States Do Not Stay the Same, By Parties or Ideology!

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.

Retrieved from

https://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2018/12/30/young-people-changing-black-politics-delaware/2123781002/


The Controversial Career of Owen Brewster

Among the states, I wouldn’t say that Maine was particularly known for making waves with the politicians its voters have sent to the Senate in the 20th century…that is, save for Ralph Owen Brewster (1888-1961). Brewster was, to put it bluntly, considered ugly, one of the ugliest men to have made it big in American politics and perhaps the ugliest since Benjamin Butler. Time Magazine (1935) would describe him as “toothy, slack-jawed” and journalist Jack Anderson in 1979 described him as “billiard-bald on top, cheerless-eyed, meaty-lipped, an appearance dark and gloomy” (Simkin). However, what he lacked in looks he made up for in hard work, diligence, and intelligence. Brewster’s success helped him get married to the daughter of one of Maine’s most prominent citizens. Although in his obituary Brewster would be most noted for his conservatism and opposition to FDR, in his earlier career he was more open to reform and change. He backed both Prohibition and women’s suffrage and initially even endorsed public ownership of water power generation in Maine. Brewster would after call for reform and would battle with holding company magnate Samuel Insull.

The 1924 Gubernatorial Election

In 1924, a rising force in American politics that had factions in both parties was the Ku Klux Klan. This was the second incarnation of the “invisible empire” and this one was the most popular. This Klan was in truth many things; it was of course racist, but it was also anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, nativist, Prohibitionist, and Protestant group that engaged in numerous activities. These included multi-level marketing, summer camps, charity, political lobbying, and most notably in the South, exacting their brand of vigilante justice (usually night whippings) against those they regarded as violating their moral tenets. Unlike the first KKK which was seen only in the South, this Klan was nationwide, and even reached up to Maine, in which their primary prejudice was against French Canadian Catholics. Against what the Republican establishment of the state wanted, a 36-year-old Owen Brewster ran for governor with Klan support. Brewster played a bit of a game on this one; he would maintain a golden silence on the subject of the Klan unless it was to deny he was a member. Indeed, it has never been proven that Brewster was a member. He was supported by the Klan for two reasons: 1. He never condemned them when the press prompted him to do so, and 2. He supported cutting all government aid to parochial schools (which were primarily Catholic). The latter stance Brewster came to independent of the Klan, believing that this was too much government involvement in religion. He had introduced such a measure in the State Senate but it failed as its president, Frank Farrington, was opposed and convinced the Senate to vote it down (Syrett, 218). The GOP establishment of the state, represented most prominently by Governor Percival Baxter, Farrington, Senator Frederick Hale, and Representative Wallace White, were strongly against the Klan for its racial and religious bigotry. However, many white Protestant Americans at the time saw the Klan as a means for social advancement as well as a patriotic and Protestant organization. Although some state Klans had had ugly incidents of vigilantism (particularly in the South), Maine’s was not one of them. Brewster managed to win the nomination narrowly after Governor Baxter found that voter fraud had occurred in an Irish-American ward in Portland (The New York Times). At the time, winning the Republican nomination for a statewide office was tantamount to election in the strongly Republican Maine.

Brewster’s means of rising to power was something of a scarlet letter that could always be used against him. In 1925, he was the second governor to climb Mt. Katahdin (the first was his predecessor). In 1926, ever ambitious, Brewster attempted to win the special election to the Senate after the death of Bert Fernald but lost to the anti-Klan Arthur Gould. In 1928, he again attempted to win a Senate seat by trying to defeat the anti-Klan incumbent Frederick Hale in the primary, but Hale was retained with 63% of the vote. This marked the end of Klan influence in Maine, which had already been declining since the rape and murder conviction of Indiana Klan Grand Dragon D.C. Stephenson. Maine’s Klan leader, DeForest Perkins, resigned in the aftermath of the election. However, the Great Depression, although quite bad for Republican prospects, brought opportunity for Brewster.

Brewster and the Great Depression

In 1932, Brewster defeated Congressman Donald F. Snow for renomination, and this was for the best in truth as Snow would later be sent to the penitentiary for embezzlement. However, he narrowly lost the election to Democrat John Utterback. Brewster would try again in 1934, running on a platform of supporting the Townsend Plan for old age insurance, and this time he would win despite the midterm resulting in net Democratic gains. As a representative, despite his later reputation he would be far from the most conservative of Republicans, and he would support more popular measures such as Social Security and the Fair Labor Standards Act. A few of his diversions from conservatism could be seen as him looking out for his district. For instance, in 1935, he was one of five House Republicans to vote to add potatoes to the crops covered under the Agricultural Adjustment Act. One of the counties in his district, Aroostook, was one of the leading potato growers in the nation, and Brewster called them the “forgotten crop” especially since 36 million pounds of potatoes were in storage and their market value had declined from $1.37 a bushel in 1930 to $0.37 a bushel in 1935, which depressed the county (Hill). Brewster did sustain the party line on certain other subjects, such as housing policy. He also made his displeasure known about Roosevelt’s reciprocal trade policy, which most Republicans opposed, denouncing it as “Alice in Wonderland” economics (Standard-Speaker). In Brewster’s first term, he quickly stirred up controversy when in the aftermath of his conflict with the Roosevelt Administration the Passamaquoddy Tidal Power Project was canceled. He alleged that Maine representatives were pressured by brain truster Thomas Corcoran to support the “Death Sentence” clause of the Public Utilities Holding Company Act in exchange for the Roosevelt Administration’s support of the project; Brewster voted to strike the clause. This was a vote that surprised people given his efforts against holding company baron Samuel Insull as Maine’s governor. Brewster claimed his vote against was a protest against “unethical lobbying” (Hill). However, Corcoran had a witness. His side of the story, in which the “threat” was him telling Brewster that if the administration can’t count on him for the “death sentence” clause of the public utilities bill that they can’t count on him for the Passamaquoddy Tidal Power Project, was backed almost to the exact detail by witness Dr. Ernest Gruening, which made it most likely that Corcoran’s story was the accurate version of events (Time Magazine). Some constituents in Lubec were angry as they regarded Brewster as imperiling funds for the project and hung him in effigy with a sign reading, “our double-crossing Congressman” (Kansas City Journal). Nonetheless, he proved popular in his area of Maine and he was reelected in 1936. Joining him in Congress were Republicans James C. Oliver of the 1st district and Clyde Smith of the 2nd, both supporters of the Townsend Plan. Maine was one of the few places in which the 1936 election was good for Republicans.  

