Peter G. Gerry was a clear beneficiary of the 17th Amendment. Had it not been enacted, Republican incumbent Henry Lippitt would have been a shoo-in for reelection in 1916 given the composition of the state legislature.
Every once in a blue moon we will hear a conservative call for the return of election of senators by state legislatures, although there will be no serious concerted movement towards this end, as it would require a constitutional change, and there is only one amendment that has ever been repealed in American history. After the Senate adopted the 17th Amendment, pushed strongly by progressives, it was ratified in 1913. Thus, the first Senate elections that would fall under the popular vote were in 1914. A question that came to my mind was did this have a significant ideological impact in the first elections?
In order to make this determination, I had to find out what party controlled the legislatures of these states, something that was a bit more difficult to accomplish than you might think and involved a mix of finding out who state House speakers were and who Senate presidents or pro tems were through Wikipedia or sources provided by state governments. Although it was by and large true that the voters of the states voted in the same party direction as their state legislatures would have, it is also true that the differences happened primarily in one direction: towards the Democrats. The only case I could find in which this arrangement benefited Republicans was the 1916 election in Maryland. A borderline case was the 1916 election in Delaware, which was won by Democrat Josiah O. Wolcott. The state House was Democratic, but the Senate was Republican at the time they would have been able to vote on a senator. Thus, whether the victor would have been a Democrat or Republican under the old rules is up to conjecture. However, I have my doubts that Republican incumbent Henry du Pont would have survived this process given that whoever got in would have likely been a compromise candidate, and it is unlikely that du Pont was someone that Democrats would have agreed to.
The 1914 Midterm: The Popular Vote Has Its Impact
Despite 1914 being a good midterm for Republicans in the House, the 17th Amendment resulted in Republicans losing rather than winning seats in that chamber. Democratic gains attributable to the 17th Amendment include the elections of James Phelan in California, Charles Thomas in Colorado, Francis Newlands in Nevada, George Chamberlain in Oregon, Edwin Johnson in South Dakota, and Paul Husting in Wisconsin. Had Senate elections remained with state legislatures, Republicans would have had a net gain of 3 rather than a net loss of 3. There is also a question surrounding the election in Illinois, as Republican Lawrence Sherman prevails, but the Illinois legislature is divided. Thus, whether Republicans would have won with the old system in this case is questionable. Also of issue in this is that the Progressive Party was running candidates and thus splitting elections for Republicans. Had the Progressive Party been taken out of the equation, it is hard to say what the results would have been.
The 1916 Midterms:
The 1916 midterms resulted in a net gain of 2 for Democrats because of the 17th Amendment. They achieved what they couldn’t in state legislatures with Andrieus Jones of New Mexico, Peter Gerry of Rhode Island, and John B. Kendrick of Wyoming, and only possibly Josiah O. Wolcott in Delaware given the divided legislature. Republicans made their gain with Maryland’s Joseph France.
The 1918 Midterms:
The impact of the 1918 midterms was +2 for Democrats in Massachusetts with David I. Walsh and Montana with Thomas J. Walsh and +1 in a special election in Idaho with John F. Nugent.
The 17th Amendment had an intention as well as its impact, that was at least in part to increase the power of progressives (in this case it was Wilsonian progressives). However, it did not turn out of office some of the conservatives proponents most wanted out, such as Republican leader Jacob Gallinger of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania’s Republican boss Boies Penrose in 1914. Indeed, although the latter had opposed the change, he found himself having an easier time with voters than his fellow politicians. After yet another win in 1920, he said to a reformer friend, “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 of 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)
References
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.
Among the New England states, New Hampshire long had a reputation as its most conservative, and there were numerous political figures who gave it this reputation. One of the earlier ones was Jacob Harold Gallinger (1837-1918). Although praised in his life by his supporters as fundamentally American in his values, Gallinger’s life didn’t begin in America, rather he was born in Cornwall, Ontario, British Canada, but he moved with his family to the US at a young age. In May 1858, he graduated Cincinnati Eclectic Medical Institute at the head of his class and three years later he started practicing as a homeopathic doctor and surgeon in Keene, New Hampshire, moving to Concord the next year. He was an active practitioner until 1885, and sincerely believed that homeopathy was the future.
While practicing, he began a political career in New Hampshire, being elected to the state’s House of Representatives in 1872, being reelected until his election to the state’s Senate, serving from 1878 to 1880, during which he was elected Senate President. During this time, Gallinger gained a reputation as a Stalwart, or an opponent of civil service reform, which for many years would put him in direct conflict with Half-Breed William E. Chandler. He derided proponents of civil service reform as “worshipers of Grover Cleveland” (Madura). In 1884, he was elected to the House, representing New Hampshire’s 2nd district. By 1888, Gallinger was prominent enough in the GOP to second the nomination of Benjamin Harrison at the Republican National Convention. In 1888, he was elected to the State Senate, and then to the State House in 1890, but didn’t remain as he was elected to the Senate by defeating incumbent Henry W. Blair in the primary.
As a senator, Gallinger was a faithful representative of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. According to his colleague, Democrat Henry Hollis, “He believed that any man of average intelligence could get on in the world if he would be sober, industrious, and thrifty. He did not believe that the country or the Government owed any man more than this opportunity” (Congressional Record, 10). Indeed, he had risen up from humble circumstances. Gallinger’s New York Times obituary (1918) described him as “…a conservative in most of his notions, narrow in some. He was an ancient enemy of civil service reform. He didn’t believe that railroads were an abomination and a curse. He held to the old Republican gospel of ship subsidies. Firm was his faith in a protective tariff, heaven-sent, heaven-high.” He naturally did not get on with populist or progressive causes of his day, and his conflict continued with Chandler, who was now his Senate colleague. In 1899, Chandler accused him of illegally soliciting money from federal officeholders (The New York Times, 1899). However, Gallinger wouldn’t have to worry about him for long, as Chandler had increasingly been voting independently and in 1901, he was denied renomination. Gallinger now was indisputably the most powerful figure in the politics of the Granite State. He served as a leading conservative figure in the Senate, although one who could now and again exercise independence during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt.
In 1911, Maine’s William Frye, a known conservative, stepped down from the Senate Pro Tem position as his health was deteriorating. Although the Senate Republican caucus supported Gallinger, eight progressive Republicans were against him, preferring Minnesota’s Moses Clapp. The Democrats wanted Georgia’s Augustus Bacon in this position, and no majority could be achieved. A strange deal was concocted in which Gallinger and Bacon would rotate in the Senate Pro Tem position on alternate days. Also serving as Pro Tem during this session were Senators Frank Brandegee (R-Conn.), Charles Curtis (R-Kan.), and Henry Cabot Lodge (R-Mass.). By the way, Gallinger and Bacon bore an amusing resemblance to each other:
Senator Gallinger
Senator Bacon
Behold! The Senate’s twin walruses!
As part of Gallinger’s deep-seated conservatism, he opposed constitutional amendments for the substitution of the electoral college with the popular vote for electing presidents and the direct election of senators. In 1912, he sided with Taft in the battle between him and Roosevelt for the Republican nomination. The following year, Gallinger was chosen by the Republicans to head the Senate Republican Conference. Before the positions of majority and minority leader existed, being the chairman of this conference translated to party leader. Thus, Gallinger led the Senate opposition to President Wilson’s New Freedom agenda. He voted against the Revenue Act of 1913 lowering tariffs and instituting an income tax, the Federal Reserve, and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act. On matters of national defense, he was a strong proponent of the growth of the US Navy, opposing efforts to cut battleship construction. In 1914, Gallinger faced his first popular election, but contrary to the hopes of the political left that popular elections would turn him out of office, he won reelection by 7 points.
His conservatism persisted after his reelection, and in 1915, the Montana Progressive characterized Gallinger as “about the most reactionary of republican senators” (1). Although most of the time he was resistant to change from what was when he came into politics, he didn’t oppose all change. For instance, Gallinger voted for women’s suffrage in 1914 and paired for the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) in 1918. As an influential senator, he was also able to wield power beyond his party numbers on occasion. For instance, in 1915, Gallinger opposed the nomination of progressive New Hampshire Republican George Rublee to the Federal Trade Commission and invoked Senatorial courtesy. Wilson was able to get him in as a recess appointment, but in 1916 his continuation had to come to a vote. Rublee had been a key figure in the establishment of the Federal Trade Commission in 1914 and had opposed Gallinger’s reelection. Under Senatorial courtesy, it is a custom of the Senate to reject nominees from a senator’s state if the senator announces that he finds the nomination is “personally offensive”. The Senate upheld the tradition of Senatorial courtesy by rejecting Rublee’s nomination 36-42. The rejection of Rublee was one of the factors that resulted in the FTC being considered ineffective in its early years by progressives. Indeed, Gallinger had been one of five senators to vote against the FTC’s establishment in 1914 (although there were numerous abstentions). In 1918, Gallinger voted for the France Amendment to protect speaking the truth under the Sedition Act and after its rejection he voted against the act itself. By this time, he was 81 years old and the oldest senator. Although Gallinger hoped and believed that he would live long enough to have a few years of retirement, that year his health was deteriorating from arteriosclerosis, and he died on August 17th. His DW-Nominate score was a 0.553, placing him solidly on the conservative wing of the GOP. He would be succeeded by the also staunchly conservative Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts. Gallinger’s Democratic colleague from his state, Henry Hollis, praised him as being of “an optimistic temperament, wholesome, sane, uniformly cheerful and courteous” while noting another’s observation of his conservative nature, “He was sure not to be “the first by whom the new is tried,” and he was always among “the last to lay the old aside”” (Congressional Record, 9).
Gallinger, I must note, is yet another case of a Republican who got his start in politics in a time in which Reconstruction was occurring who nonetheless gets characterized as a conservative by the 20th century, and yes, including in ways we would recognize today. Perhaps…the history of politics isn’t quite how the MSM has you understand it?
