicans, and again, a split among Southern Democrats. This vote demonstrates a more ideologically diverse GOP and Southern Democrats not as monolithically conservative as they frequently are portrayed. Landrum’s sponsorship probably helped move the votes of some Southern Democrats to be in favor. This is also a highly ideologically salient vote, with the most conservative individual supporting the bill being Republican Eugene Siler of Kentucky, who paired for and scores a 0.25 by DW-Nominate. The most liberal individual opposing per DW-Nominate is Democrat Kenneth A. Roberts of Alabama with a -0.282, who was a part of the liberal wing of the Alabama Democratic Party, a faction that retained significance until after the 1964 election. Contrast this with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, whose highest scoring supporter was Republican Senator John J. Williams of Delaware, with a 0.603 and whose lowest scoring opponent was Democratic Congressman Dante Fascell of Florida with a -0.4. Region was a more important deciding factor on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than ideology, although ideology did play a role in how the vote breakdown occurred in the North. Another notable feature of this vote is the pairing of Massachusetts’ Joe Martin for. Martin was at one time known as a leader of the Conservative Coalition, but by this time his star had fallen since the 1958 midterms, and Massachusetts had changed much since he had started his service in 1925, when it was the state of Calvin Coolidge. However, Martin appears to have been a bit of a reluctant backer, as his votes on the anti-poverty program in the next Congress would be antagonistic. Some of the Southern Democrats who vote for this now would be more antagonistic to anti-poverty programs in the future, and some Republicans who vote against this now would be a bit friendlier. However, in the latter case, Republicans managed to secure significant concessions to these programs after the 1966 midterms. The impacts of this law long-term are disputed, as is the fall in poverty rates that occurred in the decade following.

Below is a document with the House and Senate vote breakdowns along with a modified 1964 Americans for Constitutional Action score for each of the voting legislators:

References

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0880182

Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Merced Community Action Agency.

Retrieved from

https://www.mercedcaa.com/v2/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Economic_Opportunity_Act_of_1964.pdf

H.R. 7152. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Adoption of a Resolution (H. Res. 789) Providing for House Approval of the Bill as Amended by the Senate. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0880182

H.R. 7152. Passage. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RS0880409

S. 2642. Passage. Voteview.

Retrieved from

Voteview | Plot Vote: 88th Congress > Senate > 452

S. 2642. Passage of the Anti-Poverty Bill Which Incorporated the Text of H.R. 11377. Voteview.

Retrieved from

Voteview | Plot Vote: 88th Congress > House > 201

President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union. (1964, January 8). Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum.

Retrieved from

President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union January 8, 1964 (archive.org)

Following the end of Reconstruction, Democrats came to dominate the South, including North Carolina. Although voter intimidation, ballot fraud, and other vote restricting tactics were practiced, there were still a good number of blacks who could vote, and often North Carolina’s 2nd district, based in Scotland Neck, was represented by a black Republican. This was to the degree that it was known as “The Black Second”. However, the political situation was increasingly complicated by the rise of the Populist Party. The Populist Party, an economically left-wing party that also emphasized immigration restriction, formed coalitions with the Democratic Party in the Midwest and West, but in the South they formed an alliance with the Republican Party. In other words, they were consistently fighting against whatever party was dominant in a region. The Panic of 1893 proved disastrous for North Carolina’s Democratic Party, and a multi-racial coalition of black and white workers aligned against North Carolina’s establishment, the consequence being the election of Republicans and Populists to Congress, with Republican Daniel Lindsay Russell being elected governor. This multi-racial and multi-ideological coalition was an uneasy one motivated foremost by opposition to the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party’s champion to regain power was Furnifold McLendel Simmons (1854-1940).

Democrats like Simmons had been willing to tolerate some black voting as long as Democratic dominance was maintained. However, but with the Democratic Party at stake in North Carolina and elsewhere in the South with the rise of the Republican-Populist fusion, Southern Democrats took harsher measures. Simmons led such official efforts.

The 1898 Election: Democratic Victory By Force and the Wilmington Coup

Simmons had been involved in Democratic politics for some time, including serving a term in the House in the 2nd district from 1887 to 1889, the product of Republican division. During this time he had been seen as a racial moderate, and indeed he pledged to represent both races, stating that he was “not one of the kind that set no value upon the colored man’s vote” (Hand). This approach won him 2,500 black votes, enough for one term. And he indeed seemed to do as he said he would in representing both the interests of blacks and whites in Congress. Yet, he lost reelection in 1888 to black Republican Henry P. Cheatham. In 1892, the Populist Party was proving a great threat to the political power of the Democratic Party, and North Carolina was where they hit the hardest. Simmons was able to successfully lead the Democratic Party’s campaign that year, getting the state into Grover Cleveland’s column. As a reward, he was appointed the Eastern District’s collector of internal revenue. However, the 1894 and 1896 elections proved terrible for the Democrats, and after the 1896 election Democrats were almost completely out of the state’s delegation to Congress, with only William W. Kitchin of the 5th district being their representation. North Carolina’s two senators were Republican Jeter Pritchard and Populist Marion Butler. The Democratic Party appealed to Simmons to lead them back to victory, and he reluctantly agreed to take back the reigns, leaving his post as collector to do so. The 1898 midterms, the Democratic effort which he headed as chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee, were characterized by aggressive racist campaigning over fears of “Negro domination”. Simmons and his campaigners portrayed leading black politicians as corrupt and unqualified for their offices (University of North Carolina).