On to the Senate

In 1940, Senator Frederick Hale opted to retire, and this time Brewster won the nomination and succeeded him. Although generally known as a conservative, in truth, as previously noted, his career was a bit more complicated than that, as demonstrated by his support of the Townsend Plan and his interventionist record on foreign policy. Brewster largely supported FDR’s foreign policy before World War II, voting to end the arms embargo in 1939, voting for the peacetime draft in 1940, and Lend-Lease in 1941, but stopped short of supporting permitting merchant ships to enter belligerent ports. While an observer may look at his support from the KKK as evidence of bigotry, there are aspects of his record that defy this characterization; in 1950 he voted to end debate on the Fair Employment Practices bill and voted to kill a Southern effort to undermine army desegregation. Furthermore, Brewster backed increasing the number of refugees admitted to the United States, and this would include a fair number of Jews. During World War II, he was one of the senators selected by Senator Truman to serve on his committee to investigate wartime expenditures. The committee was non-partisan and won great acclaim for its successes in saving taxpayer money and uncovering corrupt practices, thus elevating Truman’s profile enough for him to be nominated vice president in 1944. In 1943, at the age of 55, Brewster decided that he would change the name he would be known by from “Ralph O. Brewster” to “Owen Brewster”. There were two possible reasons for this change; first, to honor his son who had died ten years earlier of the flu at the age of 15, and second, so that people would no longer think of “R.O.B.” when they thought of him. In 1946, Brewster sat on a joint House-Senate committee investigating the attack on Pearl Harbor. The committee concluded that the Roosevelt Administration had not failed to prepare and rather placed the blame on Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and General Walter Short. Brewster along with Michigan’s Homer Ferguson dissented, with the former writing that the late president “was responsible for the failure to enforce continuous, efficient, and appropriate co-operation” in Washington “in evaluating information and dispatching clear and positive orders to the Hawaiian commanders” (The Journal Herald, 1). Both Brewster and Ferguson believed that the inquiry was incomplete. In 1946, the Senate flipped from Democrat to Republican and Brewster was now chairing this committee.

Brewster vs. Howard Hughes

Owen Brewster has not fared well in the court of historical opinion; he was portrayed by Alan Alda in the Leonardo DiCaprio film The Aviator as a villain. As chairman of the committee, he was investigating Hughes and TWA for alleged misspending in government contracts. Hughes proved a tough opponent for Brewster and although journalist Drew Pearson, a staunch New Deal liberal, was not typically inclined to back businessmen like Hughes, he did back him against Brewster, who along with Wisconsin’s Joseph McCarthy and Tennessee’s hot-tempered Kenneth McKellar ranked among his favorite political targets in the Senate. The mood of the committee on Hughes was that he was going to be easy to deal with as he had not too long ago recovered from a major plane accident that nearly killed him (Watt, 40). However, Hughes effectively played against Brewster by making Brewster himself the issue by accusing him of using this probe to try to pressure him into merging his company with Pan Am, which would be convenient for his community airline bill. Thus, the narrative became that Brewster was corruptly carrying water for Pan Am CEO Juan Trippe rather than him conducting a good government investigation on whether a big businessman had schmoozed his way into securing government contracts during wartime only to waste taxpayer money. Brewster waived his senatorial immunity to testify, and it was a bold move and one to try to convey the message that he was being honest. In the course he did admit that the subject of a potential merger with Pan Am had come up but denied that it was being used as leverage against Hughes. However, if he was the villain in this situation and this was a bluff, it didn’t pay off as he came off worse in the court of public opinion. Both men had testified under oath and thus this was yet another incident of Brewster’s word against another’s. Furthermore, the subcommittee chairman who took Brewster’s place in continuing the Hughes matter, Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan, was not in the best state to regulate the situation as he had poison ivy all over his feet (Watt, 41). There was also another possible motive to target Hughes…as a means of targeting the Roosevelts. The Republican 80th Congress was very keen on uncovering anything that possibly went wrong during the Roosevelt Administration and Hughes had a connection to Elliott Roosevelt, thus this was used to attack the old Roosevelt Administration (Watt, 42-43).

