Now that Penrose was in the Senate, he was on the same national footing as Matthew Quay. However, soon his influence in that chamber would surpass Quay’s, for he was in legal trouble. Penrose had not liked Quay’s methods for their jail risk, and Quay was indicted in 1898 for allegedly defrauding the People’s Bank in Philadelphia. Although the evidence in this case was weak and he was ultimately acquitted, this incident resulted in him narrowly being denied seating to the Senate the following year, and for a brief time Penrose was the state’s only senator. Although Quay managed to get back in and remained boss, Penrose was considerably more of a policy man. The former pretty much worked on whatever he saw as benefiting Pennsylvania, but the latter got on the Senate Finance Committee and would twice serve as its chairman. In 1903, Quay was starting to die from chronic gastritis and upon his death the following year, Penrose was the undisputed leader of the machine.

Robert Bowden (1937) wrote that there were four great consistencies about Penrose, which informed how he carried out his life and career: “1. His first, last, and only love was politics…2. He had an unshakeable obsession of greatness…3. He was boldly, consistently, beautifully, free from hypocrisy”…4. He had no scruples or “set” principles to live up to or avoid” (44, 45, 46). However, this isn’t quite true. Bowden (1937) does note earlier in his book that “He had no scruples against anything – except stupidity” (11). Furthermore, Penrose was far more conservative than his predecessor bosses. Prior bosses Simon Cameron, J. Donald Cameron, and Matthew Quay had DW-Nominate scores of 0.275, 0.214, and 0.171. This indicates that these men were moderately ideological, and for Quay its possible that that’s just how the cookie crumbled on his votes that were geared towards his power and Pennsylvania. Penrose’s DW-Nominate score was a 0.619 by contrast. As leader of the Pennsylvania GOP, he figured why engage in petty corrupt practices such as graft and accepting bribes when you can legally solicit contributions from corporate interests…after all conservative Republican policy is geared towards benefiting the expansion of commerce and by extension growing well-paying jobs. Why shouldn’t the businessmen pay for it? As Robert Bowden (1937) writes, “He was always very scornful of Quay and his sort for profiting by the petty graft in contracts and the like. Franchises, contracts, gambling with State funds, small bribes, and things of that kind, furnished the source of Quay’s wealth. But why risk going to the penitentiary by picking up little amounts of graft when the real money was to be had by working for those who controlled mines and steel mills and railroads. They paid handsomely for a law passed or defeated now and then” (188). Penrose went a bit further in his practices than mere solicitation of campaign funds, however, as he pioneered “squeeze bills”. He would have an ally in the Pennsylvania legislature introduce legislation to regulate a particular industry, and once a sufficient level of campaign contributions came in, he promised to have the bill shelved, and it was (Beers, 53). This turns the traditional thought of campaign contributions on its head; the popular conception of big business is that they push politicians to act for them through campaign contributions, but Penrose pushed big business for contributions in a way far greater than mere calls and meetings. Speaking of calls, Penrose was the master of phone calls. Rather than any communication on critical issues being written down, he used the telephone so if any dispute came up over what was said, he could always deny it.

Penrose’s foremost political cause was raising tariffs. When one of his men asking what the issue of the upcoming campaign was going to be, he responded, “Hell, man! Have you arrived at the age of discretion and don’t know that there’s always only one question worth making an issue out of? Protection! Protect the great industries of this State and you start dollars flowing out to every home in the State. We make that possible because we control the government at Harrisburg and at Washington. We intend to keep that control” (Bowden, 19). Indeed, high tariffs were the bread and butter of the traditional GOP, as much so as income tax reduction in modern times. What’s more, it tended to be the progressives among the Republicans who were most likely to dissent on tariff questions. However, Penrose’s political ideology was a bit greater than tariffs. Indeed, per Bowden (1937) with some exaggeration states, “His sole interest in public life was centered on keeping business free from governmental regulation” (250). He was also opposed to most reform causes of his day, opposing amendments to the Constitution for direct election of senators, women’s suffrage, and Prohibition. The latter distinctly offended his philosophy that he should do whatever he wanted and that others ought to be free to do so if they had the guts. Senators whose counsel he valued (including DW-Nominate scores) included per Robert Bowden (1937), “John W. Weeks [0.587], Massachusetts; Warren Harding [0.595], Ohio; Frank Brandegee [0.778], Connecticut; Henry Cabot Lodge [0.568] and W. Murray Crane [0.669], Massachusetts; Reed Smoot [0.514], Utah; Lawrence Y. Sherman [0.807], Illinois; James W. Watson [0.55], Indiana; Charles Curtis [0.433], Kansas; James Wadsworth [0.434], New York; William P. Dillingham [0.602], Vermont; Miles Poindexter [0.199], Washington; Jacob H. Gallinger, [New Hampshire] [0.553]. A noble band, these and not a progressive heresy in a carload” (244). With the sole exception of Poindexter (the author was probably referring to his last four years in the Senate, in which he had a major conservative shift), all of these men were indeed bona fide conservatives.

Penrose held a strong dislike for stupidity and hypocrisy and thought quite ill of reformers. His attitude could be summed up thusly, “He was quite sure that every reformer was a hypocrit[e] or an ignoramus and not worth worrying about, and that most reformers attack conditions about which they know nothing. Besides, it didn’t cost them anything to attack other people’s property or habits” (Bowden, 235). Penrose would also not have trucked to today’s activists on left-wing subjects. Per Robert Bowden (1937), “He had no sympathy for reform and despised reformers. To him anybody who whined of injustice and immoral conditions was a weakling who, being both cowardly and weak, tried to get other weaklings like himself to abolish that which he was afraid to have for his very own” (32). For his personal attitudes towards women, they were unknown aside from his enjoyment of ladies of the night. Speaking of personal matters…

The Peculiarities of Penrose

Despite Penrose being a germaphobe, being hesitant to shake hands and despised people whispering in his ear, his hands were often dirty and his nails unkempt. Historian John Lukacs (1978) described him as “gargantuan, gross, and cynical”. His gargantuan size was due to his insane levels of eating: at his peak weight he was over 300 pounds. On one evening at dinner, Penrose reportedly ate “a dozen raw oysters, chicken gumbo, a terrapin stew, two canvas back ducks, mashed potatoes, lima beans, macaroni, asparagus, cole slaw and stewed corn, one hot mince pie, and a quart of coffee. All of which he stowed away while he drank a bottle of sauterne, a quart of champagne, and several cognacs” (Time Magazine). Such a meal, although it sounds incredible, was not unusual for him and other waiters from other establishments had similar Penrose stories. On another occasion, by this time in his early 50s, he dined with Congressman J. Washington Logue, who reported that he drank nine cocktails and five highballs and after ate 26 reed birds followed by the wild rice they were served atop and then drank a bowl of gravy (Bowden, 191-192). On yet another occasion, Penrose and another man competed for $1000 bet on who could eat more. The victor was Penrose who ate fifty iced oysters and consumed a quart of bourbon, and the loser was hospitalized, with Penrose remarking to his astounded audience, “I’ve probably made a damned hog of myself” (Noel & Norman, 11-12).

Penrose was not known to be ashamed of anything about himself. When entertaining guests on his yacht, he appeared on deck ready for a swim, to which a lady screamed, with Penrose responding, “Madame, I grant that mine is not the form of Apollo, but it is too late for either of us to do anything about that. But if I present what to you are strange or unfamiliar phenomena, it is you who should be ashamed, not I” (Time Magazine). He did, however, in his later years have a screen put up for when he was dining at restaurants.

The 1912 Election: Penrose Sides with the Establishment

In 1912, Penrose backed William Howard Taft over Theodore Roosevelt as Roosevelt was an outright threat to bosses like him, but Roosevelt won the state. Penrose had beforehand reached the sober realization that the public was tired of the GOP and were in a reformist mood, thus the battle was not for the presidency, rather control of the party, and he ultimately won that battle. The election did come at a cost to Penrose as he temporarily lost his post as a national committeeman but got it back in 1914.