References
Chandler vs. Gallinger; One New Hampshire Senator’s Charges Against the Other. (1899, July 12). The New York Times.
Vice Presidents are an easily forgotten group, especially when they don’t last long. Indiana’s Thomas Andrews Hendricks (1819-1885) only lasted eight months as vice president, but this obscures his lengthy political career in a state that in his time was politically tumultuous.
Hendricks was born for politics, as he was raised in a family that staunchly adhered to Jacksonian principles and he was politically connected as his uncle, William Hendricks, had served as Indiana’s governor. However, his uncle was anti-Jacksonian as opposed to the views of his immediate family. Hendricks married Eliza Morgan in 1845 and they had one child, Morgan, but he tragically died at the age of three.
In 1848, he had his first political success when he was elected to the Indiana State House, but he wasn’t there long, as in 1850 he won election to the U.S. House in a district that was normally aligned with the Whigs. Hendricks aligned himself with the foremost young Midwestern politician of his day in Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois. Like Douglas, Hendricks believed in popular sovereignty as the answer to the issue of slavery; the people of the states get to decide whether they are slave or free states. In 1854, consistent with this belief, he voted for the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Compromise of 1820 and permitted residents of the Kansas and Nebraska territories to decide whether they were to be free or slave states. This resulted in pro and anti-slavery settlers moving into Kansas to influence the state’s vote, and the result were numerous incidents of violence and massacres from 1854 to 1859 that became known nationally as “Bleeding Kansas” and was a preview of the War of the Rebellion. Hendricks was also opposed to repealing the Fugitive Slave law unless slavery were abolished. Despite his political skills, the 1854 midterms were bad for the Democrats and he lost his seat.
Hendricks was subsequently picked by President Pierce to serve as the U.S. Commissioner of the General Land Office. However, like Senator Stephen Douglas, he had differences with President Buchanan. For one, Hendricks was an advocate of a homestead law to encourage settlement of the west, which Buchanan opposed. He also objected to Buchanan’s catering to the interests of slavery, and resigned in 1859.
In 1860, he ran for governor, but narrowly lost to Republican Henry Lane. However, an opportunity would arise for Hendricks given the actions of Senator Jesse Bright. Bright, the de facto leader of the Democratic Party in Indiana, was discovered to have engaged in correspondence with Confederate President Jefferson Davis. In February 1862, the Senate expelled him for treason and the following year, the Indiana legislature elected Hendricks to the Senate. He was a unionist or “War Democrat”, opposing the Copperhead faction of the Democrats and voting for funds for the war, serving as the leader of the small Democratic opposition. However, Hendricks opposed emancipation as a war aim as well as draft legislation. He would not differ from his party in opposition to Reconstruction, having not only opposed the 14th and 15th Amendments but also the 13th Amendment. Hendricks accepted that slavery was no more but believed that the Southern states should be represented as he was of the view that they had never actually left the union. He held that it would be “unpropitious” to change the Constitution at that time (Gray). Had Hendricks gotten his way, the 13th Amendment would have faced a harder vote and the 14th and 15th Amendments would have likely been sunk. Indeed, enacting the amendments before the Southern states were readmitted would be an argument some Southern politicians would use against the legitimacy of the 14th and 15th Amendments in the future. Hendricks also expressed his beliefs that blacks were morally and intellectually inferior and unfit for citizenship and on numerous occasions he said, “This is the white man’s Government, made by the white man, for the white man” (Gray). Although President Lincoln and Senator Hendricks had many disagreements, Lincoln praised him for always having been respectful to his administration. In 1868, Hendricks again tried for governor, but narrowly lost to incumbent Conrad Baker. That year he was also considered for the Democratic nomination for president but that went to Horatio Seymour, who had twice been New York’s governor. By 1869, Republicans had regained control of the Indiana legislature, and Hendricks was out. His DW-Nominate score was a -0.436. Hendricks would subsequently focus his politics on supporting inflationary currency and federal aid to rural areas.
Thomas A. Hendricks was not only for easy money, but was also an easy candidate, regularly being available. Indeed, some Democrats thought him too available for the presidency. This, plus a reasonable belief that him at the top of the ticket with his soft currency stance would lose the Democrats New York, he was twice relegated to vice president. However, electors in Kentucky, Maryland, Tennessee, and Texas did cast their votes for him in 1872 after the Liberal Republican/Democratic candidate, Horace Greeley, died only weeks after the election. So technically, he did win four states and six electoral votes from Kentucky despite not officially being a candidate.
Hendricks in 1875.
In 1876, Hendricks got the nomination for vice president. The ticket of Tilden/Hendricks didn’t just win the popular vote, it also won the majority of the vote. Yet, Tilden/Hendricks lost to the Republican Hayes/Wheeler ticket by one electoral vote. The election was the most controversial in the nation’s history (yes, even more than the 2000 election) and there were widespread allegations of voter fraud, intimidation, and violence from both parties. This was the only election that was decided by a special created commission, the Electoral Commission, which produced the controversial result. Tilden and Hendricks opted not to contest this result in the name of keeping the nation from entering yet another War of the Rebellion. Nonetheless, Democrats were bitter after this election and were calling President Hayes “Rutherfraud B. Hayes” and “his fraudulency”. Hendricks declined to participate in the 1880 election on health grounds, but when 1884 rolled around, he was again available for the vice president nomination. Although some Democrats wanted to run Samuel J. Tilden again to redeem the 1876 election, he was 70 and in poor health, so he declined. Hendricks as vice president, however, was a replay of 1876 and Democrats were for that. What’s more, Hendricks provided a good balance as he was far more amenable to political machines than reformer Grover Cleveland and he was for using the government to help agriculture and inflationary currency as opposed to Cleveland, who did not want to intervene with agriculture and was a gold standard guy. Furthermore, both Cleveland and Hendricks were from states that were must-wins for Democrats, and indeed in 1884 they won both New York and Indiana as well as the election.
Vice President Hendricks
While vice president, Hendricks had a friendly relationship with Cleveland and said of him that he was “courteous and affable”, traits that Hendricks himself possessed. However, he issued strong objections to him initially refusing to dole out patronage out of his sense of good government. Eventually political reality forced Cleveland to engage in patronage to reward his party’s supporters. On September 8, 1885, Hendricks delivered a controversial speech in which he called for Ireland’s independence, which although was to the consternation of the British, a lot of Irish Americans appreciated the speech. On November 24, 1885, Hendricks reported feeling ill and he went to bed early. He never woke up as his heart had given out. Hendricks’ death was a shock to the public as he had appeared to be fine. The truth, however, was that his health had been declining over the past five years. Hendricks had suffered a stroke in 1880 which resulted in his right foot becoming lame, thus making it hard for him to stand. The truth of his health had been known only to his family and doctors. His funeral in Indianapolis was attended by hundreds of people, including President Cleveland. Hendricks’ death inspired a change to the law on succession for the presidency, as the next in line was the Senate president pro tempore, who at the time was a Republican as Republicans had a majority, and both Democrats and Republicans of the time recognized that it would not be suitable for whoever succeeded a dead president to be a member of a party that the public hadn’t voted for and removed Congressional leaders from succession, thus the Secretary of State became third in line for the presidency. This arrangement would hold until 1947, when Congressional leaders were put back on the succession order.
References
Caffrey, C. (2023). Thomas Andrews Hendricks. EBSCO.
Although by 1916, Woodrow Wilson is a solid figure in the progressive era, particularly given his support of legislation aimed at the working man, such as the Adamson Act for maximum hours for railroad workers, this is still the era in which Republicans are dominating the presidency so he will have a tough fight. Although Republicans didn’t win majorities in the 1914 midterm, they did well nonetheless and established that they remained a force to be reckoned with. Wilson keeps his vice president, former Indiana Governor Thomas R. Marshall, while the Republicans select Justice Charles Evans Hughes, this being the one time that a party has nominated a justice of the Supreme Court and that a justice has resigned to run for president. Unlike Salmon P. Chase in the 1860s and 1870s, Hughes had not seen the Supreme Court as a steppingstone to the presidency. The candidate for vice president was again Indiana’s Charles W. Fairbanks, who had served as Theodore Roosevelt’s vice president and was known as a conservative stalwart. Although there were thoughts that the Progressive Party would run a candidate, Theodore Roosevelt was fully behind Hughes and refused to accept the party’s nomination for president, thus the Progressive Party was effectively hobbled, and although many Progressives went along with Roosevelt there were several prominent ones who went with Wilson. Wilson campaigned on having kept the United States out of war and for the measures he had gotten into law for working class Americans, while Hughes criticized Wilson’s intervention in Mexico, called for military preparedness, and voiced opposition to the Adamson Act.
Hughes campaigned considerably more to the conservative side of the GOP than the progressive side, and this approach may have been the difference between victory and loss in California. Hughes campaigned with party conservatives in California and thought he could pass on meeting with progressive Governor Hiram Johnson, who opted not to give an endorsement, and afterwards very narrowly lost the state. Indeed, Wilson’s performance west of the Mississippi was strong; of those states only Oregon and South Dakota voted for Hughes. This plus the Solid South won Wilson a second term. Hughes performed strongly in the Northeast with Wilson only pulling off New Hampshire and won 7 of the 11 Midwestern states. Although by the popular vote, Wilson had won by three points, if Hughes had won California he would have won the electoral vote and it would thus become the fourth time in the nation’s history that the candidate who got the highest popular vote didn’t win the election (that would have to wait until Bush v. Gore!). This would also be the last election in which North Dakota and South Dakota voted differently (seriously guys they’re not the same!). This election did prove something important; Democrats could win an election on Wilson himself given the lack of the Republican split.