Campaign Financing Controversy

Republicans still thought of Brewster highly enough after the Hughes controversy to place him as  head of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee for the 1950 election. The results were good for the GOP, but there was a controversy regarding his neutrality in Republican primaries. Brewster was supposed to be neutral in primaries, and this meant that campaign money could not be used to fund anyone in the primaries. However, Brewster found a way to violate not the letter of the rule but the spirit of the rule by securing a $10,000 loan from the Liberty National bank in Washington and used shadowy middleman Henry Gruenwald to give $5000 each to candidates Richard Nixon of California and Milton Young of North Dakota (Quad-City Times). To his credit, it was Brewster who admitted this so this would not impact Gruenwald. Nixon did not have a contender in the primary who was actually a Republican as California at the time (and now) had an open primary, thus Democratic candidates Helen Gahagan Douglas and Manchester Boddy were also contenders. Young did have a Republican challenger in Thorstein H. Thoresen, formerly North Dakota’s lieutenant governor.

1952 Election

 In 1952, Hughes bankrolled Governor Frederick G. Payne’s primary challenge to Brewster. Payne and Brewster represented two different factions of the party. While Brewster was a strong supporter of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist crusade and supported nominating Ohio’s conservative standard-bearer Robert Taft in 1952, Payne backed picking the more moderate and internationalist General Dwight Eisenhower. Like Eisenhower defeated Taft, Payne narrowly won the primary. The significance of Payne’s win is that this is the only time in Maine’s history that a Republican incumbent senator was defeated for renomination, further underscoring Brewster’s controversial reputation. Not only did the feud with Hughes harm him but also Drew Pearson’s charge of unseemly lobbying by Francoist Spain’s lobbyist Charles Patrick Clark to convince him as well as Rep. Eugene Keogh (D-N.Y.) to sponsor aid to Spain (Hill). Clark would beat up Pearson in retaliation. However, Brewster may have managed to deal a blow to Payne that would hang over his head as a wine bottler claimed that he paid $12,000 to a political influencer to give to Payne for his product to be placed on the shelves of government liquor stores (Hill). Brewster was alleged to be behind these accusations, but he denied it. Although as noted before, he was considered a staunch conservative, the metrics I use indicate that he had voted with the liberal Americans for Democratic Action from 1947 to 1952 20% of the time while his DW-Nominate score was a 0.271. This indicates overall moderate conservatism in his career with his later career being a bit more conservative. Brewster attempted to secure another position both in the Senate and in the White House, but neither effort was successful. In the former case this was particularly a stinging blow as it constituted a rebuke by his former colleagues. Brewster would spend the rest of his life in semi-retirement, and for the last three years of his life he went around advocating for Americans for Constitutional Action, a newly formed conservative organization that was established as a counterpart to the liberal Americans for Democratic Action. Brewster offered himself as a candidate for the Senate in 1958 should Payne have chosen not to run for reelection (Hill). However, Payne did opt to run for reelection, and he lost by over 20 points to Edmund Muskie for reasons that were described in my post last year about the Sherman Adams controversy.

A member of the Christian Science church, Brewster died suddenly while on a Christian Science retreat in Brookline, Massachusetts, on December 25, 1961. His death was unexpected, although he had been suffering from cancer.

My Opinion on Brewster

Owen Brewster was a figure who in many ways maintained a highly clean appearance. He neither smoked nor drank, no hint of scandal existed with his personal life, and he was strongly religious. However, he also had two incidents in which the issue became his word against someone else’s, and he came out on the wrong side of it, at least in the court of public opinion. Brewster also proved willing to use cunning and tricky methods to get things done, such as his underhanded using of the KKK to win public office and his usage of a shadowy middleman to funnel money to Senate candidates against the spirit of the rules of his position. He was also quite interested in taking advantage of causes that were rising in popularity, such as his surreptitious courting of the votes of KKK members, his public support for the fiscally infeasible Townsend Plan, and his support for Joseph McCarthy. Brewster’s conservatism also strikes me as perhaps a bit overly touted when his record gets examine. In all, he was a complicated figure whose personal morality sometimes contrasted with his political methods.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Brewster Declared Winner in Maine. (1924, August 8). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Brewster, Ralph Owen. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/1021/ralph-owen-brewster

Former U.S. Senator Dies. (1961, December 26). Standard-Speaker, 1.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/61225510/

Hill, R. (2024). Owen Brewster of Maine. The Knoxville Focus.

Retrieved from

https://www.knoxfocus.com/archives/this-weeks-focus/owen-brewster-of-maine/

Owen Brewster Dies; Former U.S. Senator. (1961, December 26). The Journal Herald, 1.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/394350317/

Sen. Brewster Tells Trick in Using ‘Conduit’. (1952, March 21). Quad-City Times, 2.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/299380913/

Simkin, J. (1997). Owen Brewster. Spartacus Educational.

Retrieved from

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrewsterO.htm

Syrett, J. (2001). Principle and Expediency: The Ku Klux Klan and Ralph Owen Brewster in 1924. Maine History, 39(4).

Retrieved from

The Congress: Boomerang and Blackjack. (1935, July 22). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6754199/the-congress-boomerang-blackjack/

Unpardonable Sin. (1935, August 17). Kansas City Journal, 11.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/1024050087/

Watt, R.Y. (1979). Oral History Interview. Washington, D.C. United States Senate Historical Office.