Penrose and Wilson

Penrose was not a fan of President Wilson, who he derided as a “schoolmarm” (Lukacs). Although he managed to add the oil depletion allowance to the 1913 Revenue Act, he voted against the bill for its tariff reductions. Penrose would be one of the most staunchly opposed Republicans to Wilson’s “New Freedom” agenda and was strongly for military preparedness. Penrose during World War I predicted the introduction of the Versailles Treaty and the 1920 election: “Hell! Just encourage [the Democrats] a bit and they’ll not only lick the Kaiser but themselves as well – with a little help from us. You see, it’s like this. Woodrow got us into this war to make the world safe for Democracy. We’re a big brother now, not to one nation but to a dozen. They’ll borrow all we’ve got. Be damned lucky to keep our shirts. Then Woodrow will insist on making a peace treaty that’ll sound like a high school oration. Just about that time the pious taxpayer will get tired of being up in the clouds and they’ll call in us good Republicans to get them back to earth…Yes, sir, idealism is a great thing, but it costs too much” (Bowden, 246).

The 1914 Election: Penrose Faces the People

Boies Penrose had opposed the 17th Amendment for direct election of senators, but he was outvoted and progressive reformers hoped that Penrose and men like him would be turned out of office. Indeed, his eccentricities made it possible that this would be so. However, Penrose remained highly intelligent, and he visited cities and towns and gladhanded the voters to gain support. His opponents also had a problem in that they were divided: former President Theodore Roosevelt endorsed Progressive Gifford Pinchot and President Woodrow Wilson endorsed Democrat A. Mitchell Palmer. They split the opposition vote, and Penrose came out ahead with 46.76% of the vote. After a triumphant reelection in 1920, he said to a reformer friend of his, “Give me the People, every time! Look at me! No legislature would ever have dared to elect me in the Senate, not even at Harrisburg. But the People, the dear People, elected me by a bigger majority than my opponent’s total vote by half a million. You and your ‘reformer’ friends thought direct election would turn men like me out of the Senate! Give me the People, every time!” (Kennedy) Although Penrose certainly had a new-found appreciation for the people, he remained a cynic. He said of the voting public, “The people are all right, but their tastes are simple: they dearly love hokum” (Bowden, 198).

Penrose Saves La Follette and Helps Bring Down the Versailles Treaty

In 1917, Senator Robert La Follette (R-Wis.), a noted progressive, had voted against declaring war on Germany. This, in addition to distorted reports of a speech he gave that falsely alleged that he had defended the sinking of the Lusitania, had many of his fellow senators wanting his immediate expulsion from politics. However, when the vote was coming up with La Follette appearing before the Senate afraid, “Big Grizzly” approached him, put his big arm around him, and escorted him to his seat. Penrose publicly opposed La Follette being ousted for his stance on the war, and with most Republicans voting with Penrose, La Follette was not expelled. Like La Follette, Penrose was a strong opponent of the Versailles Treaty, but unlike him, he was not considered an “irreconcilable”, or one who refused to vote for the treaty under any circumstances.

Decline and Deciding on a President

In the 1910s, Penrose began to face a considerable challenge from within the Pennsylvania GOP: the Vare brothers. The Vare brothers (William and Edwin) of Philadelphia were notorious contractor bosses, and William even made arrangements with mobsters Lucky Luciano and Waxey Gordon in which any operation of theirs would be subject to his veto. Once Penrose and Edwin Vare passed, William would be the undisputed boss in Philadelphia Republican politics. While alive, Penrose had to contend with their growing influence in the city, where his influence was the weakest. Worse yet, his health was failing as he was getting into his late fifties given his indulgent consumption of oysters, steaks, and other culinary delights. As Robert Bowden (1937) wrote, “He no longer had an intellectual curiosity to satisfy; even that dulled on him. Having nothing else to occupy him he turned all his thoughts to the gratification of his many appetites. But already he had pampered them too much and they rebelled on him. His stomach no longer would accept, without loud complaint, five-pound steaks. His capacity for liquor had dwindled shamefully. Hemorrhoids caused him no little worry and inconvenience. About everything physical was wrong with him. He was now only a man-mountain of three hundred pounds of diseased flesh” (255). Despite his decline, he remained as active on the political scene as he could.

In 1919, a group of journalists asked Penrose who the ideal Republican candidate for president would be, and he responded: “We shall select a man with lofty ideals. He shall be a man familiar with world problems. He will be a man who will appeal warmly to the young voter – the young men and women of our country. A man of spotless character, of course…A man whose life shall be an inspiration to all of us, to whom we may look as our national hero…The man I have in mind is the late Buffalo Bill” (Lukacs). The man Penrose actually looked to for the presidency was Senator Warren G. Harding of Ohio and asked him about it. He saw in Harding a compatriot in his conservatism, and was one of the most important figures backing Harding’s nomination, and although he could not attend the Republican National Convention due to poor health, he was quite active in the proceedings and ran up a telephone bill of $7000 (not accounting for inflation!) in July 1920. He recommended to Harding Pennsylvanian industrialist Andrew Mellon as Treasury secretary, and sponsored the Emergency Tariff Act in 1921 (although he initially opposed it) as well as the Revenue Act of 1921 (income tax reduction). His accomplishments in 1921 were the last of his career. Penrose had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and on December 31, 1921, he died in his bed. Despite rumors that Penrose had millions secretly stashed away, he personally had not profited from politics. He was born rich and died a considerably poorer man, as his brothers were not left with much on his death.

To be completely honest, I kind of like Boies Penrose. His stands against stupidity and hypocrisy resonate with me, as do his efforts to make the machine less in contradiction with the law. Does this make me a cynic? I hope not, for it is not a way to live. Although Penrose really took things to extremes. I’d call him a Diogenes, but he had too much enjoyment of excess and the high life for that.

References

65th Congress – Senators. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/congress/senate/65/text

Books: Boies Would Be Boies. (1931, November 23). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6748250/books-boies-would-be-boies/

Beers, P.B. (1980). Pennsylvania politics today and yesterday: the terrible accommodation. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Bowden, R.D. (1937). Boies Penrose: symbol of an era. New York, NY: Greenberg.

Cameron, James Donald. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/1435/james-donald-cameron

Cameron, Simon. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/1437/simon-cameron

Crane, Winthrop Murray. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/2147/winthrop-murray-crane

Kennedy, J.F. (1956, February 21). Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the New York Herald Tribune Luncheon, New York, New York. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum.

Retrieved from

https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/new-york-ny-herald-tribune-luncheon-19560221

Lukacs, J. (1978). Big Grizzly. American Heritage, 29(6).

Retrieved from

https://www.americanheritage.com/big-grizzly

Noel, T. & Norman, C. (2002). A Pike’s Peak Partnership: The Penroses and the Tutts. University Press of Colorado.

Retrieved from

https://www.upcolorado.com/excerpts/9780870816895.pdf

Penrose, Boies. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/7332/boies-penrose

Quay, Matthew Stanley. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/7668/matthew-stanley-quay

In present day, Pennsylvania is a swing state, although both of its senators are Democrats, and the governor is one as well. The state used to be much different, being a stronghold for the GOP. This domination began with boss Simon Cameron, who had once been a Jackson-supporting Democrat. Although perhaps not the most powerful of Pennsylvania’s Republican bosses ever, Boies Penrose (1860-1921) was the biggest one physically and also the most conservative one. He was perhaps the most unique character of all of them.

An Aristocratic Upbringing and Entering Politics

The Penrose name was quite prominent and the family wealthy, and it was instilled into him from an early age that he was of the elite and a person to be deferred to. While in college, he was 6’4″ and 200 pounds, making for a striking figure, although he would balloon over the years, making his allies and enemies alike refer to him as “Big Grizzly”. Although a prime candidate for football, he would not play, as the thought of coming into physical contact with sweaty men was repulsive (Noel & Norman, 11). Although initially a lazy student at risk of failing, after intervention from his father he righted the ship and graduated with flying colors, developing an intense interest in politics that lasted his entire life and even writing an extensive and masterful paper on Philadelphia’s government. Penrose also wrote on Martin Van Buren, regarding him as “the first and the greatest of American politicians; of that class of statesmen who owe their success not so much to their opinions or characters, as to their skill in managing the machinery of party…He marks the transition in American politics from statesmen like Adams and Webster to the great political bosses and managers of today…Adams was the last statesman of the old school who was to occupy the White House, Van Buren was the first politician president” (Lukacs). Penrose would see Van Buren as a model to emulate, regarding his approach as the acceptance of political reality. He would also identify a core failure of Marxist assumptions, that being that the working classes were not a revolutionary group, rather among the staunchest defenders of property and fundamentally conservative (Lukacs). This seems to ring truer today than even in his day. He carried an ego that was as big as he became, and this led him to instead of associating a lot with his peers, associate with commoners. Instead of going to high-end establishments with peers, he went to pubs and oyster and steakhouses for common citizens, and they would seek out the young intellectual’s wisdom while he would meet the leaders of local political gangs and get connected in the political world (Bowden, 20-21). In this sense, he followed the footsteps of his grandfather, Charles, who had played a critical role in getting the notorious Simon Cameron elected to the Senate in 1857. Like Charles, Boies would crave power. However, he would not crave money unlike most machine bosses…he was already rich. Furthermore, Penrose was keen to avoid risking the penitentiary in the pursuit of political power (Lukacs).