The Senate
Democrats lose a net of two Senate seats in this election. Republicans gain some seats but lose others, and this leaves Democrats with a still comfortable 54-42 majority.
Republican Gains
In Indiana, Majority Leader John W. Kern lost reelection to Republican Harry S. New, part of the Republican sweep of the state.
In Maine, Charles F. Johnson lost reelection to Republican Frederick Hale, the son of Eugene Hale, the man he had defeated in 1910. The state had reverted back to its traditionally Republican politics.
In Maryland, Republican Joseph I. France defeated Democratic Congressman David J. Lewis, the latter who would later play a key role in crafting Social Security.
In New Jersey, James E. Martine, a Democrat who had been a bit of a thorn in the side of President Wilson, lost reelection by 16 points to Republican Joseph Frelinghuysen. Indeed, New Jersey was a bit of a disappointment for Wilson.
In New York, Republican William M. Calder defeats Democrat William F. McCombs for the open Senate seat.
Democratic Gains
In Delaware, Republican Henry du Pont lost reelection to Democrat Josiah Wolcott despite Wilson losing the state.
In New Mexico, Republican Thomas B. Catron lost renomination to the younger Frank A. Hubbell, who lost the election to Democrat Andrieus A. Jones.
In Rhode Island, Republican Henry F. Lippitt lost reelection to Democrat Peter G. Gerry, the first time a Democrat has been elected to the Senate since before the Republican Party’s existence. It is also the first time that Rhode Island had a vote of the people for their senator. Gerry ran considerably ahead of Wilson, who lost the state.
In Utah, Republican George Sutherland lost reelection to Democrat William H. King by 17 points. Wilson ran two points ahead of King. President Warren G. Harding would place Sutherland on the Supreme Court. Wilson had won the state, in contrast to it being one of President Taft’s two victories in 1912.
In West Virginia, Democrat William Chilton lost reelection to Republican Congressman Howard Sutherland. Wilson had lost the state.
In Wyoming, Republican Senator Clarence Clark lost reelection to Democrat John B. Kendrick by 6 points. Wilson had won the state.
Lost Renominations
In Minnesota, Progressive Republican Moses Clapp lost renomination to the more establishment-friendly Frank B. Kellogg, who won the election.
In Tennessee, Democrat Luke Lea lost renomination to Congressman Kenneth McKellar. McKellar was the junior partner of the powerful Crump machine in Memphis, and he would have a long career, being involved in secretly securing funding for the atomic bomb project and staying in office until 1953. The man who would defeat him in his primary in 1952? Albert Gore Sr.
House
The House provided a rather interesting situation, as Republicans overall made gains and they actually won one more seat than the Democrats. However, there were more than two parties in the House. Socialist Meyer London of New York, Progressives John Elston of California, Whitmell Martin of Louisiana and Melville Kelly of Pennsylvania, and the Prohibitionist Charles Randall of California caucused with the Democrats, giving them the majority.
Democratic Gains
In California, Democrats gain one seat in the 1st district as Clarence F. Lea succeeds the retiring Independent William Kent.
In Connecticut’s 1st district, future Senator Augustine Lonergan unseats Republican incumbent P. Davis Oakey.
In Delaware, Democrat Albert Polk very narrowly edges out incumbent Thomas W. Miller. Miller would later become one of the corrupt officials in the Harding Administration.
In New Mexico, Republican Benigno Hernandez loses reelection to Democrat William B. Walton.
In New York, Democrat Daniel C. Oliver defeated Republican incumbent William S. Bennet in the 23rd’ district. In the 28th district, Democrat George Lunn succeeded retiring Republican William Charles in the 30th district. Lunn had previously been the Socialist mayor of Schenectady and had been persuaded to switch to run for Congress.
In North Carolina’s 10th district, Republican James J. Britt loses reelection to Democrat Zebulon Weaver. The election is challenged, and Britt does win the challenge, but only serves the last two days of the term as Weaver indisputably wins the 1918 election.
In Ohio, Republican representatives J. Edward Russell, Edwin Ricketts, Seward Williams, and William C. Mooney are defeated for reelection by Benjamin Welty, Horatio Claypool, Elsworth Bathrick, and George White in the 4th, 11th, 14th, and 15th districts respectively.
In Pennsylvania, retiring Republican C. William Beales is succeeded by Democrat Andrew Brodbeck in the 20th district while Republicans Robert Hopwood and Andrew Barchfeld are defeated for reelection by Democrats Bruce F. Sterling and Guy Campbell in the 21st and 32nd districts.
In Utah, Republican Joseph Howell of the 1st district retires and Democrat Milton Welling succeeds him.
Republican Gains
In California, Republican Henry Z. Osborne wins the election to succeed Progressive William P. Stephens in the 10th district.
In Illinois’ 7th, 14th, 16th, and one of the at-Large districts, Democrats Frank Buchanan, Clyde Tavenner, Claude Stone, and William E. Williams lose to Republicans Niels Juul, William Graham, Clifford Ireland, and William E. Mason respectively.
In Indiana’s 2nd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 11th, and 12th districts Democrats lose seats. In the 2nd, 5th, 6th, 11th, and 12th William Cullop, Ralph Moss, Finly Gray, George Rauch, and Cyrus Cline lose to Republicans Oscar Bland, future secretary to Calvin Coolidge Everett Sanders, Daniel W. Comstock, Milton Kraus, and Louis Fairfield. In the 8th and 9th incumbents John Adair and Martin Morrison retire and are succeeded by Republicans Albert Vestal and Fred Purnell.
In Iowa, the only Democratic incumbent, Thomas J. Steele of the 11th district, loses to Republican George Scott.
In Kansas, Democrat Joseph Taggart of the 2nd district loses reelection to Republican Edward C. Little.
In Maine, Democrat Daniel McGillicuddy of the 2nd district loses reelection to Republican Wallace White. White would sponsor the first major radio regulation legislation in 1926 and he would serve as Senate Majority Leader from 1947 to 1949.
In Maryland, Republican Frederick Zihlman succeeds Democrat David J. Lewis, who lost the Senate election.
In Michigan’s 2nd district, Republican Mark Bacon defeats Democrat Samuel Beakes. However, Beakes successfully contests the election and the House seats him in the middle of the session.
In one of Montana’s at-Large districts, Republican Jeanette Rankin succeeds Democrat Tom Stout. She is the first woman to ever be elected to Congress and she would gain a deserved reputation as anti-war.
In New Jersey’s 6th district, Republican John Ramsey succeeds retiring Democrat Archibald Hart.
In New York’s 14th, 18th, 24th, and 42nd districts, Democratic incumbents Woodson Oglesby, and Daniel Driscoll lose reelection to Fiorello La Guardia, George Francis, Benjamin Fairchild, and William F. Waldow. Interestingly, of these three districts, the first four were in New York City, a bit of a subversion of expectations I would say! La Guardia would become one of New York City’s most famous and many historians argue, the best of their mayors.
In Ohio’s 2nd district, Republican Victor Heintz succeeds retiring Democrat Alfred G. Allen.
In Oklahoma’s 1st district, Republican Thomas Chandler defeats Democrat James Davenport for reelection. Tulsa is in this district and it is a strong swing district; until the 1932 election it would repeatedly change parties.
In Pennsylvania’s 12th and 19th districts, Republicans Thomas Templeton and John Rose defeat Democrats John Casey and Warren Bailey respectively. In the 25th district, Republican Henry Clark succeeded retiring Democrat Michael Liebel.
In West Virginia, Republican Stuart F. Reed gained the open seat of the 3rd district.
In Wisconsin’s 2nd, 6th, and 9th districts, Republicans Edward Voigt, James H. Davidson, and David Classon would defeat Democratic incumbents Michael Burke, Michael Reilly, and Thomas Konop, making the state’s House delegation all-Republican.
Other Gains
In Massachusetts, 9th district Republican Ernest W. Roberts lost reelection to Independent Alvan T. Fuller, who would later be a controversial Massachusetts governor over his handling of the Sacco and Vanzetti case.
In Pennsylvania, Progressive Melville Kelly defeated Republican incumbent William Coleman in the 30th district.
Lost Renominations
In Florida’s 3rd’ district, Democrat Walter Kehoe prevails over Emmett Wilson.
In Georgia’s 12th district, Democrat William Larsen defeats Dudley M. Hughes.
In one of Idaho’s two at-Large seats, Republican Robert McCracken is defeated for renomination by Burton French.
In Michigan’s 10th district, Republican George Loud is defeated for renomination by Gilbert Currie.
In Minnesota’s 5th district, conservative incumbent George R. Smith loses renomination to Progressive Republican Ernest Lundeen.
In New York’s 39th district, Republican Henry Danforth loses renomination to Archie Sanders.
In Pennsylvania’s 22th district, Republican incumbent Abraham Keister would lose renomination to Edward Robbins. Robbins would be one of three members of Congress who would die from the influenza pandemic. Republican S. Taylor North would also lose renomination in the 27th district to Nathan Strong.
In South Carolina’s 3rd district, Democrat Wyatt Aiken lost renomination to Frederick Dominick.
In Texas, Oscar Callaway, John Stephens, William Smith, and James Davis of the 12th, 13th, 16th, and At-Large districts lost renomination to James Wilson, J. Marvin Jones, Thomas Blanton, and Daniel Garrett respectively. Jones would sponsor the Agricultural Adjustment Act during the Roosevelt Administration and would be a champion of overall New Deal farm policy. Blanton would, as mentioned in a previous post, be a controversial figure and was even considered for expulsion from Congress for putting foul language in the Congressional Record.
President Wilson and the next Congress would have to contend with World War I and all the difficulties that arose from it, including taking control of railroads, the Espionage and Sedition Acts, and the influenza pandemic.