Retrieved from

The 1960 Presidential vs. Down Ticket Elections

I recently found a most interesting source on the 1960 election, and it is Congressional Quarterly’s breakdown of the election by district, which tells a fascinating story of the politics of the day. The politics of 1960 stand as a great contrast to contemporary politics. The parties were far more ideologically diverse, although Democrats still got more of the black vote than Republicans, Republicans could still get a significant minority, and both parties were trying to appeal to the white South. Republican Richard Nixon and Democrat John F. Kennedy compared records during the campaign to make their cases of who was the most experienced. Today, experience is often seen as a liability in Washington, as voters regularly clamor for outsiders. Only two candidates who were perceived as establishment rather than outsiders won presidential elections since 1976: George H.W. Bush in 1988 and Joe Biden in 2020, and neither of them served a second term. This was a remarkably close election, and victories could be seen for both parties in all regions of the nation. Kennedy’s top three states paint a varied picture in Rhode Island, Georgia, and Massachusetts. Richard Nixon won in some areas that are out of bounds for Republicans today, such as Portland, Oregon. Although San Francisco was Democratic, it was not as Democratic as it is today, and one of its two House seats was held by a Republican with Nixon coming close to winning that district.

Although one must acknowledge the complexities of politics in 1960 that we don’t see today, such as a substantial contingent of Southern Democrats voting more or less conservative, one sees a considerable difference between Nixon’s electoral performance and the Republicans down ticket. This was highly noticeable in the South, and there were numerous Southern districts that were overdue for a flip to the GOP. Some were predictive of future elections; Alabama’s 9th district (Birmingham), represented by George Huddleston Jr., was the only district Nixon won in the state, and in 1964 the district would flip to the GOP. Same goes for Arkansas’ 3rd district based in Fort Smith, in 1966 that district would flip to the GOP and do so for good. In Florida, Voters in half of its Congressional districts voted for Nixon, but the only House Republican elected was William Cramer of St. Petersburg. Although North Carolina voted for Kennedy, 7 of 12 of its House districts would have elected a Republican if the district vote was the same for president and Congressional candidates, while in reality only Charles Jonas of the 10th district was elected. In Tennessee, 5 of 9 of the districts voted for Nixon as did the state, yet only the standard two Republicans from the 1st and 2nd districts were elected to Congress that year. Republicans were gaining strength in suburban areas of the South, while Democrats retained their large advantage in rural areas. For instance, in Florida’s 3rd district, constituting the state’s western panhandle, Kennedy got the highest percentage of the vote of any of the districts. This area was the most culturally Deep South of any of Florida’s districts, and it would elect Democrats until 1994. This also happens to be the area that Matt Gaetz represented until last year. Among Southern states, Georgia was a great exception to the South being a battleground area, as Kennedy was spectacularly popular in the state, having an even better performance there than in his home state of Massachusetts and winning all districts, putting him narrowly over the top in the Southern vote. Indeed, the Southern vote came out 51-49 for Kennedy. This would make Georgia’s vote for Barry Goldwater in 1964 all the more jarring. However, something to note is that the black vote for Kennedy was considerably stronger than the Southern vote, which was informative for the Democratic Party as to where its future was, with him winning 68% of the demographic. A Democrat getting a figure as low as 68% in the black vote is now unheard of.

This map is also roughly predictive of where Kentucky and Oklahoma are now. In the former, Democrats only won two districts, the 1st based in Paducah which came the closest in the state to seceding during the War of the Rebellion, and the 7th, represented by liberal Carl Perkins. In the latter, only the 3rd district with Carl Albert, known as “Little Dixie”, voted for Kennedy. Yet, both states only sent one Republican to Congress from the House, although Kentucky strongly voted to reelect Republican Senator John Sherman Cooper, a popular maverick. On the state level, Missouri was strongly Democratic with both its senators and 9 out of 11 of its representatives being Democrats, but Nixon won 7 of 11 of its districts, only losing in the districts based around St. Louis and Kansas City.

In the West Coast, Nixon outperformed down ticket Republicans in California and in Oregon, winning all districts in the latter. However, Oregon’s status as a Republican state was going downhill, as President Eisenhower’s land use and private power policies were not popular among the state’s voters. Even though the state’s voters went for Eisenhower twice, Republicans in the state took a beating for it, and they since haven’t gone back to the level of power they had before the Eisenhower Administration. Washington, on the other hand, sent a curiously mixed delegation to Congress: 5 of its 7 representatives were Republican yet both of its senators were Democrats, and the state narrowly pulled the lever for Nixon. Republicans outperformed Nixon in the state, but this wouldn’t last, and by 1968, the state would be down to two House Republicans and Nixon would lose it.

Former House Speaker Joe Martin (R-Mass.), who hung on despite Kennedy winning his district on account of his status as an institution in his district.