Although he had earned a law degree and worked in a legal firm, Penrose came to have a low opinion of many of his clients. He recalled of his days in law, “My offices were always full. On one side of the waiting room the politicians gathered. Across the other side were my clients. After a few months I decided to choose between them and I chose the least stupid and the most honest” (Lukacs). From then on, Penrose’s full-time profession was politics. He started in opposition to the “Gas Ring” of Philadelphia, and in February 1884 he was able to see to it that no voter fraud occurred on behalf of the ring given his intimidating presence and that he held a list of registered voters in his hand, making sure the vote came in right; the machine’s candidate lost 3 to 1 (Lukacs). In November, he was elected to the state legislature. Upon going to Harrisburg, Penrose completely neglected to visit Matthew Quay, the boss of Pennsylvania politics, as was expected. Although Quay’s right-hand man, Bull Andrews, was outraged by this, Quay himself was intrigued and invited Penrose to dinner (Bowden, 52-53).

The Junior Partner

Penrose’s entrance into politics was a rather bold one, as he opted not to kowtow to the powerful Quay. Quay had ably served Governor Andrew Curtain during the War of the Rebellion as well as the Camerons, father and son Simon and J. Donald, and had in 1884 been elected Pennsylvania’s treasurer. His control over the taxpayer funds of the state made him the power, overshadowing Senator J. Donald Cameron, who had considerably less political skill than his wily father. Quay’s methods included graft, using the Pennsylvania State Treasury as a campaign fund and investing money from the treasury to grow it, practices that placed him at risk of going to prison. Penrose’s defiance, powerful intellect, and presence ultimately motivated Quay to take him in rather than to fight him. Although he had some disagreements with Quay on methods, for instance telling him at their introductory dinner, “Times are changing, Mr. Quay. Look at all the new inventions, all the new industries, and such things, springing up! They are going to be run by young men with new ideas and they’ll demand new political set-ups…It’s all plain to me” (Bowden, 57). Penrose ultimately became Quay’s junior partner in the machine, and when Quay was elected to the Senate, Penrose was his man in the state legislature to enforce his will. Quay and Penrose also employed the media to influence public opinion, holding controlling interests in numerous newspapers to grant them favorable coverage (Lukacs). With his rising power, he ultimately wanted to be Philadelphia’s mayor, and announced his run in 1894. However, there was a problem, and this was in Penrose’s lifestyle. Boies Penrose’s lifestyle was hedonistic; he ate what he wanted, drank what he wanted, and slept with ladies of the night. Given his wealth, anything he wanted he could and did pay for, and he was generally pretty open about the things he did, those things that others would opt to hide doing. This would result in Penrose’s only great political failure, as his opposition had managed to obtain a picture of him leaving a notorious brothel at dawn, forcing his withdrawal. This motivated him to be a bit more discreet in his dealings with women.

There were numerous ways he used power corruptly under Quay as well as on his own later. Penrose used the courts to protect lower-level individuals who had employed voter fraud and permitted corrupt schemes by his minions, yet Penrose himself never profited off his office and no evidence ever arose that his own election victories were due to voter fraud (Lukacs). He seemed to see it as necessary to allow his underlings some degree of corrupt behavior, as this was the way of machine politics in Pennsylvania, especially in Philadelphia. In 1897, Senator J. Donald Cameron was not running for another term, and although Penrose had a challenge from within the party from reformer John Wanamaker, he was elected. The next post will cover Penrose’s time as a senator until his death.

References

Bowden, R.D. (1937). Boies Penrose: symbol of an era. New York, NY: Greenberg.

Retrieved from

https://ia600200.us.archive.org/23/items/boiespenrosesymb00bowd/boiespenrosesymb00bowd.pdf

Lukacs, J. (1978). Big Grizzly. American Heritage, 29(6).

Retrieved from

https://www.americanheritage.com/big-grizzly

Noel, T. & Norman, C. (2002). A Pike’s Peak Partnership: The Penroses and the Tutts. University Press of Colorado.

Retrieved from

https://www.upcolorado.com/excerpts/9780870816895.pdf

The War of the Rebellion had had a strong impact on the fortunes of the GOP, and this was particularly helped by their enactment of the 15^th Amendment, which prohibited denial of suffrage based on race or color. Freedmen voted gratefully for Republicans and this resulted in the South having Republican representation to Congress for a time. However, resentment brewed among white Democrats, some who had been temporarily disenfranchised for their support of the Confederacy, and they sought to use means fair and foul, legal and illegal, to “redeem” the South. Complicating matters further for Republicans was the economic depression that came from the Panic of 1873 (the downturn lasted until 1879) and numerous corruption scandals in the Grant Administration including the New York custom house ring, the Star Route ring, and the Sanborn incident. Revelations of more scandals would follow this midterm. Historian James McPherson found the massive Democratic victories to be “due mainly to economic depression, political corruption, and the turbulence of Southern politics” (McAfee, 166). This is the typical story, but there is another factor that exists and it may have been the strongest of them all. Historian William Gillette, who studied the 1874 midterm extensively, concluded that the push for integrated schools factored above others in the Republicans’ 1874 loss, driving “Scalawags” or white Southerners who previously backed the GOP away, and that it had some impact in the North as well (McAfee, 167). Indeed, some Republicans attributed integrated schools as the issue that killed them in the election. President Ulysses S. Grant was among them (McAfee, 163).

How bad were the Republican losses? They lost 96 seats in the House, the largest single loss in the history of the Republican Party. As historian McAfee wrote, “As long as the Republican civil rights movement had not inconvenienced Northern whites, it moved forward. But the mixed-schools issue brought it to an insurmountable stone wall” (McAfee, 159). The Republicans suffered widespread net losses, with Kentucky and Nevada the only states in which they had a net gain of seats. Even in such stout Republican states as Illinois, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, Republican representatives found themselves in the minority of their House delegations. Losses in the South were quite present too, with them losing all representation in Arkansas and Georgia. Although campaigns of fraud, intimidation, and violence against black participation in voting played a role, whites who had previously supported Republicans (“scalawags”) switching to the Democrats played a role too in Republican losses in the South. Results were less terrible for the Republicans in the Senate, in which elections are every six years and they were far ahead of Democrats on Senate seats, but the Democrats did gain nine seats. They won against Republican or Liberal Republican incumbents in Connecticut and Missouri. Prominent Radical Republican Zachariah Chandler lost reelection to fellow Republican Isaac Christiancy. Democrats also succeeded retiring senators in Florida, Indiana, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. In the Texas election, Republicans were hardly in contention, with the major contest being between Democrats Samuel Maxey and James Throckmorton. Democrats only lost one seat, in California, but to Anti-Monopoly candidate Newton Booth, far from an ideal substitute for Senate Republicans.

Former President Andrew Johnson also scored a comeback by returning to the Senate in Tennessee, where support for Republicans was crumbling, but he wasn’t able to make much of it as he died mere months after being sworn in. This election, with the Democrats in control of the House and an increasingly embattled Grant Administration, signaled the doom of Reconstruction. Governor Adelbert Ames (R-Miss.), who would be forced to resign by the Democratic legislature, regarded the results thusly, “a revolution has taken place – by force of arms – and a race are disenfranchised – they are to be returned to a condition of serfdom – an era of second slavery” (Kato, 45-46). Whether or not Hayes had won, Reconstruction would have been brought to an end after the 1876 election given unified Democratic opposition to its continuance. Although Southern Republicans still remained, their presence would dwindle within the next 25 years rather than immediate disenfranchisement occurring. As historian C. Vann Woodward wrote, “It is perfectly true that Negroes were often coerced, defrauded, or intimidated, but they continued to vote in large parts of the South for more than two decades after Reconstruction” (Jenkins & Peck, 198). The last black Republican of the first generation of black politicians in Congress, George White of North Carolina, would leave office in 1901.