Election Day, November 8th, was marked by intimidation from Red Shirts that kept away many blacks and white Republicans from the polls, resulting in a blowout victory for Democrats. Two days later, the Wilmington Coup occurred in which the entire government of the city of Wilmington (at the time North Carolina’s largest city) was ousted by force. There were also numerous white voters who had otherwise been previously inclined to support the Republican-Populist alliance shifting to the Democrats. Some did so as a result of the white supremacy campaign, others did so because of the unique persuasion of the Red Shirts. The Democrats won six of nine of the state’s House delegation, but most importantly they won the state legislature. The multi-racial leadership of this at-the-time majority black city was banished by an armed group led by former Congressman Alfred Waddell, who installed himself as mayor. Prominent black political leaders, successful black businessmen, and whites who had courted black support were also banished from the city. This was not a spontaneous event, rather the product of months of planning by Simmons and other leading Democrats, including Waddell and future Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels. Waddell had publicly called for the removal of the Republican-Populist coalition in Wilmington and advocated for white citizens to, if necessary, “choke the Cape Fear with carcasses” (NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources). Further inflaming the situation was an article by Alex Manly in the black-owned newspaper The Daily Record. Manly was writing in response to an aggressively pro-lynching article by Rebecca Latimer Felton, holding that “poor white men are careless in the matter of protecting their women” and that “our experience among poor white people in the country teaches us that women of that race are not any more particular in the matter of clandestine meetings with colored men than the white men with colored women” (NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources). In the ensuing violence that occurred two days after the election, at minimum 14 blacks were killed, but as many as 60 could have been killed. Many blacks, including Manly, had already fled the city in anticipation of violence, and The Daily Record’s building was burned to the ground. Appeals for help to President William McKinley went unanswered as Governor Russell hadn’t requested assistance.

Long-Term Consequences

The Republican-Populist coalition was toast, and especially so after the adoption of the state’s Jim Crow constitution. Simmons’ words to black voters, it turned out, had an expiration date. In 1901, Simmons would succeed Populist Senator Marion Butler, and in 1903 Simmons’ compatriot, Lee S. Overman, would succeed Republican Senator Jeter Pritchard. The two men, lifelong friends, would serve as North Carolina’s senators together for over 25 years. Simmons would later recall on the 1898 election, “While we dealt with graft and advocated the free coinage of silver, the keynote of the campaign was White Supremacy, and I believe I was chiefly responsible for the choice of the issue” (University of North Carolina)

As a senator, Simmons was considered highly effective and succeeded in securing funds for the Intercoastal Waterway from Boston to Wilmington, which he considered his finest achievement (Faulkner). He was a political boss and had a machine, although his machine lacked the corrupt features that many machines did. Simmons was somewhat supportive of increasing direct democracy; on June 12, 1911, he voted for the Constitutional amendment for direct election of senators but on January 31, 1913, Simmons voted against Senator Robert Owen’s (D-Okla.) proposal to end the Electoral College.

The 1912 Election, Simmons’ Height of Power, and Addressing 1920s Republican Rule

Simmons faced some strong challengers in Governor William W. Kitchin, Chief Justice Walter Clark, and former Governor Charles B. Aycock. However, Aycock died that year and Simmons’ machine easily pulled him through. The height of Simmons’ influence was during the Wilson Administration, chairing the Senate Finance Committee from 1913 to 1919, which had authority over taxation legislation. A traditional Democrat, Simmons was strongly supportive of tariff reduction, and sponsored the Simmons-Underwood Tariff of 1913, which reduced tariffs and imposed a top income tax of 7%, the first income tax adopted after the adoption of the 16th Amendment. He was generally strongly supportive of the Wilson Administration’s Southern-friendly progressivism, but he opposed, as did all of North Carolina’s legislators, the Keating-Owen Act to curb child labor, as North Carolina’s textile mills relied extensively on such labor. Simmons also voted for the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 to suppress wartime dissent. With the 1918 election, Republicans won Congress and Simmons lost his chairmanship. An internationalist, he supported the Versailles Treaty to the hilt on the Senate floor, but behind the scenes he unsuccessfully urged President Wilson to accept some reservations to increase its chances for passage.

During the 1920s, Simmons was something of a dissenter to Republican tax policy. He opposed the Fordney-Penrose income tax reduction bill, the Fordney-McCumber tariff increase, and in 1924 backed a top income tax rate of 40%, as opposed to Senator Reed Smoot’s (R-Utah) proposed 32%. However, Simmons did support ending the estate tax in 1926.