Although Nixon outperformed Republican candidates in the Midwest and Border States and especially the South, Congressional Republicans outperformed Nixon in eight states: the aforementioned Washington, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, prominent moderate Republican William Scranton would be elected from the Scranton-based 10th district while Nixon lost. Nixon way outperformed Republicans in the South, as voters were used to the idea of splitting their tickets. In Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy won in all of the Congressional districts and the state was his third best, but this did not translate into any defeats in the 6 House seats Republicans held nor did it result in the defeat of moderate Republican Senator Leverett Saltonstall, whose politics were pretty much perfectly calibrated for a Republican in the state; conservative enough to not tick off the GOP base but also liberal enough for him to have considerable crossover appeal. Another example of a successful Republican in the Bay State was former Speaker of the House Joe Martin, who had been in office since 1925 and who was holding on in a district that had been starting to vote Democratic as he was an institution, the many favors he had done for his constituents, and his increasingly moderate voting record. The performance of John F. Kennedy in 1960 in Massachusetts can be seen as predictive for the long-term of the state, which since 1997 has had an entirely Democratic delegation to Congress save for 2010-2013, when Republican Scott Brown served in the Senate. The only states in which Kennedy had a better performance were Georgia and Rhode Island, which reflects the highly dual nature of the Democratic Party at the time. Indeed, both candidates sought to appeal to black and Southern white votes. The House leadership team was Speaker Sam Rayburn of Texas and Majority Leader John W. McCormack of Massachusetts in what was known as the “Austin-Boston Connection”. Delaware was an interesting case, as although it gave Kennedy a victory, Republican Cale Boggs defeated Democratic Senator J. Allen Frear for reelection, but at this time Boggs was viewed as more liberal than Frear, who had often frustrated Democratic leadership with his conservative voting record. Delaware’s sole Congressman, liberal Democrat Harris McDowell, was reelected. Nixon also handily won Vermont, which at this time had the longest streak of voting for Republicans for president, but it should be noted that this would be broken in 1964 and neither its senators nor sole representative were of the conservative wing of the party.

The Strange Cases of Alabama and Mississippi

The South was competitive ground in the 1960 election, but there was a complication: the State’s Rights Party. They ran uncommitted slates of electors in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Although not enough traction was gained for a difference to be made in Louisiana, they had impact in Alabama and Mississippi. Although they were far from the only Jim Crow states, they were the most disaffected by the civil rights movement and this impacted how the states were voting this year. Alabama had the single strangest way of voting of any state that year, as people who voted Democratic were clearly voting for a slate of electors, with some pledged for Kennedy and others not pledged, for president. The percentage of the vote tabulated in Alabama thus doesn’t technically go to Kennedy, rather Democratic electors. The Democratic electors won, and Alabama’s electoral vote was split 6 for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia and 5 for Kennedy. A controversy remains to this day as to whether Nixon could be said to have won the popular vote in a plurality in Alabama because of this split.  

Mississippi was the only state that year to not cast electoral votes for either Nixon or Kennedy, with the state being won by “unpledged electors”, who cast their votes for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia. Kennedy got the lowest percentage of the vote here of any state, and Mississippi would go even further in its rejection of the national Democrats in the 1964 election with 87% of its voters (at the time nearly all white) voting for Goldwater. Kennedy’s Catholicism in many areas of Mississippi was seen as suspect, and they were generally aware that he was a liberal, which didn’t play well there.

Alternative Scenario: Presidential and Down Ticket Votes Mirror Each Other

An interesting conclusion can be drawn if we present an alternate scenario in which the Republican Party down ticket is just as popular as Nixon: Kennedy would have faced a Republican House with Republicans getting 227 seats as opposed to the Democrats’ 207, although what happens in Alabama and Mississippi in this scenario is quite disputable. While the Senate would have stayed Democratic given the drubbing Republicans suffered in 1958, but they would have gained four seats instead of two. This would have made Kennedy’s presidency more difficult. The popularity of down ticket candidates for the Democratic Party can be attributed to there being many Democratic voters willing to split their tickets. Indeed, ticket splitting was far stronger in 1960 than it is today, although this is because we have what are called ideologically responsible parties with a lot less ideological wiggle room. Furthermore, back in 1960, Democrats had a 17 million voter registration advantage, far more than they have today. I have also included below a sheet that makes the data a bit easier to read than CQ’s source. Bold italics indicate Republican Congressional winners while D and R designations indicate the presidential winner of the district. Alabama is asterisked due to its unique way of counting Democratic votes, thus percentages reflect votes for Democratic electors rather than Kennedy.

1960 Election Results:

References

1960 Official Vote In Each State, All Congressional Districts. CQ Almanac 1961. Congressional Quarterly Press.

Retrieved from

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal61-879-29204-1371757#=

1960 United States presidential election. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election

The 1932 Election: The Triumph of Triumphs for the Democrats

The Republican Party was in terrible trouble in 1932. President Herbert Hoover was deeply unpopular and for multiple reasons; an economy in depression with over 20% unemployment and rising and a president who appeared to many voters as doing little, Hoover stubbornly clinging to Prohibition while public opinion was strongly souring on it, and the cherry on top was the disastrous dispersing of the bonus marchers. The news only seemed to be getting worse over the months. The 1930 midterms had already been bad for the GOP, with the House becoming Democratically controlled after the deaths of 14 representatives, including Speaker of the House Nicholas Longworth (R-Ohio).

On the presidential level, Democratic candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt soundly defeated Herbert Hoover, winning all but six states with 472 electoral votes and 57.4% of the popular vote, with Hoover only holding on in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Only William Howard Taft’s loss in 1912 was worse for a Republican candidate. He would be on the outs in the political scene until after FDR’s death, and he was able to serve as an elder statesman.

The losses Republicans sustained in Congress were arguably more disastrous than the presidential election, with them losing a whopping 101 seats. This gave Democrats 313 seats in the House, outnumbering Republicans by nearly 200. In Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Oklahoma, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia Republicans suffered a complete wipeout, with all House seats going to the Democrats. Delaware’s and Nevada’s only House seats went Democratic too. Democrats had their largest gains in Illinois (seven seats), Iowa (five seats), Michigan (six seats), Ohio (seven seats), and Pennsylvania (net of seven seats). Further helping Democratic gains was the population growth in the cities, which were voting increasingly Democratic.  