References

Jenkins, J.A. & Peck, J. (2021). Congress and the first civil rights era, 1861-1918. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Kato, D. (2016). Liberalizing lynching: building a new racialized state. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

McAfee, W.M. (1998). Religion, race, and Reconstruction: the public school in the politics of the 1870s. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

President Biden’s recent catastrophic debate performance gave much credence to the increasingly widespread belief that he is senile, and more has been talked about it, including from those who were constantly trying to dismiss it before now. Should the Dems renominate him, it will be reminiscent of their renomination of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944. Although he certainly looked worse than in the past, Americans by and large didn’t know the extent of it. Democrats around FDR knew that he was not going to survive another term.

The Extent of FDR’s Health Problems

Although President Roosevelt appeared to be in good health for much of his presidency, on November 28, 1943, following the Tehran Conference he became ill, and although it was thought he had come down with the flu, by March 1944 his health had remained compromised and Senator Truman noted that Roosevelt looked unhealthy, yet Dr. Ross McIntire, an ear, nose, and throat specialist publicly claimed that FDR was “enjoying excellent health” (Susmano). FDR and his family were not satisfied with his care, and on March 28th, he was given a full physical by Dr. Howard G. Bruenn, a cardiologist. Bruenn’s diagnosis was serious: “hypertension, hypertensive heart disease, cardiac failure (left ventricle), and acute bronchitis” (The University of Arizona Health Sciences Library). His blood pressure was 186/108 mm Hg, and the next month it hit 230/126 mm Hg. A blood pressure of 180/120 mm Hg and above is today considered a hypertensive emergency (Edwards). Although I previously noted he appeared to be in good health, in truth he had had systolic hypertension since 1937, and diastolic hypertension since 1941 (Susmano). The public would in an election year get some indication that rumors about FDR’s worsening health were the real deal in his “Bremerton Speech”.

FDR’s Bremerton Speech

On August 12, 1944, FDR delivered a speech in Bremerton, Washington, that first indicated to the public that he might not be doing well. He had lost 20 pounds by acting on the advice of his physicians for a low-fat diet, and as a consequence his leg braces no longer fit his arms, and the unsteady movement of the ship he was speaking from forced him to hold himself up by his arms, an exercise of endurance for the aging president (Farley). Roosevelt was also unsteady and not smooth in his speech. Worse yet, starting ten minutes in he experienced an episode of chest pain that radiated to his shoulders, making this speech even more of an endurance effort, although this particular event didn’t prove to be serious. This event was not as publicly jarring as the Biden debate performance, but nonetheless doubts were spreading about him, and his reelection was looking increasingly questionable. However, his opponents would gift him with an opportunity, and he would make full use of it.

A Comeback: The Fala Rumor and “Fala Speech”

On August 31st, Rep. Harold Knutson (R-Minn.), a bitter opponent of the president on domestic and foreign policy, accused Roosevelt of extravagance on the House floor and referenced a rumor that he had accidentally left his Scottish terrier Fala on the Aleutian Islands and had sent a destroyer to pick him up. FDR responded to these charges on September 23rd in a speech before the Teamster’s Union, “The Republicans were not content to attack me, or my wife, or my sons. No, not content with that, now they even attack my little dog, Fala. Well, of course I don’t resent attacks, and my family doesn’t resent attacks, but Fala does resent them. You know, Fala is Scotch, and being a Scottie, as soon as he learned that the Republican fiction writers in Congress and out had concocted a story that I had left him behind on the Aleutian Islands and had sent a destroyer back to find him – at a cost to the taxpayer of two or three, or eight or twenty million dollars – his Scotch soul was furious. He has not been the same dog since. I am accustomed to hearing malicious falsehoods about myself – such as that old, worm-eaten chestnut that I have represented myself as indispensable. But I think I have a right to resent, to object to libelous statements about my dog” (Lewellyn, 66-67). The message to the public was clear: FDR was still on his game.

However…

Despite his public rally, Democrats around him knew he was unwell and would most likely not survive another term, and this prospect disturbed many Democrats given that Roosevelt’s vice president was Henry Wallace. Wallace was regarded as a radical and not trusted by many Democrats. Many certainly didn’t want him to be president, and although Roosevelt liked Wallace, some powerful voices were against him on the ticket, and he opted to switch him out. Initially, it looked possible that Jimmy Byrnes, FDR’s right-hand man on domestic affairs, could be tapped for the position. The problem here was that the South Carolinian Byrnes was a segregationist and picking him had the potential for widespread defections to the Republican ticket from black voters, whose switch to voting Democratic in presidential elections was only eight years old. The potential defections were not ones the Democrats wanted to risk, as this was going to be FDR’s closest election. Democrats needed as unified a ticket as possible, and thus the pick, or more accurately drafting, of the popular Senator Harry S. Truman from the border state of Missouri who was well-regarded among both Northern and Southern Democrats. He had chaired the incredibly popular Truman Committee, which had investigated and managed to in a non-partisan fashion identify and curb wasteful practices in national defense. Truman also had a loyal record to the New Deal, including voting to uphold President Roosevelt’s ill-fated “court-packing plan”. Frankly, Kamala Harris reminds me a bit of Henry Wallace in that both shared a staunchly left-wing philosophy (Harris was one of the most left-wing senators per DW-Nominate scoring) and were unpopular in their roles as vice president. Don’t hold your breath for Harris to be changed out because the staunch identitarians in the party will veto such a proposal.

Death

FDR, one day before his death.

Despite this seeming rally, it was short-lived, and his condition would deteriorate further in the coming months. At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, his blood pressure, which had become uncontrollable, spiked to 260/150 mm Hg. Dr. Lord Moran, Churchill’s personal physician, examined FDR and concluded, “I give him only a few months to live” (Ali et. al., 2). Indeed, on April 12, 1945, Roosevelt died of a cerebral hemorrhage, his blood pressure having spiked that morning to over 300/190 mm Hg (Susmano). No comparison is perfect, after all comparisons are by their nature imperfect, for an exact one would be the thing itself, and that’s not a comparison. Biden’s problems surround his mind, not his physicality, and he has nowhere near the political acumen of FDR. The comparison is in that Democrats may run a candidate they know to be seriously compromised, much like those around FDR knew that his health was seriously compromised. A “Fala speech” comeback seems most unlikely, even if Republicans hand him an opportunity (I wouldn’t be surprised if they do). However, Trump gave Biden material to work with in that debate, and he proved unable to effectively capitalize on it. The only sort of comeback I can see for Biden is if something very bad comes out about Trump, although given for certain quarters of the media that’s essentially another Tuesday, it may come down to what Edwin Edwards famously said about his election chances for Louisiana governor the day before election day in 1983: “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy” (Warren). That could very well be so for Trump unless the Democrats change out Biden, and although there is talk of it now, I get the feeling that Americans will be subjected once again to this match-up, thanks to the party primary system. I am becoming increasingly convinced that the primary system should be abolished and that maybe “smoke-filled rooms” weren’t so bad, but that’s a post for another day.

References

Ali, R., Connolly, I.D., Li, A., Choudhri, O.A., Pendharkar, A.V., & Steinberg, G.K. (2016). The strokes that killed Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin. Neurosurgical Focus, 41(1).

Retrieved from

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjO5Jqt45CHAxWooI4IHc3vCrIQFnoECCwQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fthejns.org%2Fdownloadpdf%2Fjournals%2Fneurosurg-focus%2F41%2F1%2Farticle-pE7.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1KScSiTLMw3ozZrWVAYMdb&opi=89978449

Autenrieth, M. (2021, April 10). The Dying President. National Park Service.

Retrieved from

https://www.nps.gov/hofr/blogs/the-dying-president.htm

Edwards, J.M. (2023, September 20). Hypertensive Urgency vs. Emergency: What’s the Difference? Healthline.

Retrieved from

https://www.healthline.com/health/high-blood-pressure-hypertension/hypertensive-urgency-vs-emergency

Farley, J. (2019, August 11). 75 years ago, the speech that changed Bremerton, Roosevelt. Kitsap Sun.

Retrieved from

https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/2019/08/11/75-years-ago-speech-changed-bremerton-and-president-roosevelt/1960507001/

Franklin D. Roosevelt – Disability and deception. The University of Arizona Health Sciences Library.