The 1928 Election and Simmons’ Political Fate

The selection of Al Smith of New York to head the Democratic ticket proved highly controversial in the South due to his opposition to Prohibition, his Catholicism, and the fact that he rose up the political ranks through Tammany Hall. Unlike Senator Tom Heflin of Alabama, Simmons neither objected to Smith’s Catholicism nor endorsed Republican Herbert Hoover, but he publicly stated he could not back Smith on account of his stances on Prohibition and his close relationship with Tammany Hall. In this respect, he differed from his close friend and colleague, Lee S. Overman, who publicly backed Smith. Hoover would win North Carolina in 1928, the first Republican to do so since Reconstruction. Like Heflin, however, there would be consequences for Simmons. Although Simmons had built up a political machine in North Carolina, this didn’t insulate him from the impacts of primaries, and just like Heflin, he lost renomination in 1930 over his refusal to back the Democratic ticket. He never regretted his stance against Smith, even in defeat. Ironically, the man who defeated him on the grounds of party disloyalty, Josiah Bailey, would prove far more of a dissenter to national Democratic Party policy than Simmons ever was as he rebelled against FDR’s New Deal. Yet another blow for Simmons was Overman’s death in December 1930.

Simmons in Retirement

Up until the death of his wife in 1938, Simmons was happiest in his retired years and had accepted his defeat in the primary gracefully. As W.T. Bost noted in a newspaper column on Simmons’ defeat that “He was bigger in it than he ever was in the succession of victories won at the polls and in the Congress” (Hill). Although Simmons is often regarded as a conservative, he approved of much of the liberal policies of Democratic presidents, and FDR was no exception. He approved of much of FDR’s New Deal, most of all his agricultural policy (Hill). Simmons on economic issues during his career was far from a conservative, given his history of supporting inflationary currency, increasing the income tax, and reducing tariffs. I honestly have limited regard for those said to be “conservatives” whose overall record doesn’t reflect it. His DW-Nominate score was a -0.388. Regarding Simmons’ political ethos, historian Richard L. Watson Jr. wrote that he “lacked a consistent worldview” on numerous issues of the day and that he regarded his views on white supremacy and democracy as consistent (Faulkner). Simmons struck me as a highly opportunistic individual on the subject of race; although he was undoubtedly a racist he was willing to cater to black voters when it worked in his interests, and to strip the vote from them when it suited his and his party’s interests. However, Simmons was not a pure creature of opportunism, as his opposition to Democratic nominee Al Smith proved, as it resulted in the end of his career. I cannot say that I admire Simmons, and I cannot excuse the 1898 Wilmington Coup and the extensive violence that accompanied it. Furthermore, on many things I am certainly not in agreement with him. However, I can respect capability in politics, and Simmons had that serving North Carolina in the Senate for three decades. I respect political capability even if it is towards ends to which I disagree.

References

1898 Wilmington Coup. NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.

Retrieved from

https://www.dncr.nc.gov/1898-wilmington-coup

Faulkner, R.W. Furnifold McLendel Simmons. North Carolina History Project.

Retrieved from

https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/furnifold-mclendel-simmons-1854-1940/

Furnifold Simmons: The 1898 Election in North Carolina. University of North Carolina.

Retrieved from

https://exhibits.lib.unc.edu/exhibits/show/1898/bios/simmons

Hand, B. (2023, March 30). History: the political beginnings of Furnifold Simmons. New Bern Live.

Retrieved from

https://newbernlive.org/history-the-political-beginnings-of-furnifold-simmons-p3413-219.htm

Hill, R. (2024). The Strong Man of North Carolina: F.M. Simmons. The Knoxville Focus.

Retrieved from

https://www.knoxfocus.com/archives/this-weeks-focus/the-strong-man-of-north-carolina-f-m-simmons/

Simmons, Furnifold McLendel. NCPedia.

Retrieved from

https://www.ncpedia.org/biography/simmons-furnifold

Simmons, Furnifold McLendel. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/8514/furnifold-mclendel-simmons

I have many peeves with contemporary politics, and one of them is excessive RINO calling. Hence my motivation for this series of historical RINOs to demonstrate that today’s Republican partisans should have some gratitude that the GOP is as conservative as it is now. Today’s entry is Iowa’s Smith Wildman Brookhart (1869-1944).

In 1920, Brookhart, an attorney, veteran, and noted marksman, challenged Senator Albert B. Cummins, a celebrated Iowa Republican, in the GOP primary. His central theme was the senators’ sponsorship and drafting of the Esch-Cummins Railroad Act, which restored railroads to private control and was on net favorable to them. Overall a moderate in his career, Cummins had started out as a progressive insurgent within the GOP but had since moved increasingly towards the conservatives. However, Republican voters renominated Cummins, for 1920 was a good year for Republicans and conservatives. Interestingly, Brookhart afterwards served as the president of a group much celebrated by the political right until 1925 given his hobby: the National Rifle Association. He wouldn’t have to wait long for another shot at the Senate.