Some of the most notable House freshmen in this election included Republican Everett Dirksen of Illinois, Democrat Guy Gillette of Iowa, Democrat John Dingell Sr. of Michigan, Democrat William M. Colmer of Mississippi, Republican Charles Tobey of New Hampshire, Republican William Lemke of North Dakota (Union Party candidate for president in 1936), Democrat Stephen Young of Ohio, Democrat Francis E. Walter of Pennsylvania, Democrat James P. Richards of South Carolina, Democrat Willis Robertson of Virginia, and Democrat Jennings Randolph of West Virginia.

In the Senate, Democrats won 12 seats from Republicans, a glorious result for the former and a catastrophic one for the latter. This would also be the last time Democrats ever won a Senate seat from Kansas. Notable victories for Democrats included former Secretary of the Treasury William G. McAdoo in California over incumbent Republican Samuel Shortridge, Democrat Elbert Thomas besting Republican Reed Smoot (as in, “Smoot-Hawley Tariff”) in Utah, Fred Brown narrowly dispatching stalwart conservative incumbent George Moses in New Hampshire, future Senate powerhouse Pat McCarran knocking out popular incumbent Tasker Oddie in Nevada, and Fred Van Nuys ending the career of Senate Majority Leader James Watson of Indiana. Democrat Joe Robinson of Arkansas, who had been the vice-presidential candidate in 1928, was now elevated to majority leader and would loyally shepherd the passage of major New Deal legislation in the Senate. Notable Senate freshmen included McAdoo of California and McCarran of Nevada. Democrat Hattie Caraway of Arkansas, first appointed by Arkansas’ governor after her husband’s death, was elected to a full term, the first time a woman was elected to the Senate. Of the Republicans who lost in the Senate in this election, only John Thomas of Idaho would return. With 59 senators and 313 representatives, the Democrats were more than well-positioned to enact newly elected President Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda. This was the single greatest election for the Democrats in their history, and the last one in which the House shifted by over 100 seats.

The 1932 election marked a sea change in the direction of politics in the United States. The legacy of FDR not only with numerous groundbreaking policies but also his navigation through two different major crises proved endearing, and he was highly successful at courting union workers and black voters in his direction while keeping Southern whites in the party. This would be known as the New Deal coalition, and it would hold for over three decades. Until 1994, Republicans would only win the House in two elections and the Senate in five elections and although the New Deal coalition was cracked in 1968, the Democratic brand remained solid even when their presidential candidates lost in landslides. Many people could just as easily vote for the Republican presidential candidate as they did their Democratic representative or senator.

References

1932 United States House of Representatives elections. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

1932 United States presidential election. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_United_States_presidential_election

1932 United States Senate elections. Wikipedia.

Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_United_States_Senate_elections

The 1950 Election: A Conservative Midterm

The 1946 election was thought of by Republicans as a repudiation of the New Deal and proceeded thusly in the 80th Congress. However, President Truman’s campaigning prowess in 1948 combined with Republican Thomas Dewey’s overly safe and bland campaign produced Democratic victory.

The 1950 election, although not producing Republican majorities, resembled in theme the sort of election they thought the 1946 midterms had been – an ideological referendum. The 1946 midterms had been primarily motivated by the scarcity of meat as well as a general fatigue with Democratic rule. In this election, the Korean War and anti-communism figured heavily. It was in 1950 in which Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) made his famous Wheeling speech in which he spoke of a list of communists in his hand, and indeed the results were favorable in his direction. Republicans gained 26 seats from the Democrats in the House and 5 in the Senate, and although this didn’t constitute a majority, it further strengthened the Conservative Coalition, an alliance of conservative Republicans and Southern Democrats against numerous liberal Democratic legislative priorities which had already blocked most of President Truman’s Fair Deal proposals. Furthermore, several key Senate Democratic primaries resulted in the more conservative candidate winning.

Notable House Results:

In California, Republicans win back the Fresno-based 9th district with Allan O. Hunter against incumbent Cecil F. White. President Truman had specifically campaigned against the district’s Republican incumbent, Bud Gearhart, in 1948, and it contributed to his loss.

In Colorado, Republican J. Edgar Chenoweth wins back his seat in the 3rd district from John Marsalis.

In Connecticut, Republican Horace Seely-Brown regains the 2nd district seat, which he lost in the 1948 election to Democrat Chase G. Woodhouse.

In Idaho, Republican John Travers Wood wins an open seat in the 1st district. An interesting tidbit about Wood; although by this time he is an arch-conservative Republican, he had been the Socialist mayor of Coeur d’Alene almost 40 years earlier. His 1950 opponent, Gracie Pfost, would defeat him for reelection in 1952.

In Illinois, Republicans gained four seats in Cook County, including the returns of Richard B. Vail in the 2nd district and Fred Busbey in the 3rd district, who had been defeated in 1948. This was before Democrats were able to lock in dominance of Chicago with the Daley machine.  

In Indiana, the Democratic gains of 1948 were reversed, with Republicans winning five seats and Democrats going back to having only two seats.

In Maryland, Republican James Devereux defeated conservative Democrat William Bolton for reelection in the 2nd district.