Retrieved from

https://lib.arizona.edu/hsl/materials/collections/secret-illness/fdr

Harris, Kamala Devi. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/41701/kamala-devi-harris

Llewellyn, J. (2010). Paws, Pathos, and Presidential Persuasion: Franklin Roosevelt’s “Fala Speech” as Precursor and Model for Richard Nixon’s “Checkers Speech”. CTAMJ.

Retrieved from

https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=ctamj

Susmano, A. (2017, January 31). Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s last illness. Hektoen International.

Retrieved from

https://hekint.org/2017/01/31/franklin-delano-roosevelts-last-illness/

Warren, J. (2010, August 22). Blagojevich Fatigue? Get Used to It. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/us/22cncwarren.html

I haven’t done one of these in quite some time, and I figure I would offer a bit of a different twist to it than you’re all probably used to, and it’s one of the earliest RINOs in the history of the GOP in Pennsylvania’s Senator Edgar Cowan (1815-1885).

Elected to succeed Democrat William Bigler, Cowan initially seemed like the figure for the GOP, being a former Whig and loyalist to Republican boss Simon Cameron. He had also denounced Bigler as a “doughface”, or a Northern politician favorable to Southern interests. However, overtime his independence would prove a hindrance to the GOP. Cowan laid out his five principles regarding the War of the Rebellion, and they were as follows:

“1. The North must not violate the Constitution in coercing the South to remain in the Union.

2. The Democratic Party in the Free States and the Union men in the Border States must be conciliated.
3. Congress should confine itself to raising revenues and an army.
4. The war should be waged according to the rules of civilized warfare.
5. The war was to suppress a rebellion and not to conquer the Southern States.” (Pershing, 226-227)
   
   Cowan’s numerous dissents were early into the Lincoln Administration, opposing the National Bank Act and the Legal Tender Act, and opposing expelling Senator Jesse Bright (D-Ind.) for recommending an arms dealer to Jefferson Davis. He opposed the Legal Tender Act as he did not see it within the government’s power to print paper money, rather that only gold and silver coinage were allowed. Cowan opposed the National Bank Act as banks stood from this legislation to make double interest on money invested in government bonds (Pershing, 231). He also opposed the second Confiscation Act, confiscating property of rebels, which included slaves. Like every other Republican, Cowan backed the 13th Amendment ending slavery, but was unwilling to go further than that. After the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Cowan was the Senate Republican who sided with President Andrew Johnson the most. He was opposed to the 14th Amendment, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1866, supported Johnson on Reconstruction, and was one of the few American politicians to make an argument against legislation because of Romani (also pejoratively known as “Gypsies”) people, a population of historically negligible impact on the United States. His Republican colleagues came to despise him. Senator Ben Wade (R-Ohio), one of the staunchest of the Radical Republicans, had on separate occasions called him a “dog” and the “watchdog of slavery” (Mr. Lincoln’s White House, Kennedy). Senator Henry Wilson (R-Mass.), in the future Ulysses Grant’s second vice president, denounced his positions on race. He stated, “The Senator from Pennsylvania tells us that he is a friend of the negro. What sir, he a friend of the negro! Why sir, there has hardly been a proposition before the Senate of the United States for the last five years leading to the emancipation of the negro and the protection of his rights that the Senator from Pennsylvania has not sturdily opposed. He has hardly ever uttered a word on this floor the tendency of which was not to degrade and belittle a weak and struggling race. He comes here today and thanks God that they are free, when his vote and his voice for five yeras with hardly an exception have been against making them free. He thnks God, sir, that your work and mine, our work which has saved a country and emancipated a race is secured; while from the word ‘go’ to this time, he has made himself the champion of ‘how not to do it’. If there be a man on the floor of the American Senate who has tortured the Constitution of the country to find powers to arrest the voice of this nation which was endeavoring to make a race free, the Senator from Pennsylvania is the man” (Pershing, 229-230).
   
   Cowan: For Women’s Suffrage?
   
   On December 12, 1866, Cowan, in a rather curious move, proposed women’s suffrage for Washington D.C. during the consideration of the Washington D.C. suffrage bill. This was defeated 9-37, and although he claimed this measure was offered in seriousness, it seems like a bid to hamstring the D.C. suffrage bill, as he opposed it on passage. The few senators who voted for it were curiously a diverse bunch and ranged from Delaware’s George Riddle, who had owned slaves and opposed the 13th Amendment, to Radical Ben Wade. The D.C. suffrage bill extended the vote to all men 21 and older regardless of race.
   
   Untenable for Further Public Office
   
   Among his many dissents, Cowan opposed the enactment of the GOP’s trap card on President Johnson in the Tenure of Office Act. He scored a -0.257 on the DW-Nominate scale, which is unbelievably low for a Republican. This also makes him the most liberal Republican of the 1860s by DW-Nominate’s scale.
   
   In 1867, Cowan lost reelection to the man he had once been loyal to, Simon Cameron, who favored Congressional Reconstruction. Cowan’s supporters now, rather than Republicans, were Democrats. President Johnson subsequently nominated him minister to Austria, but Senate Republicans would not confirm him. Cowan would endorse Democratic candidates for president for the rest of his days, and died in 1885 after a year-long battle with cancer of the mouth and throat.
   
   Although Cowan will probably find few fans today, one figure who sang his praises was none other than John F. Kennedy. As a senator, Kennedy (1956) praised Cowan for his opposition to Radical Republicans, stating, “Edgar Cowan stood firm in his adherence to the Constitution and his own ideals – and, in the turbulent reconstruction period that followed the end of hostilities, he refused to follow those Senate Republican leaders who wanted Andrew Johnson to administer the downtrodden southern states as conquered provinces which had forfeited their rights under the Constitution”.
   
   References
   
   Cowan, Edgar. Voteview.
   
   Retrieved from
   
   https://voteview.com/person/2101/edgar-cowan
   
   Pershing, B.F. (1921, May 31). Senator Edgar A. Cowan 1861-1867. Reading before the Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania.
   
   Retrieved from
   
   https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjo3JK_7omHAxUGvo4IHV8uBjIQFnoECCUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.psu.edu%2Fwph%2Farticle%2FviewFile%2F1265%2F1113&usg=AOvVaw3YxQjBQj5wEdnFt063KRiK&opi=89978449
   
   Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the Philadelphia Inquirer Book and Luncheon, Philadelphia, January 10, 1956. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum.
   
   Retrieved from
   
   https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/philadelphia-pa-19560110
   
   Visitors from Congress: Benjamin F. Wade. Mr. Lincoln’s White House.
   
   Retrieved from
   
   http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/residents-visitors/visitors-from-congress/visitors-congress-benjamin-f-wade-1800-1878/

Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor

While engaging in political research through the excellent newspapers.com, I found that the American Federation of Labor had graded representatives in Congress based on what they thought of as “pro-labor”. Specifically, they laid out 16 key votes in an advertisement against Congressman Joseph Deal (D-Va.) for his “unfavorable to labor” record. The votes were:

1. Nolan Amendment to Seamen’s Bill
   Rep. John Nolan (R-Calif.) amendment to the Seaman’s bill which reduces maximum hours for oilers, watertenders, and firemen on vessels from 12 to 8 hours a day.Adopted 166-113: R 98-91; D 67-21; IR 0-1; S 1-0, 6/15/21.
   Yea = +, Nay = –
2. Sheppard-Towner Maternity Aid Bill
   Passed 279-39: R 194-24; D 83-15; IR 1-0; S 1-0, 11/19/21.
   Yea = +, Nay = –
3. Adjusted Compensation for World War I Veterans
   Passed 333-70: R 241-42; D 90-28; IR 1-0; S 1-0, 3/23/22.
   Yea = +, Nay = –
   4. Extending the Emergency Quotas of the Immigration Act of 1921
   Passage of the bill extending the Emergency Quota Act, limiting immigration of nationalities to 3% of their population in the U.S.
   Passed 258-26: R 180-17; D 78-8; S 0-1, 5/2/22.
   Yea = +, Nay = –
   5. Override President Harding’s Veto of Adjusted Compensation for World War I Veterans
   Veto overridden 258-54: R 187-35; D 69-19; IR 1-0; S 1-0, 9/20/22.
   Yea = +, Nay = –
   6. Underhill Worker’s Compensation Bill for D.C.
   Passage of the Underhill Worker’s Compensation bill for Washington D.C. which permits private worker’s compensation firms and limits payments to dependents in case of death to a maximum of eight years and $5000. as opposed to the Fitzgerald bill, which renders Worker’s Compensation run by government only and lacks such a cap.
   Passed 137-126: R 98-82; D 38-43; IR 1-0; S 0-1, 1/22/23.
   Yea = -, Nay = +
   7. Adjusted Compensation for World War I Veterans
   Passage of the bill providing servicemen with $1.00 per day served and $1.25 per day served overseas, to be paid out to the veteran in 1945 or to the veteran’s family if the veteran has since died.
   Passed 355-54: R 175-34; D 177-20; F 2-0; S 1-0, 3/18/24.
   Yea = +, Nay = –
   8. Immigration Act of 1924
   Passage of the bill setting a cap of 2% of the population of the 1890 census of nationalities for immigration annually.
   Passed 323-71: R 163-33; D 158-37; F 2-0; S 0-1, 4/12/24.
   Yea = +, Nay = –
   9. Child Labor Amendment
   Adoption of the Constitutional amendment granting Congress the power to limit and abolish child labor.
   Adopted 297-69: R 168-13; D 127-56; F 1-0; S 1-0, 4/26/24.
   Yea = +, Nay = –
   10. Discharge the Howell-Barkley Bill
   Rep. Alben Barkley (D-Ky.) motion to discharge the Howell-Barkley bill from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. This measure repeals the Railroad Labor Board, which proponents of this legislation charged with being biased towards railroads over labor in its rulings and substitutes it with four national adjustment boards to mediate and settle labor disputes and because it would only provide for representation on the side of labor for unions, opponents charged that it would essentially result in a “closed shop”.
   Passed 194-181: R 40-153; D 151-28; FL 2-0; S 1-0, 5/5/24.
   Yea = +, Nay = –
   11. Override President Coolidge’s Veto of Adjusted Compensation for World War I Veterans
   Veto overridden 313-78: R 145-57; D 166-21; F 1-0; S 1-0, 5/17/24.
   Yea = +, Nay = –
   12. Strike Enacting Clause from Howell-Barkley Bill
   Rep.  Everett Sanders (R-Ind.) motion to agree to the recommendation of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and strike the enacting clause of the bill, thus defeating it for the session. Despite the defeat of this effort, Howell-Barkley ultimately did not reach the President’s desk.
   Defeated 160-188: R 133-45; D 27-140; FL 0-2; S 0-1, 5/19/24.
   Yea = -, Nay = +
   13. Postal Workers Salary Bill
   Adoption of the conference report of the Postal Workers Salary bill, including the Cable corrupt practices amendment.
   Adopted 361-6: R 185-6; D 173-0; F 2-0; S 1-0, 6/6/24.
   Yea = +, Nay = –
   14. Railway Labor Act
   Passage of the bill abolishing the Railroad Labor Board and instead providing for collective bargaining. Passed 381-13: R 220-5; D 157-8; F 3-0; AL 1-0, 3/1/26.
   Yea = +, Nay = –
   15. Bar Interstate Sales of Certain Prisoner Produced Goods
   Passage of the bill preventing free labor from having to compete with prisoner-produced goods.
   Passed 303-39; R 160-20; D 140-19; F 2-0; S 1-0, 5/15/28.
   Yea = +, Nay = –
   16. Override President Coolidge’s Veto of Postal Service Pay Bill
   Passage, over President Coolidge’s veto, of the bill providing for higher pay for night work in the postal service.
   Veto overridden 320-42: R 161-39; D 156-3; F 2-0; S 1-0, 5/22/28.
   Yea = +, Nay = –

On only one occasion of these 16 votes did Congress’s vote go against the preference of the American Federation of Labor. However, it is true that what ended up getting enacted was a bit less. The first bonus bill, for instance, didn’t overcome President Harding’s veto, the Child Labor Amendment was never ratified by the states, and the Howell-Barkley bill of the 68^th Congress was ultimately defeated, resulting in the compromise measure passed in the next Congress. What’s more, a few of these votes have overwhelming majorities for them, such as the bill for postal workers salaries in 1924 and the Railway Labor Act in 1926. No legislator who voted more than twice and served beyond the 67^th Congress scored a 0%. Although there are some votes that could fit into our understanding of conservatism and liberalism, there are others that are poor fits. For instance, you’d be hard-pressed to find a liberal in modern times who would defend the national origins quota system enacted by the Immigration Act of 1924, but the AFL was all for it. Immigration as an issue for labor is the sole reason that Socialists Meyer London of New York and Victor Berger of Wisconsin don’t get 100% by their standards.

It is also interesting how numerous individuals who in the 1920s were, by this standard, staunch friends of labor would later be considered enemies by FDR, New Dealers, and the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Republican Hamilton Fish of New York votes with the AFL on 11 out of the 12 issues he voted on, thus 92%. Democrat John Rankin of Mississippi voted with the AFL on 15 out of the 15 issues he voted on, 100%. Both men would be considered foes of organized labor during the Roosevelt Administration. Some are more predictive; John Nance Garner’s (D-Tex.) score of 69% is one of the weaker ones among Texans and seems predictive of his turn against organized labor as vice president, particularly when it came to sit-down strikes.  The worst scorers were mostly Republicans but a few Southern Democrats made the cut too, a bit of a foretelling of the Conservative Coalition that was to arise after the 1938 midterms in which one of their strongest matters of unity was in curbing the power of organized labor after the enactment of the 1935 Wagner Act. A 100% score for some legislators doesn’t guarantee a liberal record overall; Simeon Fess of Ohio gets such a score because of his votes on veterans in 1922, his vote for Sheppard-Towner in 1921, and his vote for extending emergency immigration quotas. Fess was known as a big foe of the New Deal as a senator and it cost him reelection.

Something else to note about the 1920s was that this was before the time in which the liberal-labor coalition came to fruition. Although labor unions had been quite supportive of Wilson, it was with FDR that this bond firmly formed and it was doubled down on with the rise of Walter Reuther, a man with a socialist past, of United Auto Workers. What’s more, how the regions fared were quite different on labor. New England had a lot of Republican legislators who were opposing numerous AFL-backed measures. Interestingly, the South (meaning former Confederacy) does well by AFL standards, although Virginia barely scrapes past 50% in approval of such measures and Texas’ 74% reflects some significant dissent among certain representatives. The states and regions averaged on approval of AFL’s position:

Border:

Ky.: 88%
Md.: 73%
Mo.: 87%
Okla.: 89%
W.V.: 91%

Average: 86%

Middle Atlantic:

Del.: 43%
N.J.: 65%
N.Y.: 69%
Pa.: 75%

Average: 63%

Midwest:

Ill.: 83%
Ind.: 85%
Iowa: 88%
Kan.: 83%
Mich.: 81%
Minn.: 84%
Neb.: 83%
N.D.: 89%
Ohio: 82%
S.D.: 81%
Wis.: 93%

Average: 85%

Mountain States:

Ariz.: 100%
Colo.: 86%
Idaho: 71%
Mont.: 97%
N.M.: 100%
Nev.: 100%
Utah: 88%
Wyo.: 89%

Average: 91%

New England:

Conn.: 40%
Me.: 68%
Mass.: 63%
N.H.: 53%
Vt.: 55%
R.I.: 70%

Average: 58%

South:

Ala.: 82%
Ark.: 94%
Fla.: 87%
Ga.: 84%
La.: 89%
Miss.: 70%                     
N.C.: 88%
S.C.: 86%
Tenn.: 81%
Tex.: 74%
Va.: 51%

Average: 81%

West Coast:

Calif.: 91%
Ore.: 64%
Wash.: 89%

Average: 81%

American Federation of Labor Scorecard:

References

Mr. Deal Calls for the Record — Well, Here It Is (Advertisement). (1928, August 5). The Portsmouth Star, 16.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/907231668/

The War of the Rebellion was an expensive matter, indeed saving a nation never comes cheap. Once the war had ended, the question arose of how to pay off creditors’ bonds. At this time, Secretary of the Treasury Hugh McCulloch, an economic conservative, began contracting paper currency not tied to gold so as to clamp down on inflation and move the nation back to gold-based currency. This policy was not pleasing to everyone, particularly those who would benefit from inflation, and although debtors were major beneficiaries there were also business interests that favored currency inflation at the time. A prominent politician steps up with an alternative.