On February 24, 1922, Republican Senator William Kenyon, himself among the moderate to liberal wing of the party, resigned so he could serve as a judge on the Eighth Circuit. The dissatisfaction regular Republicans had with Kenyon was not quite like what they would have with Smith Brookhart after his election. He was firmly in the Robert La Follette/George Norris camp, and with six candidates running for the Republican nomination, Brookhart consolidated his support among progressive Republicans and won with 41% of the vote. In the Senate, he stood for increasing income taxes, estate taxes, challenging big business, veterans’ bonuses, and promoting organized labor. Brookhart even went as far as to support government control of the railroads (McDaniel). He was also outspoken for a strong enforcement of Prohibition, a popular stance at the time in Iowa. However, Brookhart occasionally could support something fiscally conservative, such as his vote to cut spending on Rivers and Harbors appropriations in 1923. In 1924, he ran for a full term and much to the consternation of national Republicans, endorsed Progressive Party candidate Robert La Follette of Wisconsin. Senate Republican leadership excluded him, La Follette, and two other senators from the party conference and stripped them of their committee assignments (U.S. Senate). Brookhart wasn’t in the Senate to make nice with the conservative establishment. Indeed, Time Magazine noted in 1936 that his “pugnacious cowhide radicalism nettled patrician Senators”. Although Brookhart had officially won a close election contest that year by under 800 votes, his opponent, Democrat Daniel Steck, who had gotten significant Republican crossover support, challenged the results.

The challenge was reviewed before the Senate, and surprisingly Steck was chosen as the winner on a vote of 45-41 on April 12^th, 1926, and Brookhart was unseated. Although most Democrats voted for their man in Steck, 9 voted against and among Republicans 16 defected to vote for Steck. While progressive Republicans unified behind Brookhart, conservative Republicans were divided on whether to oust a boat-rocking ideological foe or take the unprecedented actions of unseating a senator after he has been serving as well as overruling Iowa state election laws, thus the conservative Republican vote was split, causing the loss. This made Steck the first Democrat to represent the state since the 1850s. Brookhart’s ally, Senator George W. Norris (R-Neb.), condemned the result, stating that “this powerful partisan political combination brought about by Republican leaders nullified the voice of the voters of Iowa, threw out a Republican, and put in a Democrat” (U.S. Senate). However, Brookhart was not easily out of the game. In 1926, he challenged Republican incumbent Cummins again, and he won by double digits partly on account of the latter’s age. Indeed, Cummins died one month after losing renomination. Brookhart proceeded to win a full term by over 12 points.

Brookhart continued his rebellious ways in his full term in the Senate, and one might think that this would have helped him for his next reelection with Republican Herbert Hoover deeply unpopular, but this was not to be. He might have survived if not for a revelation of nepotism…that he had placed two brothers, two sons, and one daughter on the Federal payroll, and he lost renomination (Time Magazine). Brookhart ran for reelection nonetheless as a “Progressive” but only scored 4% of the vote. Had he won the Republican primary, it is quite possible he would have been reelected. Brookhart’s DW-Nominate score was a 0.131, low for a Republican, although surprisingly high given how many major issues on which he went against his party.

After his loss, Brookhart accepted a position in the Roosevelt Administration as an advisor on Russian trade, a role he served in until 1935. Even the New Deal’s approach on agriculture had gone too far for him, as he was supportive of a solution that involved the market as opposed to production controls (McDaniel). In 1936, he announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination to the Senate, hoping to oust the anti-New Deal Republican incumbent Lester J. Dickinson in the primary on a platform of a fine-tuned agricultural parity formula. He also charged Dickinson with turning against the New Deal after “voting for most of it” (The New York Times). There was some truth in Brookhart’s charge: Dickinson had voted for both the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1933. However, the opposition to Dickinson was split five ways, and Brookhart lost. In 1942, Brookhart suffered a stroke and he declined until his death on November 15, 1944.

References

Again, Brookhart. (1936, April 20). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://web.archive.org/web/20081215074237/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,848486,00.html

Brookhart Enters Iowa Senate Race. (1936, April 7). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Brookhart, Smith Wildman. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://www.voteview.com/person/1070/smith-wildman-brookhart

McDaniel, G.W. (1990, April). The Search for Smith Wildman Brookhart: A Pilgrim’s Progress. Books at Iowa, 52. The University of Iowa.

Retrieved from

https://www.lib.uiowa.edu/scua/bai/mcdaniel.htm

The Election Case of Daniel F. Steck. v. Smith W. Brookhart of Iowa (1926). U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

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

Frederick Gillett (R-Mass.), who was elected Speaker of the House with the new Republican Congress.

I figured my readers could use a bit of a break from Rhode Island history, so I have yet another story about an election! President Woodrow Wilson had a benefit that many presidents envy…having both legislative branches controlled by their party for most of their presidency. Although the 1916 election came very close to Republican control of the House with Republicans having more representatives than Democrats, Democrats were able to maintain a majority with a coalition of Progressive Party members and a Socialist. Wilson and Democrats would not be so fortunate in the 1918 midterms. It is often true that the public gets some fatigue with a president well into his term, and this year was no exception. In the House, Republicans gained 24 seats and, in the Senate, they secured a narrow 49-47 majority. This was also the election that occurred during the “Spanish flu”, thus when people went out to vote, they did so at some risk.