References
1916 United States House of Representatives elections. Wikipedia.
Something that a lot of people are inclined to forget about our elected officials is that in numerous ways they are quite representative of the public. We have elected literal murderers, thieves, and even a few madmen. The individual I am writing about did not start out among the latter, but he became among the latter in Charles William Jones (1834-1897).
Jones was Irish-born, and he and his mother immigrated to the United States in 1844 (his father, a British surgeon, had died). In 1854, Jones moved to Santa Rosa County, Florida, where he worked as a carpenter but also studied law. In 1861, he married Mary Ada Quigley, and the pair had eight children, but only half lived to adulthood. Jones associated himself with the Democratic Party as did many Southern whites and many first-generation immigrants. In 1872, Jones ran against Republican Congressman William Purman, but lost. However, the next election year was much better for Democrats, and Jones won a seat in the Florida House by a mere five votes. Jones wasn’t in this position long, as the state legislature was closely divided with several independent legislators holding the Senate election in the balance. Jones was elected to the Senate with the votes of all Democrats and Independents plus one Republican in early 1875 (127).
Jones was part of the Democratic “Redeemer” wave of politicians to be elected in the South, thus his rise was part of the start of the fall of Reconstruction. Like all elected national Democrats, Jones was opposed to Reconstruction. Jones was among the less partisan of Democrats overall though, being among the more favorable to business interests. Although his DW-Nominate score was a -0.353, but he was to the right of most of his Senate Democratic colleagues, at least per the DW-Nominate system. However, he considered himself a supporter of Jeffersonian Democracy, and in 1882 he delivered a speech in which he held that there was more work to do to attain Jeffersonian Democracy, warned against a growing tendency towards paternalism in government, and warned that the use of surplus revenues for expensive internal improvements would result in the demoralization of the American public and the subversion of the ends of democratic governance (York Democratic Press). In 1880, Jones suffered a loss when his wife died, but he persisted with his Senate work. His popularity was still holding as he was effective at allocating federal money to his state. For instance, Jones had succeeded in obtaining funds for a naval base in Pensacola, public buildings, and for more postal routes in the state (Etemadi, 123). Since voters and the politicians of Tallahassee approved of his work, he was reelected in 1881.
The Fall
In the spring of 1885 Jones had been working hard and announced that he was taking a vacation to Canada as well as Detroit, Michigan. However, his time in Michigan started in June and extended throughout the summer. When fall had arrived, Jones was still not back in the Senate. Absenteeism was a bit more common back then than it is now, and some senators were pretty bad about it; William Sharon of Nevada for instance was basically a senator in name only as he only voted 8% of the time during this Senate term and never once appeared before his constituents! However, Jones’ absence extended into February 1886, and he repeatedly refused the urgings of his colleagues to return. The truth is that he had become smitten and utterly obsessed with a wealthy Michigander woman in her 30s, Clotilde Palms. He had first seen her in 1882, and the following year after meeting her at a dinner party, Jones proposed but she declined (The Piqua Daily Call). Jones refused to leave his new residence, a Detroit hotel room, until he could win her over. Yet, she refused to see him and had no interest in him whatsoever despite his continued sending of letters to her as well as flowers. A letter by Palms’ father to leave his daughter alone, letters from other senators to return to the Senate, and a visit from his son Charles to convince him to resume his Senate duties produced no change. Jones refused to answer questions from a reporter as to why he was remaining in Detroit and justified his extended absence, stating, “I want no vindication. I am not the only senator that has been away. Cameron went to Europe, and Logan was in Illinois during the session of the Legislature, and I don’t see why I can’t do as others have done. It is nobody’s business” (The Piqua Daily Call). He furthermore would not indicate when or if he would return to Washington. Florida’s governor would not act to remove him from office as this situation was unprecedented. So even though he wasn’t in Washington or even in his home state and was doing no work, he continued to be a senator and receive pay until the end of his term in 1887. Jones would be evicted from his hotel room in December and for the next few years he was destitute and relying on the help of friends to sustain him. Despite Jones’s continued obsession with Palms, she married a Detroit surgeon in 1889. His letter to the editor of the Detroit Free Press dated March 20, 1890, was published, which read, “The newspapers seem to have forgotten that the ex-statesman from Florida, as the New York World has called me, was still in Detroit. The man who a few years ago attracted the attention of the whole country by leaving the Senate before his term of office expired and settling down in the city of the straits, has ceased to be an object of interest, although he maintains precisely the status to-day that he did then. He still holds the fort, and he is going to make it hot for his enemies. He shall neither ask quarter from them nor give it. He expects to be able to show up a political and social conspiracy the like of which was never known in this country before. He can tell the conspirators that Miss Clotilda Palms of this city is now in Nice, and that the publication of her marriage with a well-known character here a year ago in New York was a base, cowardly, false and atrocious calumny upon the character of one of the purest and most highly respected as well as devout Catholic ladies in the city. The ex-Senator can also tell the conspirators against his life and happiness that Miss Palms is, and has been for years, his affianced Catholic wife, and at the proper time he feels assured that they will come together at the holy altar of their holy church, and there before high heaven render to God their mutual vows as man and wife. Nothing but the most exceptional circumstances could have induced me to make this publication at this time” (Daily Territorial Enterprise).
Jones was clearly not the road to recovery. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described the state of his mind during these years in a May 21, 1890 article, “All this time he has been filled with the idea that he was the victim of a conspiracy on the part of certain persons to prevent his marrying a wealthy lady to whom he sought to pay attention immediately after he quite his seat in the Senate until she left town to escape his persecution. Six months ago she married and went to Europe. This fact did not change his opinions, and he has written many letters to individuals and newspapers full of incoherent charges and the vilest insinuations”. Jones was apprehended in May 1890 and after a medical evaluation he was diagnosed as suffering from monomania, or an extreme obsession with a single subject or person but otherwise would be sane, and the Detroit Probate Court ordered him to be institutionalized on the 20th. Jones was committed to a Dearborn asylum where he lived for the rest of his days, dying on October 11, 1897, at the age of 62.
References
A Paternal Government. (1882, May 12). York Democratic Press, 2.
Vice President John Nance Garner and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the winners.
Every once in a while if things go badly for the GOP, some columnist will predict the end of the party. It turns out that Republicans are highly resilient, a lesson that should have been learned by the 1936 election, in which after they were at their lowest level of power since their foundation. The most obvious demolishing was FDR over Alf Landon. Landon, who ran on the slogan of “Life, Liberty, and Landon” and really had no issues to campaign on to effect save for critiquing government inefficiency and calling for less spending. FDR and his New Deal were so popular that he won over 60% of the vote and even defeated him in his home state of Kansas, winning every state except Maine and Vermont. Vermont at the time was the most Republican state in the nation and Maine had been strongly Republican save for a brief Democratic surge in the early 1910s. Many people had bad memories of the Hoover presidency and the Republicans were just not presenting an alternative that appealed to many at the time. As Virginia Senator Carter Glass quipped after the result, “It is well nigh impossible to beat a five billion dollar campaign fund”, referencing work relief spending (Hill). What’s more, money was short. What they could achieve was largely thanks to money provided from wealthy American Liberty League members. RNC chairman John D.M. Hamilton attested to this when after the election he said, “Without Liberty League money, we wouldn’t have had a national headquarters” (Pietrusza).
Democratic Gains:
In California, Republicans lost three seats. The 4th district’s (San Francisco) Florence Kahn was defeated by Progressive Franck Havenner, Sam Collins of the 19th district was defeated by Democrat Harry Sheppard, and the Democrats gained the open 20th district with Edouard Izac.
In Connecticut, down went both of the state’s House Republicans, William Higgins of the 2nd district to Democrat William Fitzgerald and Republican Schuyler Merritt of the 4th district to Democrat Alfred Phillips. However, the octogenarian Merritt had chosen not to campaign as he wasn’t that interested in reelection.
In Delaware, Republican Senator Daniel Hastings, definitely the most staunchly anti-New Deal of the senators, lost reelection to Democrat James Hughes. Republican freshman John G. Stewart also lost reelection to Democrat William F. Allen. Delaware’s sole seat would swing between the parties throughout the Roosevelt presidency.
In Michigan, Democrats picked up a seat, as Republican James Couzens, who had endorsed FDR for his reelection, had lost renomination in 1936 and then died. Democratic Congressman Prentiss Brown was elected. Republicans also incurred losses in the 6th and 13th districts, with Republicans William W. Blackney and Clarence G. McLeod losing reelection to Democrats Andrew Transue and George O’Brien. Blackney and McLeod would return in 1938.
In Minnesota, the Farmer-Labor Party’s Dewey Johnson picked up the open 5th district from the GOP, and Republican William Pittenger lost reelection in the 8th district to the Farmer-Labor Party’s John Bernard. Pittenger would return in 1938.
In New Hampshire, Democrat Alphonse Roy lost an election to the 1st district, which was open, to Republican Arthur B. Jenks, but this election was contested and the Democratic majority House voted to seat Roy towards the end of the 75th Congress. Jenks would win in 1938.
In New Jersey, Republican Senator William Barbour would lose reelection to Democrat William Smathers. However, Barbour would return in the 1938 election. House Republicans Isaac Bacharach of the 2nd district, Peter Cavicchia of the 11th district, and Frederick Lehlbach of the 12th district lost reelection to Democrats Elmer H. Wene, Edward O’Neill, and Frank Towey respectively.
In New York, Vito Marcantonio of the 20th district lost reelection to Democrat James Lanzetta. However, Marcantonio would make a comeback in 1938 as a member of the American Labor Party.