Prominent Democrat George Pendleton of Ohio, who had been a strong opponent of the Lincoln Administration and the party’s candidate for vice president in 1864, proposed in 1867 in an article for the Cincinnati Enquirer what became known as the “Ohio Idea”. His idea was to redeem bonds in paper currency instead of gold. Such a measure was inflationary and such inflation would benefit some, particularly farmers in the Midwest, many who were in debt. One of the fundamental determinants of right vs. left historically is creditors vs. debtors. People on the right pursue policies favorable to creditors so as to encourage further lending presumably so those who take on the loans can grow themselves up, while people on the left pursue policies favorable to debtors so as to ease the burden of repayment, especially if they hit upon difficulties with what they hoped to achieve with the loan. Per historian John B. Weaver (2013), “As historian Robert Sharkey observed, the “Ohio Idea”, or Pendleton Plan as it also came to be known, skillfully appealed at once to several interest groups. In one fell swoop it promised to terminate the contraction policy, overthrow the National Banking System, and strike a note of fairness in demanding “the same currency for the ploughholder and the bondholder” (44). There was distinct class motive behind this proposal and fits with the Democratic Party’s tradition as being a party of the little guy, even if at that time the little guy was for all intents and purposes white. Pendleton himself was a staunch Jacksonian, and he concerned himself with the welfare of the common man. Although Democrats had opposed the Legal Tender Act in 1862, including Pendleton, the sought after outcome could be thought of as “old wine in new bottles”. Such adaptation of changing means to achieve old ends was later seen with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who used Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian and Jacksonian ends with the New Deal.

Opposed to the “Ohio Idea” was Ohio Republican Senator John Sherman, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who held that only certain class of bonds could be repaid in greenbacks, and that the existing greenbacks could be eventually transitioned from based on fiat to gold and silver backed with economic growth (Weaver, 45). Pendleton’s idea was embraced by the Democratic platform of 1868, but it fell to the wayside as they lost the election and President Ulysses S. Grant signed into law the Public Credit Act in 1869, in which debts were to be paid in gold. However, conflicts over currency inflation would continue throughout the 19th century, particularly in the backlash to the Coinage Act of 1873 and the uneasy bimetallism that followed with the Bland-Allison Act. There are some interesting things to note about Pendleton himself – he was known as the leader of the “Peace Democrats”, or as they were called, “Copperheads”, who were for signing a peace treaty with the Confederacy. He had also been George McClellan’s running mate in 1864 and had led opposition in the House to the 13th Amendment. Pendleton’s central contribution to the law would be as a senator with the Pendleton Act, making 10% of federal positions merit-based rather than spoils based, and it would cost him reelection to the Senate.

References

Mach, T.S. George Hunt Pendleton, The Ohio Idea and Political Continuity in Reconstruction America. Ohio History Journal.

Retrieved from

https://resources.ohiohistory.org/ohj/search/display.php?page=123@ipp=20@searchterm=array&vol=108&pages=125-144

Weaver, J.B. (2013, April). Green, Gold, or Silver: The Money Question in Ohio Politics, 1865-1900. Ohio Academy of History.

Retrieved from

https://www.ohioacademyofhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2003Weaver.pdf

The foremost general to politician known of the postwar period was of course President Ulysses S. Grant. However, there were others who had worthy performances in battle and were in politics. One of these men was John Alexander Logan (1826-1886) of Illinois.

Early Years

Politics was in Logan’s blood and had been on his mind from the time he was quite young. When he was a teenager, he wanted to be the “Congressman of the United States”! (Logan Museum). What’s more, his father had served in the Illinois General Assembly as a staunch Jacksonian Democrat. Before Logan entered politics, he served in the Mexican-American War, but did not see battle. He won his first political office at the age of 23 when he was elected clerk of Jackson County in 1849. Logan also attended the University of Louisville and graduated in 1851, serving as prosecutor for Illinois’ Third Judicial District. But a year later, he was elected to the Illinois General Assembly, and proved a tremendously talented public speaker. Much of Logan’s politics in the 1850s didn’t suggest his future, particularly his politics on race. Logan was against any free black settlement in Illinois, and sponsored a law that prohibited all free blacks from settling in the state, capping their time there at 10 days, with a $50 fine for any who stayed longer and indentured servitude for those who couldn’t pay (Morris Library). He also supported testimony laws, or laws that barred non-whites from testifying in court. In opposition to a proposal that permitted blacks to testify in court, he stated, “It was never intended that whites and blacks should stand in equal relation” (Logan Museum). He was also staunchly anti-abolitionist, as he regarded abolitionists as a force in American politics that were endangering national stability. In 1858, he was elected to Congress from a southern Illinois district (known as “Little Egypt” because of several towns named after Egyptian cities) which had sympathies with the South and, like him, were staunchly anti-abolitionist. However, Logan was also first and foremost unionist, just like the man he supported for president in 1860, Senator Stephen A. Douglas. He warned that “The election of Mr. Lincoln, deplorable as it may be, affords no justification or excuse for overthrowing the republic. [We] cannot stand silently by while the joint action of extremists are dragging us to ruin” (Joyner, 17). In August 1861, two months after the death of Douglas, Logan announced that he was resigning Congress to serve in the Union Army and encouraged his voters to do the same. Although Little Egypt was once a region that was in doubt as to its allegiance, they moved behind Logan and the Union. None other than Ulysses S. Grant credited Logan with keeping the region loyal to the United States, writing, “Logan went to his part of the State and gave his attention to raising troops. The very men who at first made it necessary to guard the roads in southern Illinois became the defenders of the Union. Logan entered the service himself as colonel of a regiment and rapidly rose to the rank of major-general. His district, which had promised at first to give much trouble to the government, filled every call made upon it for troops, without resorting to the draft. There was no call made when there were not more volunteers than were asked for. That congressional district stands credited at the War Department to-day with furnishing more men for the army than it was called on to supply” (Mr. Lincoln’s White House). After all, not all Midwestern Democrats proved unionists like Logan – Senator Jesse Bright of Indiana was expelled for recommending an arms dealer to Confederate President Jefferson Davis in a letter dated March 1, 1861 (U.S. Senate).

Military Service

Most generals who had been politicians beforehand were pretty bad at it. Benjamin Butler, Ambrose Burnside, and Nathaniel Banks were among the worst generals of the War of the Rebellion, with the latter being known by Confederate troops as “Commissary Banks” for his bad habit of leaving behind supplies while retreating. Logan, however, proved a natural commander and there’s a strong argument that he was the best of the politicians turned generals, leading the successful effort to capture Vicksburg and performing valiantly at Fort Donelson and Corinth. He became known as “Black Jack” Logan for his dark hair and eyes. Logan could have gone further in the military but for General William T. Sherman’s well-founded skepticism of generals who came from politics. It was, however, in the case of Logan unjustified, and he resented military careerists for the rest of his life over this perceived slight (Army Historical Foundation). Although he was approached to run for Congress in 1862, he was committed to ensuring the preservation of the Union before resuming his career.

A Political Transformation

The War of the Rebellion changed Logan. While he had once been a staunch Jacksonian who was opposed to abolitionism and President Lincoln, he was by 1864 a strong supporter of President Lincoln and came to support abolishing slavery. Was the change opportunistic or out of principle? The latter certainly seems true on the question of black rights. In 1860, Logan attended the Democratic National Convention in Charleston, South Carolina, and according to his biographer Byron Andrews, writing in 1884, he “had for the first time in his life had the opportunity to see the horrors of slavery. He witnessed the brutal scenes of the auction block, where men were sold for a price like cattle” and “the revolting inhumanities of the slave pen” (Dunphy). This does not appear to be the only factor. Logan himself told a group of Union veterans that witnessing the bravery of blacks during the War of the Rebellion had ended his prejudices (Morris Library). Instead of blaming the most devastating war in American history on abolitionists, he now squarely blamed it on the institution of slavery. In 1866, Logan was again elected to Congress, this time as a Republican. In Congress, he supported the 14th and 15th Amendments and argued that “I don’t care whether a man is black, red, blue, or white” on the question of whether they should have suffrage (Morris Library). Like his fellow Union general and former Democrat Benjamin Butler, he was one of the House managers for the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, whose Reconstruction policies were highly lenient on the South and didn’t take into account the rights of freedmen.