Wilson was particularly hurt in the Midwest for his insistence on price controls on wheat, vetoing a bill that would raise the maximum of $2.20 per bushel to $2.40. The results were quite clear in Indiana, in which Republicans won all of the state’s House seats, in Kansas, in which Republicans won all but one of Kansas’ eight districts, and in Nebraska, in which Republicans won all of its House seats by defeating three Democratic incumbents. In the Senate, Kansas Democrat William Thompson lost reelection by a devastating thirty points to Republican Arthur Capper, who would become a foremost champion of agricultural interests in his 30-year career. Opponents of WWI did badly too. The following representatives who voted against World War I did not return to Congress this year:

Everis Hayes, R-Calif. – Defeated for reelection by conservative Democrat Hugh Hersman, who would only serve a term.

Benjamin Hilliard, D-Colo. – Defeated for renomination, ran for reelection as an Independent but lost badly to Republican William Vaile.

Edward Keating, D-Colo. – Defeated for reelection by Republican Guy Hardy.

Frank Woods, R-Iowa – Defeated for renomination by Lester J. Dickinson. who would win the election.

John Connelly, D-Kan. – Defeated for reelection by Republican Hays White, although its hard to say how much of his defeat was due to wheat price controls as opposed to his vote against entering World War I.

Ernest Lundeen, R-Minn. – Lundeen lost renomination to conservative Walter Newton, who would win the election. Lundeen’s career would be revived as a Farmer-Labor politician during the Great Depression.

James K. Vardaman, D-Miss. – Defeated for renomination by Wilson loyalist Congressman Pat Harrison, with his vote against entering World War I the centerpiece of the campaign. He was the only one of the six senators who voted against declaring war on Germany to face electoral consequences in 1918, with Democrats William J. Stone of Missouri and Harry Lane of Oregon dying before the next election and Republican Asle Gronna of North Dakota losing renomination in 1920, albeit to similarly minded Edwin F. Ladd. Republican George Norris of Nebraska was reelected this year, and Republican Robert La Follette of Wisconsin was reelected in 1920.

Dorsey Shackleford, D-Mo. – Lost renomination to William L. Nelson, who won the election.

Perl Decker, D-Mo. – Lost reelection to Republican Isaac McPherson.

Jeannette Rankin, R-Mont. – Declined to run for reelection, would be again elected to Congress in 1940 where she would vote against declaring war on Japan.

Edwin Roberts, R-Nev. – Retired from the House to run for the Senate, lost to Democrat Charles Henderson, in part due to the third-party candidacy of Independent suffragette Anne Henrietta Martin.

Meyer London, S-N.Y. – Congress’s only member of the Socialist Party lost reelection to Democrat Henry M. Goldfogle.

A. Jeff McLemore, D-Tex. – Lost reelection to Democrat Joe Eagle for his anti-war and anti-Wilson stances.
Clarence Dill, D-Wash. – Lost reelection to Republican J. Stanley Webster. He managed to make a comeback by getting elected to the Senate in 1922, where he served two terms.

Henry A. Cooper, R-Wis. – Lost renomination to conservative Clifford Randall, who won the election. He would regain his seat in the 1920 election and hold it until his death in 1931.

John Nelson, R-Wis. – Lost renomination to conservative James Monahan, who won the election. He would regain his seat in the 1920 election and hold it until he lost renomination in 1932.

William Cary, R-Wis. – Lost renomination to John C. Kleczka, who won the election.

The Loss of the Anti-Suffragists

The following members who voted against women’s suffrage in 1918 did not return to Congress, and no anti-suffragist defeated a member of Congress who had voted for suffrage. The failure of the Democratic Congress to ratify the women’s suffrage amendment damaged them at the polls, and the following anti-suffrage legislators were ousted:

Senate

Delaware – Democrat Willard Saulsbury Jr. lost reelection to Republican L. Heisler Ball, who paired for suffrage in 1919.

Georgia – Democrat Thomas Hardwick was defeated for renomination by William Harris, who voted for suffrage in 1919. However, this likely had more to do with Hardwick’s political independence from President Wilson.

Massachusetts – Republican John W. Weeks lost reelection to Democrat David I. Walsh, who voted for suffrage in 1919. Weeks was the only Republican senator to lose reelection that year.

House

Delaware – Democrat Albert Polk loses reelection to Republican Caleb Layton, who votes for suffrage. Interestingly, Layton would lose reelection in 1922 and his vote against the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill was likely the decisive factor.

Georgia – Democrat William S. Howard declines to run for reelection in a bid for the Senate, but loses the primary to William Harris, who votes for suffrage.

Maryland – Democrat Jesse Price loses reelection to William Andrews.

Kentucky – Democrat J. Swagar Sherley, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee who had served since 1903 lost reelection to Republican Charles Ogden, who would vote for suffrage in 1919.

New Jersey – Republican Edward Gray doesn’t run for reelection to run for the Senate, but loses the nomination to Walter Edge, who votes for suffrage.

Republican R. Wayne Parker loses reelection to Democrat Daniel F. Minahan, who votes for suffrage. Parker wins his seat back in 1920, only to lose again in 1922 to Minahan.

Ohio – There’s a lot to cover here!

Democrat John S. Snook loses reelection to Republican Charles Thompson, who votes for suffrage.