In Ohio, Republican representation in the House was reduced to two, as Republicans John Hollister of the 1st district, William Hess of the 2nd district, Leroy Marshall of the 7th district, John Cooper of the 19th district, and Chester Bolton of the 22nd district lost reelection to Democrats Joseph Dixon, Herbert Bigelow, Arthur Aleshire, Michael Kirwan, and Anthony Fleger respectively. Hess and Bolton would return in the 1938 election.
In Oregon, Portland’s Republican Congressman William Ekwall of the 3rd district would lose reelection to Democrat Nan Honeyman.
In Pennsylvania, a significant development occurred in Philadelphia: with the loss of all its Republican representatives, the city of brotherly love became represented entirely by Democrats! Republicans Harry Ransley of the 1st, William H. Wilson of the 2nd district, Clare G. Fenerty of the 3rd district, and George Darrow of the 7th district lost reelection to Democrats Leon Sacks, James McGranery, Michael Bradley, and Ira W. Drew respectively. Only Darrow would return in the 1938 election. Also losing in Pennsylvania were Charles Turpin of the 12th district and Isaac Doutrich of the 19th district to Democrats J. Harold Flannery and Guy J. Swope respectively.
In Rhode Island, Republican Senator Jesse Metcalf lost reelection to Democrat Theodore Green as did the 1st district’s Republican Charles Risk to Democrat Aime J. Forand. Risk would return in the 1938 election, but after 1940 no Republican would win a Senate seat from Rhode Island until 1976, and no Republican would get a House seat until 1980.
In Wyoming, Republican Senator Robert Carey lost reelection to Democrat Harry Schwartz. It was just as well, as he died only two months later.
Republican Gains
Not all was bad for Republicans in this election, although the wins they had far from made up for their big losses.
In Iowa, Republican Cassius C. Dowell, who had lost reelection in 1934, came back in winning the open 6th district.
In Kansas, Republican Edward H. Rees won the open 4th district.
In Maine, Republican James C. Oliver defeated Democrat Simon Hamlin for reelection in the 1st district, while Republican Clyde H. Smith won the open 2nd district. Yep, the Republicans did well in Maine!
In Massachusetts, Republicans scored their only Senate seat pickup: Republican Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. defeated Democrat James M. Curley. Roosevelt had come to despise Curley and his corrupt machine ways and refused to lift a finger for him. Republicans also picked up the open 2nd district with Charles R. Clason and Republican Robert Luce came back in the 9th district after his defeat by Democrat Richard Russell in 1934.
In New York, Democrat Fred Sisson of the 33rd district lost reelection to Republican Fred Douglas.
In Ohio, Democrat William Fiesinger of the 13th district lost renomination, and Republican Dudley White won the seat.
In Pennsylvania, Democrats Charles Dietrich of the 15th district and Denis J. Driscoll of the 20th district lost reelection to Republicans Albert Rutherford and Benjamin Jarrett respectively.
In South Dakota, Democrat Theodore Werner of the 2nd district was defeated for reelection by Republican Francis Case.
Renomination Losses
In Alabama’s 9th district, George Huddleston, who had served since 1915 and had become a critic of the New Deal, lost renomination to staunch New Deal liberal Luther Patrick. Since Alabama was a one-party state at the time, this was tantamount to election victory.
Multiple Democrats in Louisiana lost renomination, including Numa Montet in the 3rd district to Robert Mouton, Riley Wilson of the 5th district to Newt Mills, and Jared Y. Sanders Jr. in the 6th district to John K. Griffith.
In Michigan, Republican Verner Main of the 3rd district lost renomination to Paul Shafer, who won the seat.
In Missouri, Democrat James Claiborne of the 12th district, one of the least loyal Democrats, lost renomination to Charles Anderson, who won the seat.
In New York, Democrat Richard Tonry of the 8th district lost renomination to Donald O’Toole, who won the seat.
In Ohio, Democrat Warren Duffey of the 9th district lost renomination to John F. Hunter, who won the seat.
In Oklahoma, Democrat Percy Gassaway of the 4th district lost renomination to Lyle Boren, who won the seat.
In Pennsylvania, multiple Democrats lost renomination. Democrat William Richardson of the 14th district went down to Guy Moser, who won the seat. William Berlin of the 28th district also lost renomination to Robert G. Allen as did J. Twing Brooks of the 30th district to Peter De Muth. In Pennsylvania’s 32nd district, Theodore L. Moritz opted to run for reelection as a Progressive after losing renomination, but lost to Democratic nominee Herman P. Eberharter. In the prior two cases, the winners would turn out to be considerably more conservative than their predecessors.
In Texas, the voters of the 17th district finally had enough of Democrat Thomas Blanton being a lightning rod of controversy and dumped him for Clyde Garrett, who won the election.
In Virginia, Democrat Colgate Darden of the 2nd district, who had voted against Social Security, lost renomination to Norman Hamilton, but he would return in the 1938 election.
This election had significance not only as a public endorsement of the New Deal overall, but also as a signal to the Supreme Court that the laws they were striking down were part of what the public supported. After this election, Roosevelt would be able to replace retiring justices, changing the ideological landscape of the court in the direction of broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The New Deal programs would continue and the federal minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act among other measures would be enacted.
References
1936 United States House of Representatives elections. Wikipedia.
It can be highly tempting for people to say that one state has “always been conservative” or “always been liberal” to explain away party switches. But the reality is that populations shift, political priorities shift, and one party’s policies can go so strongly against a certain state’s interests that their voters move to the other party, even if in the past they had supported much of what their old party stood for. This has been demonstrably true of some states even in modern day. I will present today five examples of states, not in the former Confederacy or New England, which have had considerable evolution in their status.
Henry Clay of Kentucky, whose state and him went from being supporters of Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans to being staunchly with the Whig Party.
Delaware
Our last president was the first from America’s first state of Delaware. Since 1992, the state has voted Democratic and since 1996 it has done so by double digits save for 2004. Delaware also now has the distinction of having elected the first member of Congress to identify as trans. The state’s Democratic dominance would have been absolutely unthinkable during the time of the foundation of the Democratic Party itself.
Delaware had been one of the most loyal states to the old Federalist Party, only voting for the Democratic-Republicans in the 1820 election in which James Monroe had no substantive opposition. Delaware was also a reliable state for the Whig Party until 1852, when all but four states voted for Democrat Franklin Pierce. Normally, Delaware voters would be supportive of the economic philosophy that guided both the Federalists and the Whigs; an adherence to Alexander Hamilton’s American System. This being imposing tariffs both for protection of domestic industry and to fund internal improvements for the purpose of expanding national growth. The Whig’s successor party, the Republican Party, would embrace the same. However, Delaware was a tough state for Republicans because it was a slave state. Although slavery was not practiced by most families in the state by the start of the War of the Rebellion, many voters still defended the “peculiar institution” and the political of the power of the state lay with its defenders. During the war, its voters elected Unionist politicians to the House, but its senators were Democratic and defenders of slavery in Willard Saulsbury, James A. Bayard, and George Riddle. From 1865 to 1895 all of its governors were Democrats, and until the 1889 election all its senators Democrats. What changed in Delaware was that more blacks were becoming middle class, thus making the issue of race less salient. What’s more, a certain prominent family moved their operations to Delaware and bankrolled the state’s Republican Party in the du Ponts. Although in 1888, Delaware had voted for Democrat Grover Cleveland by nearly 12 points, an ominous signal of times ahead for the Democrats came in the next election, in which Cleveland won, but by only 1.5 points. This was an election in which incumbent Benjamin Harrison was unpopular and Cleveland scored unexpected wins in states that had consistent records of Republican voting in Illinois and Wisconsin, the former having voted Republican since 1860 and the latter having done so since its first presidential election in 1856. Delaware’s politicians, be they Democratic or Republican, had records of opposition to inflationary currency, and the economic depression as well as the Democrats shifting towards the left by picking William Jennings Bryan, a proponent of currency inflation through “free coinage of silver” (no limits on silver content in coinage), left Delaware cold. McKinley won the state by 10 points in 1896.
The 1896 election kicked off a period of Republican dominance. Until 1936, save for the 1912 three-way election, Delaware voted for the Republican candidate. Henry du Pont and his cousin Thomas were elected to the Senate during this period, and during FDR’s first term, its senators, Daniel Hastings and John Townsend, were the most consistent opponents of the New Deal in the Senate and voted against Social Security. However, FDR’s appeal even penetrated Delaware; Hastings would lose reelection in 1936 and Townsend in 1940. However, in 1948, Delaware would return to the Republican fold in voting for Thomas Dewey. The state would vary in its voting behavior through 1988, and it would go for the Democrat in the close 1960 and 1976 elections. Since 1993, Delaware has had only Democratic governors, and it has not elected a Republican to the Senate since 1994 nor to the House since 2008. A big part of the state’s shift towards the Democrats was that from 1990 to 2018, the black population of Delaware increased by 47% (Davis). Since 1964, black voter support for Republican presidential candidates has not surpassed 15%. Delaware does not look like it will turn away from the Democrats any time soon.
Iowa
Admitted to the Union in 1846, Iowa started existence as a Democratic state. In 1848, its voters preferred Michigander Lewis Cass to Whig Zachary Taylor. However, a significant minority of Iowa’s Democrats were staunchly anti-slavery and after the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, these people bolted to the newly formed Republican Party. The GOP’s most prominent politician in the latter part of the 19th century and for a few years in the early 20th was Senator William B. Allison, who would be part of the Senate’s leadership during the McKinley and Roosevelt presidencies. Until 1912, Iowa would without fail vote for Republican presidential candidates and would not do so again until 1932. From 1859 until 1926, all of its senators were Republicans, and the 1926 case was because Republicans had split over their nominee, Smith W. Brookhart, who was on the party’s liberal wing. Iowa Democrats made significant headway during the 1930s, with the state even having two Democratic senators from 1937 to 1943. However, the state was moving against Roosevelt and its voters were strongly against American involvement in World War II, preferring the Republican candidate in 1940 and 1944. There was a bit of a surprise when Truman won the state in 1948, something that can be credited to his effective appeals to Midwestern farmers and painting the Republican 80th Congress as bad for their interests.