Father of Memorial Day

As one of the most prominent and celebrated Union veterans, Logan served as the third Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Army of the Republic, a powerful Union veterans organization that consistently pushed for more benefits for Union soldiers. On May 5, 1868, he proclaimed with General Order No. 11 a national day of remembrance for late and missing soldiers of the conflict in which their graves would be decorated to be held on May 30th, known as “Decoration Day”. This would come to be known as Memorial Day and adopted as a federal holiday in 1971.

Other Political Issues

Logan was a partisan Republican, although not necessarily the most strongly ideological. In the conflict within the GOP on civil service, Logan was decidedly a Stalwart. Although Stalwartism can perhaps be considered the more “conservative” position in that time, it was in keeping with Logan’s old Jacksonian philosophy, as it had been President Jackson who had instituted the spoils system in the first place. Logan was also not a consistent vote for higher tariffs, voting to reduce in some categories. In 1874, he came out in support of the Inflation Act in an effort to stimulate the economy in the midst of the Panic of 1873, as did many Republicans in the Midwest. President Grant vetoed the bill, being convinced by Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton Fish and Senator Roscoe Conkling (R-N.Y.) to do so. In the cartoon below, Logan along with Senators Simon Cameron (R-Penn.), Oliver Morton (R-Ind.) and Matthew Carpenter (R-Wis.) are caricatured:

Republican Senators Logan, Oliver Morton (Ind.), Simon Cameron (Pa.), and Matthew Carpenter (Wis.) looking disapprovingly on Thomas Nast, portrayed as asking pardon for condemning their support for greenbacks.

Logan was also one of the foremost advocates in the Senate of expanding veterans’ pensions and also supported the Blair Education Bill in the 1880s aimed at increasing literacy, especially among Southern blacks. He was named in the Credit Mobilier Scandal but was cleared of wrongdoing by the investigating Poland Committee.

The 1880 Presidential Election

In 1880, Logan along with other Stalwarts supported the candidacy of former President Ulysses S. Grant for a third term, but they were undone when the supporters of Senators Blaine of Maine, Sherman of Ohio, and Edmunds of Vermont unified to nominate dark horse candidate Congressman James A. Garfield. Logan himself had interest in the presidency, but this would have to wait.

The 1884 Presidential Election and Future Prospects

In 1884, James G. Blaine, now regarding himself as a “Half-Breed”, provided balance to the GOP ticket by picking Midwestern Stalwart Logan. Logan was a solid choice as he had a strong personal following among Union veterans and black voters, due to his exemplary war record and strong support for civil rights respectively. The latter were facing increasing difficulties in having their vote counted in the South post-Reconstruction due to a combination of voter fraud, laws aimed at restricting the black vote, intimidation, and violence. The Blaine-Logan ticket lost in one of the narrowest presidential contests in American history, and Logan was bitter over the loss.

Logan continued his work in the Senate after this loss, and it was a real possibility that he would be running for president in 1888. He worked very hard on his duties in the Senate in the meantime, to the point that it compromised his immune system. By December of 1886 he developed acute rheumatism, and although it appeared he was recovering, his condition deteriorated over a period of close to two weeks, with an illness that caused fever, delirium, and lethargy, and died on December 26th (Beaverton Historical Society). Logan had worked himself to death, and he was far from the last senator to do so. His death reminds me of Stephen Douglas’s in 1861 in its untimeliness, and that his demise cut short a career that otherwise had the potential to lead to greater things. His DW-Nominate score was a 0.215 and had he been elected president, he would likely as had Benjamin Harrison made great efforts on behalf of Union veterans and black voters. One figure who mourned the loss of Logan was Frederick Douglass, who lauded him as “the dread of traitors, the defender of loyal soldiers, and the true friend of newly made citizens of the Republic. Much was predicated for our cause on this man’s future. But he, too, in the order of Providence, has laid off his armor” (Dunphy).

References

Dunphy, J.J. (2023, February 3). Logan repudiated his early racism, deserves stamp. The Telegraph.

Retrieved from

https://www.thetelegraph.com/opinion/article/john-logan-repudiated-early-racism-deserves-stamp-17761578.php

Expulsion Case of Jesse D. Bright of Indiana. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/expulsion/040JesseBright_expulsion.htm

General John A. Logan, Memorial Day Founder. Army Historical Foundation.

Retrieved from

https://armyhistory.org/general-john-a-logan-memorial-day-founder/

John A. Logan – Death of the Illustrious Soldier and Statesman, Which Event Occurred At His Home In Washington December 26. Beaverton Historical Society.

Retrieved from

http://www.gladwinhistory.org/obits/Logan_John_A.html

John Alexander Logan, 1826-1886. SCRC Virtual Museum at Southern Illinois University’s Morris Library.

Retrieved from

https://scrcexhibits.omeka.net/exhibits/show/sihistory/poststatehood/logan#:~:text=During%20his%20first%20session%20in,Illinois%20longer%20than%20ten%20days.

Joyner, B. (2012). Dirty Work: The Political Life of John A. Logan. Eastern Illinois University.

Retrieved from

https://www.eiu.edu/historia/2012Joyner.pdf?itid=lk_inline_enhanced-template

Logan, John Alexander. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/5746/john-alexander-logan

Political Life. Logan Museum.

Retrieved from

https://loganmuseum.org/political-life/

The Generals and Admirals: John A. Logan (1826-1886). Mr. Lincoln’s White House.

Retrieved from

https://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/residents-visitors/the-generals-and-admirals/generals-admirals-john-logan-1826-1886/

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.

References

Buys, C.J. Henry Teller. Colorado Encyclopedia.

Retrieved from

https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/henry-teller

Holsinger, M.P. Henry M. Teller and the Edmunds-Tucker Act. Colorado Magazine, 48(1), 1-14.

Retrieved from

https://www.historycolorado.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2018/ColoradoMagazine_v48n1_Winter1971.pdf

Larson, R.W. (2013). New Mexico’s quest for statehood, 1846-1912. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

Retrieved from

https://www.google.com/books/edition/New_Mexico_s_Quest_for_Statehood_1846_19/6OlME56WpfAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA189&printsec=frontcover

Otis, D.S. (1973). The Dawes Act and the allotment of Indian lands. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Straayer, J.A. Teller, Henry (1830-1914). Encyclopedia of the Great Plains.

Retrieved from

http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.pg.080

Teller, Henry Moore. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/9246/henry-moore-teller

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. After his legal career, Edmunds retired to Pasadena, California. In 1910, he publicly came out against the proposed 16th Amendment (income tax) and explained his reasons in an open letter to Vermont Senator William Dillingham. He outlived most of his Gilded Age colleagues and 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.

Retrieved from

https://www.proquest.com/openview/5a1ec9695f4ff3222b436aeb730f4760/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Cooper, J. (2000, March 3). Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion: The Election of 1884. Hope Charter School.

Retrieved from

https://www.hopecharter.org/~johncooper@prodigy.net/john-cooper/rum-romanism-and-rebellion-the-election-of-1884

Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882. Cornell Law School.

Retrieved from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/edmunds_anti-polygamy_act_of_1882#:~:text=The%20Edmunds%20Act%20suppressed%20different,on%20juries%20in%20federal%20territories.

Edmunds, George Franklin. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/2855/george-franklin-edmunds

Federal Income Tax; Ex-Senator Edmunds States His Reasons Against Proposed Amendment. (1910, February 15). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/1910/02/15/archives/federal-income-tax-exsenator-edmunds-states-his-rea-sons-against.html

George F. Edmunds Dead at 91 Years. (1919, February 27). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1919/02/28/118144241.pdf

George Franklin Edmunds. Encyclopedia Britannica.

Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-Franklin-Edmunds

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.

Retrieved from

https://web.archive.org/web/20120601144837/http://www.historicedmonds.org/TTManual.pdf

Ward, B. (2019). The Downfall of Senator George F. Edmunds: The Election of 1884. Vermont History, 87(2).

Retrieved from

https://vermonthistory.org/journal/87/VH8702DownfallOfEdmunds.pdf

Welch, R.E. (1968). George Edmunds of Vermont: Republican Half-Breed. Vermont History, 36(2).

Retrieved from

https://vermonthistory.org/journal/misc/GeorgeEdmunds.pdf