Democrat John Key loses reelection to Republican R. Clint Cole, who votes for suffrage.

Democrat Horatio Claypool loses reelection to Republican Edwin Ricketts, who votes for suffrage.

Democrat Arthur Overmyer loses reelection to Republican James Begg, who votes for suffrage.

Democrat George White loses reelection to Republican C. Ellis Moore, who votes for suffrage.

Democrat William Gordon loses renomination to Charles A. Mooney, who votes for suffrage.

Wisconsin – Republican William Stafford loses reelection to Socialist Victor Berger, but Congress refused to seat Berger due to his indictment for sedition.

References

1918 House of Representatives Elections. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

1918 Senate Elections. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_United_States_Senate_elections

The Wheat Veto. (1918, July 16). The Bridgeport Telegram.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/24469781/?match=1&terms=%22veto%20wheat%22

To Adopt S.J. Res. 1… Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0650010

To Adopt H.J. Res. 200. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0650069

To Pass HJR 1. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RS0660013

To Pass H.J. Res. 1… Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0660002

To Pass H.J. Res. 200. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RS0650325

To Pass S.J. Res. 1… Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RS0650002

In 1932, change swept the nation with the election of FDR, and it also swept Rhode Island as Theodore Francis Green (1867-1966) was elected its governor. Although Republicans had dominated Rhode Island since the party’s inception, there could be the occasional Democratic governor. However, the governor was quite weak, not even having control over the budget except to veto the whole package, thus the occasional Democratic governor would be at worst an annoyance to the consistently Republican legislature. Green, who had been a figure in state politics since his election to the state legislature in 1907, would not serve as a mere annoyance.

Theodore Green had been something of a perennial candidate beforehand. He had run for governor twice before without success, in 1912 and 1930. He came close both times, but 1912’s closeness was the product of the conservative/Bull Moose split in the GOP and Rhode Island voters had narrowly supported retaining Republican officeholders in 1930. Green had also run for Congress in 1918, but was defeated by 11 points. However, 1928 had already been a warning for Republicans as to what the future held as Democrat Al Smith had won the state. While Smith hadn’t been the first Democrat to win Rhode Island since the Republican Party’s founding, he was the first to win without there being a split in the Republican vote. In 1932, Green won the gubernatorial election by 12 points over Republican incumbent Norman Case, roughly the same margin that FDR won the state.

1935’s “Bloodless Revolution”

The 1934 midterms did not go well for Republicans, and that applied to Rhode Island. Senator Felix Hebert lost reelection to Democrat Peter Gerry, and Democrats won control of the Rhode Island House. Still in question, however, was the state Senate. There were two seats that were so close they were being contested. Although the official results had Republicans winning 22 Senate seats to the Democrats’ 20, Democrats claimed fraud in two elections that Republicans had been certified the winners, and Lieutenant Governor Robert Quinn refused to allow the two Republicans, B. Earle Anthony of Portsmouth and Wallace Campbell of South Kingstown, to take office (Conley). Thus, Governor Green and Quinn engineered the creation of a commission of two Democratic and one moderate Republican senator to recount the ballots behind closed doors. While this was occurring, Republican senators were prevented from leaving the chamber so as to deny this proceeding a quorum, and the three senators after emerging unanimously proclaimed Democrats Joseph P. Dunn of Portsmouth and Charles A. White of South Kingstown the winners of the races (Conley). Now that the Democrats finally had unified government, they proceeded to purge state government of Republican officeholders and vacated the Supreme Court. The five Republican justices were offered large pensions if they left by noon the next day, and they did (Conley). Furthermore, the Democrats granted the governor more power than the post’s previously weak state. The governor could now have control over the state budget rather than the finance commissioner, a post that was appointed by the Senate (Conley).

This event was likened to a Central American coup by The Providence Journal, a newspaper that had been controlled in the past by Henry Anthony and in that time was owned by Republican Senator Jesse Metcalf’s brother (Frias). The Chicago Tribune’s owner, Colonel Robert R. McCormick, had an even more dramatic reaction. He hauled down the American flag in the Tribune’s lobby and cut out one star, representing Rhode Island, but had the star promptly replaced after being informed that this was an illegal act (Conley). Much like with the Dorr Rebellion, however, others regarded this act as consistent with democracy, and the Democrats of the time regarded Thomas Dorr as a hero.

One way in which Governor Green built up popular support was by managing to unify Irish, Italian, and French ethnic workers, the latter two having often voted Republican in the past. The Green Administration, with its Democratic majority, managed to get a bill providing for a forty-eight hour work week into law, a measure long opposed by the state’s Republicans (Conley). Another way was towards the state legislature by offering jobs to its members in exchange for favorable votes. During the time of unified control, one-third of legislators were given state jobs, an example being one Republican state senator who got a state job after voting to confirm Green’s department heads (Frias). It was possible in that time that legislators could hold office and have state jobs at the same time! Green reflected on the change in the wealthy Republicans he knew after his victories, “As long as I got beaten, my conservative friends tolerated my liberal views as an amiable idiosyncrasy, as though I had taken up Buddhism. But when I won and began to get results and make reforms, they were angry. Many cut me on the street, turned their backs on me in the clubs” (MacKay). For Democrats, Green was their Henry B. Anthony in the sense that it was he who truly led them to victory in the state, and he was just as able to play hardball. In 1936, Green defeated Republican Jesse Metcalf for reelection by four points. This, along with the presidential election in which FDR won the state by 13 points, was a referendum on the first New Deal, and Metcalf had proven one of the strongest detractors of the New Deal. For instance, he was one of only eight senators to oppose Social Security!