Iowa nonetheless continued its Republican voting behavior in Republican presidential elections, even though the state’s party saw significant gains in the 1970s, including both Senate seats. In 1988, Iowa delivered a bit of a surprise in its vote for Democrat Michael Dukakis. Indeed, from 1988 until Trump’s victory in the state in 2016, Iowa would be Democratic on a presidential level with the only exception being Bush’s squeaker of a win in 2004. Since 2016, however, support for Republicans has only been increasing. In 2024, Trump won the state by 13 points despite that Seltzer poll. This was the best performance a Republican candidate has had in Iowa since 1972, when Nixon won with 57%.
Kentucky
Kentucky has an even more varied history as a state than Delaware. After it was first admitted, it did, as did all the other states, vote to reelect George Washington in 1792. However, when it came to choosing between Adams and Jefferson, they chose Jefferson and kept doing so up until the foundation of the Whig Party. The Whig Party had as its central founder Kentucky’s Henry Clay, who at one time had been part of Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans but had opposed the rise of General Andrew Jackson.
Kentucky’s issue with sticking with the successor party was the same as Delaware’s: it was a slave state. It remained in the union but its voters were staunch foes of the GOP. Kentucky did not vote Republican until 1896, and did so narrowly, a product of the economic depression and Democrat William Jennings Bryan’s inflationary currency stance. Although this looked like an opening and indeed Republicans had a few successes in electing governors, the state maintained its Democratic character up until 1956, its voters having only seen fit to vote Republican in 1924 and 1928. The 1956 election was quite successful for Dwight Eisenhower and Republicans, including in Kentucky. Not only did the state vote for him, they also voted in two Republicans to the Senate in John Sherman Cooper and Thruston B. Morton. However, their brand of Republicanism was much more moderate than what we see from Kentucky’s GOP today. Republicans followed up their 1956 win with Nixon’s 1960 win of the state. From 1956 onward, Kentucky did not vote for a Democratic candidate for president unless he was from the South. The last time the state voted for the Democrat was Bill Clinton in 1996. Nonetheless, the state party remained strong, and from 1975 to 1985 both of its senators were Democrats. However, this was broken with the election of Mitch McConnell in 1984, and Democrat Wendell Ford retired in 1999. To this day, Ford is the last Democratic senator from the state. This Republican bent is not going away any time soon either; Trump scored the highest margin of victory that any Republican has in 2024, even surpassing Nixon’s 1972 performance. However, Kentucky does still elect Democratic governors, but this puts it in a similar position to Vermont, which is highly Democratic but has happily elected Republican Governor Phil Scott.
New York
New York presents an interesting case as although recently it has voted solidly for the Democrats since 1988, it was at one time a big swing state. Indeed, New York’s vote was predictive of the winner of presidential elections until 1856, when their voters backed Republican John C. Fremont. However, this did not put them firmly in the Republican column. Indeed, Democrats had a strong presence in the state through the political organization of Tammany Hall in New York City. Republicans had a powerful machine as well in the late 1860s to early 1880s under Senator Roscoe Conkling. The electoral vote rich state became a prime target for the parties, and it resulted in Democrats picking people who were for hard currency for their presidential candidates even though their base nationwide was favorable to soft, or inflationary currency. When Democrats picked a New Yorker, they usually won the state. In 1868, they elected former New York Governor Horatio Seymour, and although the Republicans won the election, the Democrats won New York. In 1876, the same was true with their pick of Samuel J. Tilden. However, with the downfall of the Bourbon Democrats and the economic depression of the 1890s, New York voted for Republican William McKinley, beginning an era of Republicans being dominant in the state. These weren’t liberal guys either; at the start of the Harding Administration its senators were William Calder and James W. Wadsworth Jr., both staunchly conservative, with Wadsworth voting against the entirety of the New Deal in FDR’s first and second terms as a representative. However, the status of Republicans was starting to weaken with the gubernatorial elections of Al Smith and Franklin D. Roosevelt and in 1928 even though Republicans fared quite well in that election, Hoover only won the state by two points. New York would vote for Roosevelt all four times and although it would vote for Republican Thomas Dewey in 1948, this was a plurality caused by Henry Wallace’s Progressive Party getting 8.25% of the vote. New York voted for Eisenhower twice, but I would say that its Democratic era began with the election of 1960. I say this because Republicans have only won three presidential elections since then; the 49-state landslides of Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1984 as well as Reagan in 1980. It is true that Republicans were still able to elect some governors and managed to hold on to one of the Senate seats for 42 years, but this was because Republicans ran candidates that were far from doctrinaire conservatives. Jacob Javits, who served from 1957 to 1981, was a textbook example of a RINO, and his successor, Al D’Amato, would probably be a bit too moderate for the modern GOP’s tastes. Perhaps Republicans have some reason for optimism in the Empire State; Trump’s performance in 2024 was the best Republicans have had since 1988.
Oregon
You might have trouble believing this, but until Michael Dukakis’ win in 1988, Oregon had voted Republican for president 81% of the time. This included the close 1960 and 1976 elections and before Wilson’s 1912 win, they had only voted Democratic in the 1868 election. The state remained fairly robust for the GOP, even when faced with FDR. Although Roosevelt won the state four times, its senators were Republican for almost the entire time. Oregon’s Charles McNary was the leader of the Senate Republicans! Oregon also had Republican governors for all but six years from 1939 to 1987. However, Oregon Republicans understood that they had to make exceptions here and there on conservatism and McNary was a very moderate conservative. The Eisenhower Administration would challenge Republican rule in Oregon based on its belief in the private sector, rather than the public sector.
In 1954, the bottom began to fall out for the state GOP, and this was due to the Eisenhower Administration’s favoring private development over public development of power. It was in that year that Republicans lost the Congressional seat based in Portland and their senator lost reelection. This would be followed by two more Congressional Republicans losing reelection in 1956. The defeated senator, Guy Cordon, stands as the last conservative to represent Oregon in the Senate. Although for 27 years Oregon had two Republican senators, neither Mark Hatfield nor Bob Packwood could be considered conservatives. Gordon Smith, who represented Oregon from 1997 to 2009, was a moderate.
Although Oregon has had a strong Democratic streak since 1988, it is also true that Al Gore won by less than half a point in 2000, and Kerry won by less than five points in 2004. However, Oregon’s Democratic politics have strengthened since then, and since 2008 the Democratic candidate has won by double digits. Oregon does not look like it will be moving to the Republican column at any time in the foreseeable future.
References
Davis, T.J. (2018, December 30). Young people are changing black politics in Delaware. Delaware Online.
For a long time there has been a debate about what side of an issue the late Abraham Lincoln would be on; in the 1930s numerous New Deal politicians expressed their belief that Lincoln would be on their side with some Republicans asserting that Lincoln would have done things differently than FDR. While we can never be totally what Lincoln’s social views would be in different times given that his changed over the course of his life, including on civil rights, there is a bit more certainty on economic issues, and on this question, there are two Henrys who can help us answer this question, both who greatly influenced Lincoln. The first is Henry Clay, the much-admired founder and three-time candidate of the Whig Party for president. The second is a considerably less known figure but one who shines light on Lincoln’s economic views in Henry Carey (1793-1879), a major advocate of the “American School” of economics who is largely forgotten today but was quite prominent in his day.
The American School of Economics
Carey did not start off as an economist, rather as a businessman in the publishing industry, but the Panic of 1837 inspired him, at the age of 44, to study economics. He was something of a gadfly in the world of economics in his day, as British economists were overwhelmingly on the side of pure lassiez-faire, and this is where Carey was initially. However, he was persuaded by economic crises in the 1830s and 1840s that this approach fell short. Carey would start arguing in 1848 that free trade served to benefit the British empire (indeed its most prominent advocates were from Britain) and that the United States should at that stage as a nation be developing its home markets and achieving economic independence (Cowan). Thus, he would argue for tariffs to help develop the nation and build up American industry so they could compete fairly with Great Britain, a more powerful nation than the US in his time. Carey would also argue that tariffs were a mutually beneficial policy as they helped both the profits of industry and the wages of labor (Cowan). He was also a critic of economists David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus, and wrote against their views in this three volume Principles of Social Science (1858-1860). On Malthus, he wrote that he “teaches that a monopoly of the land is in accordance with a law of nature. Admiring morality, he promotes profligacy by encouraging celibacy. … Desirous to uplift the people, he tells the landowner and the laborer that the loss of the one is the gain of the other. His book is the true manual of the demagogue, seeking power by means of agrarianism, war and plunder” (Levermore, 562-66). In the late 1850s, Carey blamed tariff reductions passed and signed into law by President Franklin Pierce for the Panic of 1857, and some historians have shared his judgment. Carey was also an opponent of unions as an instrument of collective bargaining, regarding the tariff as the proper mechanism for wage growth. However, Carey was supporting tariffs for the US based on its present conditions. He hoped for a future in which the nations of the world could trade without tariffs, writing, “Of the advantage of perfect free trade there can be no doubt. What is good between the states ought to be good the world over. But free trade can be successfully administered only after an apprenticeship of protection. Strictly speaking, taxation should all be direct. Tariff for revenue should not exist. Interference with trade is excusable only on ground of self-protection. A disturbing force of prodigious power pre- vents the loom and spindle from taking and keeping their proper places by the plow and harrow. When the protective regime has counteracted the elements of foreign opposition, obstacles to free trade will disappear and the tariff will pass out of existence. Wars will cease; for no chief magistrate will dare to recommend an increase of direct taxation” (Levermore, 570).