In Missouri, Republicans gain two seats, although far from a recovery of their 1948 losses, in which they suffered a near complete wipeout in their House delegation, with only Springfield’s Dewey Short retaining his seat. Four of the Republicans defeated in 1948 fall short of comebacks.

In Nebraska, Republican Howard Buffett (Warren’s father) wins back his Omaha-based seat he lost in 1948.

In New York, Democrats get wrecked in upstate New York, losing all but the Albany district, which has seldom voted Republican in its history. They do gain one in Long Island with Ernest Greenwood defeating Republican W. Kingsland Macy. The most notable defeat, however, is that of American Labor Party’s Vito Marcantonio. Marcantonio was a radical who had been the only member of Congress to vote against the use of force in the Korean War and was openly pro-Soviet. The Democrats and Republicans united to back Democrat James G. Donovan to defeat him.

In Ohio, four Democrats lost reelection to Republicans. The most interesting race, however, was Democrat Thomas H. Burke’s defeat for reelection in the 9th district by Independent Frazier Reams, a former Democrat who achieves victory by bashing both Democratic and Republican leadership and when accused of being a “carpetbagger” by DNC Chairman Michael Kirwan he responded by carrying a carpet bag to his campaign events.

In Oklahoma, Republicans George Schwabe and Page Belcher were elected to the 1st and 8th districts, ending the very last session of Congress in which Republicans would be unrepresented in the state.

Republicans gain two seats in Pennsylvania. However, in Philadelphia Republicans Hardie Scott and Hugh Scott come close to losing reelection. For Republicans, this presaged the 1951 Philadelphia mayoral election which would break Republican dominance in the city’s politics for good. Both Scotts would be succeeded in their seats by Democrats and only one other Republican would win a Congressional seat in Philadelphia after.  

In South Carolina, Democrat Hugo Sims, as much of a liberal as one could be in South Carolina and win office at the time, lost renomination to John J. Riley.

In Tennessee, Republicans changed out both of their members of Congress in primaries; Republican maverick Dayton Phillips was defeated in the first district by longtime politician B. Carroll Reece, and party liner John Jennings was defeated in the second district by the more moderate Howard Baker Sr. 

In Texas, Republican Ben H. Guill loses reelection to Democrat Walter E. Rogers. Guill had been elected in a special election after the resignation of Democrat Francis Worley.

West Virginia continues its Democratic trend, with efforts by the three Republicans who lost reelection in 1948 to make a comeback failing and former Senator Rush Holt, now a Republican, falling short in his bid against the 3rd district’s Cleveland Bailey.

In Wisconsin, Republican Charles Kersten defeats Democrat Andrew Biemiller for reelection. This would be the last time that a Republican would defeat a Democratic incumbent member of Congress from Milwaukee.

Other Notes:

This would be the last election in which no Republicans would be elected to represent Arizona, North Carolina, and Virginia in either chamber of Congress.

Although Democrats retain all their seats in North Carolina, Hamilton Jones of the 10th district coming within five points of losing is an omen for his 1952 loss to Republican Charles Jonas, who holds the seat until the Nixon Administration. Democrats do not get quite such a warning with their holds in Virginia, as Republicans would gain three seats there in 1952. 

Notable Senate Results

In California, Republican Congressman Richard Nixon defeats Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas in a campaign in which he compares her record to that of radical Congressman Vito Marcantonio and pushes the narrative of her as the “pink lady”.

In Connecticut, Democrat Brien McMahon is reelected over the candidacy of former Congressman Joseph Talbot, who runs a milquetoast campaign. In its special Senate election, Democrat William Benton prevails by a hair over Republican Prescott Bush, but Bush would win election to the Senate in 1952.

In Florida, liberal Democrat Claude Pepper, whose voting record and ill-advised praise of the USSR had gotten him nicknamed “Red Pepper” by his opponents, was defeated for renomination by Congressman George Smathers. Smathers wins the election overwhelmingly as Republicans are not yet competitive in Florida.

In Idaho, Senator Glen H. Taylor (D-Idaho), a staunch left-winger, was defeated for renomination in the Democratic primary by former Senator D. Worth Clark, who in turn lost the election to the extremely conservative Republican Herman Welker.

In Illinois, Senate Majority Leader Scott Lucas (D-Ill.) is defeated by former Congressman Everett Dirksen. This turns out to be a blessing in disguise for Lucas, as the strain of his office had resulted in a heart attack and his doctor had come to believe that had he won another term, he would have died in a year. Lucas instead lived until 1968.

In Maryland, Senator Millard Tydings was defeated for reelection by Republican John Marshall Butler. Senator Joseph McCarthy had a special interest in this race as Tydings had headed a committee that investigated McCarthy’s charges of subversion in government and, in a partisan vote of the committee, declared them a fraud and a hoax. Butler’s campaign thus had a lot of assistance from McCarthy’s staff.

In Missouri, the conservative trend goes the opposite way, with former Congressman Thomas Hennings defeating Republican incumbent Forrest Donnell. This indicates that Missouri’s going to be staying in the Democratic column for a while, and indeed it does; another Republican senator would not be elected from Missouri until 1976.

In New Hampshire, an effort by regular Republican Senator Styles Bridges to get fellow Republican Charles Tobey primaried falls short. Although Tobey had started out in the Senate as one of its most conservative members, his record shifted to the left after he came close to losing reelection in 1944, and his voting record only moved further to the left after his much stronger performance in the 1950 election.