Senator Green

As a senator, Theodore Green proved a staunch supporter of FDR. He was one of twenty senators to vote to uphold the “court packing plan”, supported the Fair Labor Standards Act, and housing legislation. Unlike his Republican predecessors, he was a supporter of organized labor. Green also was quite a contrast to Rhode Island’s other senator, Peter Gerry. Gerry was a critic of President Roosevelt’s domestic policy. However, like Gerry, Green was wealthy and such wealth helped his campaigns as well as those of Democrats. He was even more supportive on the president on foreign policy, backing all of FDR’s pre-war measures as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The voters clearly approved of his work as well as his attentiveness to constituent service, and he was reelected by 15 points in 1942.
A confidential analysis of him by Isaiah Berlin for the British government read, “a former Governor of his State, he is, for all his years, a typical “progressive” pro-New Deal businessman. While he is a man of limited intellect, he is right-minded to a degree and a completely reliable ally of the Administration. He is a free trader with a particular hatred of the “Silver Bloc” in the Senate” (Hachey, 146).

Green was a staunch proponent of the Truman Administration both in its liberal domestic policy as well as its internationalist foreign policy. In 1950, he was among the liberals who opposed the McCarran Internal Security Act, the central feature of the law being the registration of communists with the Justice Department. Green would likewise vote to uphold President Truman’s veto of the McCarran-Walter Immigration Act in 1952, regarding the legislation as too restrictive for upholding the national origins quota system.

When Lyndon B. Johnson became Senate Majority Leader in 1955, Senator Green made himself a strong ally. Although normally a strong supporter of civil rights legislation, Green voted for the two weakening amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1957: the striking of the implementation of the 14th Amendment and the jury trial amendment. Such votes were possibly cast in the name of supporting what Majority Leader Johnson wanted. By the misfortune that many of his Senate colleagues who had been in office before him also served a long time, Green had throughout his career lacked an important committee chairmanship, but finally in 1957 he ascended to chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Although certainly a welcome figure by Senate Democrats for his internationalist views, by this time Green was 90 and his hearing was compromised. By the end of his one term as chairman, it was clear that Green’s age was having too great of an impact, and Johnson managed to get him to vacate his post for fellow internationalist J. William Fulbright of Arkansas. In 1960, Green opted not to run for another term on account of his advanced age, at the time setting a record for oldest senator in history at 93. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action’s average score for him from 1947 to 1960, not counting unopinionated absences, was an 88%, indicating a solid liberalism, while DW-Nominate has him at -0.342. In their 1960 release of ratings, the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action gave him an 11% based on 77 votes from 1955 to 1959.

Historians who have looked into Rhode Island since Green’s rise have had some ambivalence about whether the Democratic rise improved the situation on ethics. Brown University historian William McLoughlin stated on the Democratic rise, “In the long-run it replaced one party rule and patronage by the Republicans for the same kind of single-party system run by the Democrats. None could deny, however, that at least the state was run by its majority” (MacKay).

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

https://adaction.org/ada-voting-records/

Conley, P.T. Robert E. Quinn and the Political Revolution of 1935. Small State Big History.

Retrieved from

https://smallstatebighistory.com/robert-e-quinn-and-the-political-revolution-of-1935/

Frias, S. (2015, October 7). Going backwards on ethics. The Providence Journal.

Retrieved from

https://www.providencejournal.com/story/opinion/2015/10/07/going-backwards-on-ethics/33324742007/

Green, Theodore Francis. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/3783/theodore-francis-green

Hachey, T.E. (1973-1974). American Profiles on Capitol Hill: A Confidential Study for the British Foreign Office in 1943. The Wisconsin Magazine of History, 57(2), 141-153.

Retrieved from

https://web.archive.org/web/20131021185357/http://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/published_works/singles/bib139a/bib139a.pdf

Hill, R. Theodore Francis Green of Rhode Island. The Knoxville Focus.

Retrieved from

https://www.knoxfocus.com/archives/theodore-francis-green-of-rhode-island/

MacKay, S. (2018, February 19). T.F. Green, The Largely Forgotten Man For Whom The RI Airport Is Named. The Public’s Radio.