Carey was the lead editor on articles regarding political economy for Horace Greeley’s New-York Tribune from 1849 to 1857. At that time, another economist contributed from abroad who wrote under a pen name, this other economist being none other than Karl Marx. Marx considered Carey, a staunch opponent of socialism, to be the only notable American economist and also his ideological rival, considering himself to be engaging in “hidden warfare” against him through his work for the Tribune (Marx & Engels, 78-79). Indeed, Marx even thought that Carey’s philosophy was the central impediment to a communist revolution in the United States.
Carey was a supporter of Abraham Lincoln and upon his election to the presidency, he served as an economic advisor to both him and Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase. He helped draft Republican tariff bills, including the Morrill Tariff of 1861 and was influential in getting the National Bank Act of 1863 adopted. Carey was a consistent supporter of greenbacks, supporting both the Legal Tender Act of 1862 (which along with distribution of greenbacks unbacked by gold or silver and achieved the Whig goal of a unified national currency) and postwar currency inflation. The former got the support of the Republican establishment as an emergency measure for the war, but the latter was opposed as the Republican establishment was fundamentally conservative on issues of economics and finance. Whether Lincoln would have heeded Carey had he lived I think is an open question. On one hand, he was influenced by Carey in numerous facets of policy, but on the other hand, shortly before his death he had tapped Hugh McCulloch as Secretary of the Treasury, who pursued a policy of contraction of greenbacks. Would Lincoln have sought to rein in his own Secretary of the Treasury or heeded his advice?
Influence Today?
Although Henry Carey is a figure who is generally seen as a modern conservative’s go-to economist, Professor Adam Rowe, writing for Compact Magazine, argues that Henry Carey is an explaining figure for Trump’s tariffs. If Carey has any influence, this is a full circle back to the earliest days of the Republican Party.
References
Cowan, D.A. (2022, September 8). Henry C. Carey’s Practical Economics. The American Conservative.
Levermore, C.H. (1890). Henry C. Carey and his Social System. Political Science Quarterly, 5(4), 553-582.
Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1975). “Notes”. In Ryazanskyaya, S.W. (ed.). Selected Correspondence. Translated by Lasker, I. (3rd edt.). Moscow, USSR: Progress Publishers.
It rather goes without saying that the two parties today are strongly ideologically polarized. The most conservative Democrat is more liberal than the most liberal Republican in Congress, and President Trump has zero thoughts of trying to get even a few Democratic politicians on his side. Indeed, all Senate Democrats and all but two House Democrats backed impeaching him in 2020, one who then switched to the GOP. However, the party systems have changed over the years, and in particular changed significantly after the election of President Roosevelt in 1932. He pursued what has been commonly called the pursuing of Jeffersonian ends by Hamiltonian means, an idea spelled out by progressive Herbert Croly in 1909. The Democratic Party as established stood for the policies and principles of Andrew Jackson that were inspired by the policies and principles of Thomas Jefferson. I will also be including the Whig platform here for contrast, but the Democrats are the central focus.
The following language was in all Democratic Party platforms from 1840 to 1856:
“1. Resolved, That the federal government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the constitution, and the grants of power shown therein, ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government, and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.
2. Resolved, That the constitution does not confer upon the general government the power to commence and carry on, a general system of internal improvements.
3. Resolved, That the constitution does not confer authority upon the federal government, directly or indirectly, to assume the debts of the several states, contracted for local internal improvements, or other state purposes; nor would such assumption be just or expedient.
4. Resolved, That justice and sound policy forbid the federal government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or to cherish the interests of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common country—that every citizen and every section of the country, has a right to demand and insist upon an equality of rights and privileges, and to complete and ample protection of person and property from domestic violence, or foreign aggression.
5. Resolved, That it is the duty of every branch of the government, to enforce and practice the most rigid economy, in conducting our public affairs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised, than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the government.
6. Resolved, That congress has no power to charter a national bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people.
7. Resolved, That congress has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts by abolitionists or others, made to induce congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political institutions.
8. Resolved, That the separation of the moneys of the government from banking institutions, is indispensable for the safety of the funds of the government, and the rights of the people.
9. Resolved, That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and sanctioned in the constitution, which makes ours the land of liberty, and the asylum of the oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles in the democratic faith; and every attempt to abridge the present privilege of becoming citizens, and the owners of soil among us, ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept the alien and sedition laws from our statute-book.”
These principles were strongly consistent, as opposed to the Whig Party, which although they had principles (protective tariffs, funding internal improvements), they weren’t spelled out fully until their 1852 platform, and indeed specifics are not spelled out at all in their 1848 platform! The Whigs also sought to completely avoid the issue of slavery, a position which the events of the 1850s proved was untenable. The Democratic Party strikes me as the more programmatic party of the two, and indeed they were the dominant party from its creation until the 1860 election. They stood for concrete principles they placed in every platform, while the Whigs were the collection of opposition to the Democrats, and once its great standard-bearer and founder, Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky, died in 1852, they didn’t last much longer. The language of the Democratic Party indicates a strong belief in the role of states rather than the federal government, although the issues they care about from that perspective are ones that are seen as benefiting the privileged and powerful. The states, thus, were supposed to serve as a check against them per Democratic philosophy. Tariffs assisted the industrial private sector and often did so at the expense of the rural South, which would face retaliatory tariffs on their exported cotton and tobacco. Thus, the language in opposition to sectional legislation and policies benefiting one industry while harming another. The funding of internal improvements (bridges, roads, canals) were for the purpose of advancing commerce, something that Democrats of the time thought should be confined to states. President Andrew Jackson’ veto of the continuing of the Second Bank of the United States was seen as a heroic act by Democrats as a blow against the economically privileged, hence the language of a “concentrated money power”. The language on slavery was for the purpose not only of continued Southern support but also for preservation of the union. Now for the Whigs…
The 1844 Whig Platform
The first Whig platform was mostly non-specific on policy although they did spell out that they supported a protective tariff and spreading out the proceeds of sales of public lands to the states. Democrats did mention and oppose the latter in their 1844 platform.
The 1852 Whig Platform
I skipped to the 1852 platform because I already mentioned the barren 1848 platform. The 1852 platform actually comprehensively spells out what the Whigs believed, and sadly, when they issued the strongest statement of their beliefs they got creamed, only winning the states of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Vermont. They did embrace the Compromise of 1850, Henry Clay’s last, as it was the hope that this would prevent disunion. The platform they did the best on was the 1848 platform, and this was because of the popularity of General Zachary Taylor, a hero of the Mexican-American War, a war the Whigs had opposed. This, in addition to President Pierce’s signing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, was the death of the Whig Party, as opponents of slavery in both the Whig and Democratic parties became galvanized to form a new party…the Republican Party. And did this realignment ever bring together former opponents: Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Vice President Hannibal Hamlin were both Democrats before 1856, and President Abraham Lincoln and Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens were both Whigs before 1850. These are the principles espoused by the Whigs:
“First: The Government of the United States is of a limited character, and it is confined to the exercise of powers expressly granted by the Constitution, and such as may be necessary and proper for carrying the granted powers into full execution, and that all powers not thus granted or necessarily implied are expressly reserved to the States respectively and to the people.
Second: The State Governments should be held secure in their reserved rights, and the General Government sustained on its constitutional powers, and that the Union should be revered and watched over as the palladium of our liberties.
Third: That while struggling freedom everywhere enlists the warmest sympathy of the Whig party, we still adhere to the doctrines of the Father of his Country, as announced in his Farewell Address, of keeping ourselves free from all entangling alliances with foreign countries, and of never quitting our own to stand upon foreign ground, that our mission as a republic is not to propagate our opinions, or impose on other countries our form of government by artifice or force; but to teach, by example, and show by our success, moderation and justice, the blessings of self-government, and the advantages of free institutions.
Fourth: That where the people make and control the Government, they should obey its constitution, laws and treaties, as they would retain their self-respect, and the respect which they claim and will enforce from foreign powers.
Fifth: Government should be conducted upon principles of the strictest economy, and revenue sufficient for the expenses of an economical administration of the Government in time of peace ought to be derived from a duty on imports, and not from direct taxes; and in laying such duties, sound policy requires a just discrimination and protection from fraud by specific duties when practicable, whereby suitable encouragement may be afforded to American industry, equally to all classes, and to all parts of the country.
Sixth: The Constitution vests in Congress the power to open and repair harbors, and remove obstructions from navigable rivers, and it is expedient that Congress shall exercise that power whenever such improvements are for the protection and facility of commerce with foreign nations, or among the States–such improvements being, in every instance, National and general in their character.
Seventh: The Federal and State Governments are parts of one system, alike necessary for the common prosperity, peace and security, and ought to be regarded alike with a cordial, habitual and immovable attachment. Respect for the authority of each and acquiescence in the just constitutional measures of each, are duties required by the plainest considerations of National, State, and individual welfare.
Eighth: That the series of acts of the Thirty-first Congress, commonly known as the Compromise or Adjustment (the act for the recovery of fugitive slaves from labor included,) are received and acquiesced in by the Whigs of the United States as a final settlement, in principle and in substance, of the subjects to which they relate; and, so far as these acts are concerned, we will maintain them, and insist upon their strict enforcement, until time and experience shall demonstrate the necessity of further legislation to guard against the evasion of the law, on one hand, and the abuse of their powers on the other–not impairing their present efficiency to carry out the requirements of the Constitution; and we deprecate all further agitation of the questions thus settled, as dangerous to our peace; and will discountenance all efforts to continue or renew such agitation, whenever, wherever, or however made; and we will maintain this settlement as essential to the nationality of the Whig party and of the Union.” (American Presidency Project).