Retrieved from

https://thepublicsradio.org/article/tf-green-largely-forgotten-man-whom-ri-airport-named/

Thomas Dorr

As some who are a bit more well-versed in history of the United States will know, the United States did not start out with universal suffrage…not even for white men. What they may not know is that Rhode Island was the most restrictive of them all on this front. When Rhode Island was admitted as a state, it used for its Constitution the royal charter for the colony from 1663. This charter was quite a forward-thinking document for its day and age, and it included religious freedom (not common in that time) as well as suffrage for men who owned property. Indeed, at the time of statehood, property ownership as a requirement to vote was the norm. The requirement that such men be white, incidentally, was only added in 1822. However, by 1841, the rise of Jacksonian democracy, which established suffrage regardless of property ownership, had spread throughout the nation. That is, except for Rhode Island. Rhode Island’s political establishment were not fans of Andrew Jackson or Jacksonian democracy, and the property-owning men of the state had not once voted for him. By this point, over 60% of the white male population were barred from voting due to their lack of property ownership, and this group of citizens as well as some of the currently eligible voters rallied behind Thomas Dorr, a big fan of Andrew Jackson and an advocate of bringing Jacksonian democracy to Rhode Island. Dorr initially supported including black residents in suffrage, but his base of support insisted on them getting suffrage first, leading him to drop it, at least for the time being. The Dorr faction drew up their own reformist Constitution, but the Rhode Island Assembly formed a counter-proposal that included some concessions to the Dorrites. The Dorrite Constitution prevailed in a public vote overwhelmingly, but Rhode Island’s governor Samuel Ward King was a staunch foe of the Dorrite constitution, and refused to recognize the result of the referendum. In 1842, both the supporters of King and the Dorrites held their own elections, and both proclaimed their candidates the winner, with a strange situation existing in which different citizens of Rhode Island recognized different governors, and both issued executive orders.

This conflict was in truth quite minor; while armies were formed and moved about, ultimately only one civilian was accidentally shot and killed (Shatwell). Reactions to the Dorr Rebellion differed among the prominent names of the time. The distinct lack of combat led Frederick Douglass to describe the rebellion as merely the “Dorr excitement” (Tardiff). Others saw more importance in the event, such as Francis Wayland, a staunch conservative president of Brown University, who decried the event as almost resulting in “the horrors of civil war” and a retired Andrew Jackson, who thought the event a legitimate assertion of the power of the people (Chaput & DeSimone). A temporary party that was formed off the Whig Party was the Law and Order Party (“law and order”, like so many phrases in American politics, have had long usages), which prevailed in the next election.

Among the soldiers who helped put down the Dorr rebellion were 400 black men. Many of Rhode Island’s blacks had supported Dorr initially for his calls for expanding suffrage but changed their minds after he dropped black suffrage. These men were praised in the prominent Providence Journal, headed by future Republican Senator Henry B. Anthony. For their role, the political reward from Rhode Island’s elite was that with the revisions to the state Constitution, blacks could vote. Although the common thinking today is that black voters are largely associated with the political left given that usually about 9 in 10 black voters vote Democrat (although up to 1 in 3 consider themselves conservative), in this time they aligned themselves with the political right of their day and got rewarded.

A Pro-Dorr Cartoon

In 1844, Dorr was sentenced to life of solitary confinement and hard labor for treason in a court in Newport, one that the general public considered far too harsh and protested. Only the following year amid public pressure, all participants in the Dorr Rebellion were granted amnesty. Even this one year of solitary confinement and hard labor, however, exacted a terrible toll on Dorr’s health; he would be retired for the rest of his life and died on December 27, 1854 at the age of 49. Although the rebellion was unsuccessful in making Thomas Dorr governor and in ousting the political elite of Rhode Island (the latter would not be achieved until the 1930s), the Dorr Rebellion did manage to push the state legislature to amend the state’s constitution so that Rhode Island no longer had property requirements for suffrage…for native-born men that is, provided they could pay a $1 poll tax. Foreign-born men still had to own property to vote, thus leaving many Irish Catholics out of the electorate, and this requirement persisted until 1888, when it was amended to permit foreign-born men who didn’t own property to vote. Although Southern restrictions on suffrage under Jim Crow administrations were more discriminatory and overtime proved much more dramatic in their impact (Virginia, for instance, had only about 10% of the population voting in the general election by the 20th century thanks to their onerous poll tax), Southerners pointing out hypocrisy on the rules of some Northern states like Rhode Island weren’t without a point. The power of the elites, who had been predominantly Federalist, Whig, and Republican over the history of Rhode Island didn’t start to weaken until the direct election of senators and wasn’t undone until the 1930s with the rise of FDR and the election of Governor Theodore Green. Today, Rhode Island is a staunchly Democratic state, with no Republican being elected statewide since 2006 and their voters since 1928 have only seen fit to elect Republicans to the presidency four times. Dorr himself is looked upon more favorably today, and the state of Rhode Island even recognizes him as governor during the brief time he and his supporters regarded him as governor.

References

Chaput, E.J. & DeSimone, R.J. (2010, January). Strange Bedfellows: The Politics of Antebellum Rhode Island. Common Place, 10(2).

Retrieved from

https://commonplace.online/article/strange-bedfellows/#:~:text=The%20former%20slave%20and%20staunch,was%20to%20induce%20the%20old

Shatwell, J. (2020, March 3). Dorr Rebellion – Rhode Island’s Very Own, Very Small Civil War. New England.

Retrieved from

https://newengland.com/yankee/history/dorr-rebellion/

Tardiff, E. The Dorr Rebellion. Rhode Tour.

Retrieved from

https://rhodetour.org/tours/show/29