Although the Whigs died off, many of their policies would be pushed by the Republican Party, which embraced the protective tariff and passed the National Bank Act in 1863, establishing a series of national banks with a unified currency, and contemporary Democrats have fully embraced Hamiltonian means to Jeffersonian ends and some state Democratic parties distance themselves from Jefferson and Jackson by renaming their dinners to “Kennedys-King” (after JFK, RFK, and MLK) dinners, figures who are far more relevant to the thinking of Democrats today than Jefferson and Jackson and whose legacies are unburdened by slavery.
References
1840 Democratic Party Platform. American Presidency Project.
One of the most controversial figures of the old Republican Party of Lincoln, if not the most controversial, was Ohio Senator Benjamin “Bluff” Franklin Wade (1800-1878), famous for his reputation as a Radical Republican. This was due to his image as a punitive figure for Reconstruction, his uncompromising attitudes on the rights of freedmen, and a perception that he was but a tool of Northern capitalists.
An attorney by profession, Wade’s career in politics began in 1831 when he formed a legal partnership with Joshua Giddings, a fierce opponent of slavery. From there he was elected prosecutor of Ashtabula County in 1836 and in 1837, he won election to the Ohio State Senate. Although a member of the Whig Party, a party known for its staunch support of business, Wade was a bit too independent of the interests of business for the liking of the Whigs and it cost him a third term. He was out of office, but not for good, as in 1847 he was elected presiding judge of Ohio’s 3rd judicial district, serving until 1851, when he was elected to the Senate as a Whig. Although he had long been fiercely anti-slavery, he had a sense of strategy in how he voted for president, which was displayed when he voted for Whig Zachary Taylor in 1848 rather than Martin Van Buren of the anti-slavery Free Soil Party. Wade figured that a vote for Taylor, a slaveowner on a party platform that said nothing of slavery, would be preferable to Van Buren because the Free Soil Party had no chance of victory, and he correctly figured that Taylor would not bow to pro-slavery interests. Wade strongly opposed the Compromise of 1850 for its provisions benefiting slavery and in 1854, he voted against the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
In the 1850s with the party system changing given the demise of the Whig Party and the temporary rise of the American (“Know Nothing”) Party, Wade could have capitalized on the issue of nativism to help his 1857 reelection, but being a man of outspoken convictions he rather condemned nativism, and his condemnation was such that he almost got into a brawl with American Party Senator John M. Clayton of Delaware, one of the leading promoters of nativism (Trefousse, 65). Indeed, he was strongly opinionated and often crossed swords rhetorically with his colleagues. Historian Allan G. Bogue wrote of him, “Wade was no orator, and his contributions to debate were usually short and, on occasion, intemperate: he once called [Edgar] Cowan a dog and attacked the President in debate on more than one occasion” (Mr. Lincoln’s White House). He also sometimes publicly had harsh words for President Lincoln, who he believed was blowing the war effort and not going far enough against slavery. In one instance, Wade and a delegation were seeking the removal of Ulysses S. Grant as head of the Union Army at Vicksburg and upon Lincoln’s response which was to start to tell a story, he responded, “Bother your stories, Mr. President. That is the way it is with you, sir. It is all story – story. You are the father of every military blunder that has been made during the war. You are on the road to hell, sir, with this Government, and you are not a mile off this minute” to which Lincoln responded, “Wade, that is about the distance from here to the Capitol” (Mr. Lincoln’s White House). Lincoln, razor sharp and quick-witted, often got the better of Wade in their verbal exchanges. Wade never particularly liked Lincoln even though he would support him and said that his views on slavery “could only come of one born of poor white trash and educated in a slave state” (American Battlefield Trust). However, Wade was also known for making his disagreements strong on politics, but in truth he wasn’t big on making things personal. Indeed, in 1855 he had said of Judah P. Benjamin of Louisiana, who would later join the Confederacy, “I will call him a friend. I have no reason to call him anything else, for I have received nothing but kindness and respect at his hands. He being a southern man, I am the last one to assail him for defending his institutions. I have no doubt that if my habits and education had been like his, our positions would have been reversed to-day. I can understand that very well, and make allowances for it” (Trefousse, 68).
During the War of the Rebellion, Wade chaired the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, which covered issues of the war as well as Indian conflicts. In 1864, he coauthored and cosponsored the Wade-Davis bill setting the policy for readmission of Southern states, which required newly admitted states to abolish slavery, hold conventions for new state constitutions, required a majority of white males to pledge the ironclad oath swearing allegiance to the United States and that they had not supported the Confederacy, and barring from public office Confederate officials and veterans. This measure was pocket-vetoed by President Lincoln, who wanted to implement his own more lenient plan for Reconstruction. This, however, did not come to pass with Lincoln’s assassination. The conflict between President Johnson, who wanted lenient Reconstruction while Congressional Republicans sought Reconstruction on harsher terms as well as on terms that protected the rights of freedmen in the newly admitted states, characterized the rest of his time in office.
In 1867, Wade was elected President Pro Tempore, placing him next in line for the presidency as President Johnson had no vice president. However, his stature in Ohio was deteriorating. Wade bet his political career on a ballot measure in Ohio for universal black male suffrage, which failed. That election also saw a Democratic majority in the Ohio State Legislature, and reelection for Wade was coming up in 1869. This meant that if the Democratic majority stayed, he was going to lose reelection. This could be avoided if Andrew Johnson was convicted on his impeachment charges, thus he was strongly in support. If convicted, Senate Pro Tem Wade would have become president until the end of the term. Indeed, one newspaper wrote of Andrew Johnson’s acquittal, “Andrew Johnson is innocent because Ben Wade is guilty of being his successor” (Bomboy). This was certainly known to be the motive of Maine’s William Pitt Fessenden, the first Republican to vote to acquit Johnson, who was among the moderates who despised Wade. All Wade needed was one more vote to have been president. Worse yet for him, although he had been favored to be selected vice president, instead Speaker of the House Schuyler Colfax of Indiana won the nomination. Wade’s defeat for reelection was certainly a source of jubilation for Democrats, who elected Allen G. Thurman, who was opposed to civil rights, keen on curbing the power and influence of railroads, and opposed to high tariffs. Wade would not run for public office again, but would hold several positions in the private and public sector, including serving on a commission to study the proposed annexation of what is today known as the Dominican Republic, and was an elector for Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876. Wade would die on March 2, 1878 at the age of 77. Senator Carl Schurz praised him as “one of the oldest, most courageous, and most highly respected of the antislavery champions” (Trefousse, 73-74).
What Was Wade Ideologically?
There are some things that suggest to modern readers that Wade was left-wing. These include his belief in racial equality (unusual at the time, although liberalism as we know it hadn’t taken up the mantle of racial equality yet), his early support for women’s suffrage, his concern for the betterment of wealth of the working man, and his support for trade unions. Furthermore, Wade’s position for soft currency after the War of the Rebellion also sparked the ire of the business establishment of his day. However, there are significant issues with considering him left-wing.
These issues include that Wade was in his economic beliefs Hamiltonian, got his start in the business-friendly Whig Party, was a strong supporter of the protective tariff, supported the National Bank Act of 1863 for a uniform national currency well in keeping with the views of the Federalist and Whig parties as opposed to chaotic state banks with their own currencies, repeatedly supported legislation that favored railroads including substantial public land grants, and consistent with his stance on railroads sponsored a bill that granted public land to a mining company in the Montana territory. This indicates a willingness to hand over public land to private businesses, which I would think left-wingers would consider an abomination. Furthermore, after his time in the Senate, Wade would serve as a lobbyist for the Northern Pacific Railroad. Although he was undoubtedly sincere in his commitment to Reconstruction and penalizing the Confederates among the Southerners for rebellion, he was also a supporter of many core policies that spurred the Gilded Age and would thus produce the reaction of progressivism. Biographer Hans Trefousse writes of this mix in his stances, “The final charge against Wade was that he was a mere catspaw for powerful capitalists. While it is true that he always supported tariff protection, and while it is equally true that he pushed through the senate a bill to give a group of capitalists control of mining properties in the Far West, he was by no means beholden to industrial interests. Henry Cooke, the banker, thoroughly distrusted Wade’s radicalism, and although his brother Jay later gave the ex-senator a retainer to represent the Northern Pacific Railroad, conservative spokesmen for business had grave misgivings about the Ohioan’s financial orthodoxy” (71). Something also to consider is that Wade himself had been born into a family of modest means and had been a laborer before he started practicing law. For the issues of slavery and Reconstruction, these are strongly based on partisanship and regionalism as opposed to basic liberal/conservative philosophy as we know them today. In 1867, Wade delivered a speech advocating tariffs, stating, “Labor commands no higher reward than I am glad to see it. I hope to God it never will be any lower than it is; for now the real manual laborer gets but a scanty portion of that which he earns. I hope the time will never be when he will be less rewarded than he is now” (Trefousse, 71). He even spoke out of concern for how little the laboring man had as opposed to the wealthy in 1868, and indeed this was the time in which he was voting for the direction of post-war financial policy to be towards soft currency, perhaps suggesting he was moving a little leftward on economics later in his career. Yet, on the scale of liberalism and conservatism from DW-Nominate, he scores a 0.564, which by this measurement makes him the second most conservative senator in his day, in the sense of his backing Hamiltonian and Whig prescriptions which as I noted, were favorable to business. It is also possible for someone to score high on DW-Nominate but nonetheless show a more liberal side to labor issues, such as a figure I wrote about not too long ago in Runt Bishop of Illinois, who scored a 0.609 despite his consistent opposition to measures that curbed the power of organized labor; he voted extremely conservative on many other issues such as foreign policy. Wade stands, by looking at his voting record, as a conservative on fundamental issues that defined the Federalist and Whig parties as “conservative”, but he was indeed a complicated figure and in some ways far ahead of his time.
Mad Politics: The Bizarre, Fascinating, and Unknown of American Political History 