In North Carolina, although the seat remains Democratic as the state is still of the “Solid South”, the primary is a fundamental battle between liberalism and conservatism, with liberal Frank Porter Graham losing his bid for a full term (he was appointed by Governor W. Scott Kerr) to conservative Willis Smith in a race that was also characterized by racist campaigning on the part of numerous Smith supporters.  

In Ohio, Robert Taft, despite organized labor gunning for his defeat for the Taft-Hartley Act, is reelected solidly.

In Pennsylvania, liberal Democratic Senator Francis Myers is defeated for reelection by moderate Republican James Duff.

In South Carolina, incumbent Senator Olin Johnston survives a primary challenge from Governor Strom Thurmond. Thurmond would become Johnston’s colleague in the Senate with the 1954 election and flip to the GOP in 1964, serving until 2003, when he was 100 years old!  

In South Dakota, Republican Senator Chan Gurney is defeated for renomination by Congressman Francis Case, who wins the election. The differences between the men are that Gurney is to Case’s right on domestic issues, but Case is to Gurney’s right on foreign policy, having been a non-interventionist before Pearl Harbor while Gurney had been an interventionist and having voted against the Marshall Plan while Gurney voted for.

In Utah, Senator Elbert Thomas, who had defeated Republican Reed Smoot (the Smoot of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff) in the 1932 election, was defeated for reelection by Republican Wallace Bennett. The seat has remained Republican since.

Frank Hague, The Dictator of Jersey City, Part II: The Apex of Power

Although Hague had managed to get the lesser of the Republicans in his view, that Republican nonetheless won the gubernatorial election and indeed New Jersey had a Republican wave with Herbert Hoover winning the state by 20 points; only Hudson County voted for Democrat Al Smith. Hague had had a good run of the 1920s up to this point, having Democrats Edward I. Edwards and A. Harry Moore as governors, who could be counted on to do what Hague wanted. The same was not true for Republican Morgan F. Larson, even though Hague had collaborated with Republican Atlantic City boss Nucky Johnson to elevate him over Democrat William Dill (Murray, 26). The Republican-controlled legislature sought to take down Hague, and they focused on an area in which he was vulnerable – taxes.

Hague’s Trouble with Taxes

Frank Hague’s city government taxed quite high for the services it provided as well as for a bloated public payroll; not all “jobs” came with functions. Indeed, the cost to taxpayers for Jersey City’s government was over four times that of Kansas City and New Orleans, also ruled by bosses and both with about 100,000 more people (Life Magazine).

As mayor of Jersey City, Frank Hague’s annual salary did not exceed $8500 annually. Yet, Hague, who came from modest means, was worth millions now, and the only income he ever reported to the Treasury was his mayoral income. In addition to other sources I mentioned in my last post, he received protection money from horse gambling establishments that ran numbers rackets, and Jersey City got the reputation of being the “Horse Bourse” (Fleming). He also would receive bribes at his office. There was a desk in which the visitor would place cash on the drawer on his side, and it would come out on Hague’s side (Isherwood). Although he was compelled to answer questions about his taxes to the New Jersey legislature, he refused to answer, and they cited him for contempt. However, the Court of Errors and Appeals ruled that the legislature lacked the authority to probe an individual for felonies, only the courts did. Hague did end up having to pay $60,000 to settle with the Federal government, and his reputation as a reformer mayor was gone. In 1929, he would face his closest call as mayor against James F. Murray, a young reform Democrat, but prevailed in an election in which between 20-30% of signatures in the poll book were fraudulent and numerous people were paid to vote multiple times (Murray, 24). Throughout his career he continued to make millions while only paying the taxes on his mayoral salary. Perhaps this would have been the beginning of the end of his reign had it not been for the Great Depression, and Republicans became highly unpopular nationwide. The Great Depression also helped Hague as his machine kept on going and kept supplying public jobs, a source of relief for numerous Jersey City residents (Fleming). He might have run into more trouble with his taxes had he not gained a crucial partner in politics…Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

FDR and Hague…a Quid Pro Quo Partnership

Hague, Roosevelt, and Governor A. Harry Moore, 1932

With the Great Depression in full swing, the Democrats were in the perfect position to win the next election, but who was the nominee going to be? Hague had a history of loyalty to New York’s Al Smith and indeed he initially endorsed Smith for the primary, even attacking Roosevelt by asserting that despite him being New York’s governor that he could not “carry a single state east of the Mississippi and very few in the Far West” (Fleming). However, New York City’s James A. Farley outmaneuvered him at the Democratic National Convention and FDR won the primary. Hague came around to FDR and he offered to host his first general election campaign rally. Roosevelt’s general election campaign kicked off in Sea Girt, New Jersey, on August 27, 1932, with Hague managing to get a turnout of 120,000, an incredible figure (Congressman Frank J. Guarini Library). Hague had also hosted a rally for Al Smith at Sea Girt in 1928. Although Democrats today are expected to win New Jersey in Federal elections, this was far from always the case; in 1930 Republican Dwight Morrow had won a Senate seat by nearly 20 points, and although Roosevelt’s win was a landslide in 1932, he only won New Jersey by 2 points, and that he won at all was thanks to Hudson County. Roosevelt was thankful for Hague’s help and directed Federal patronage in New Jersey to him; usually patronage went to a Democratic governor (at the start of the Roosevelt Administration it was Hague front man A. Harry Moore) or the leading Democratic senator in a state. This gave Hague all the more power, and he used the $47 million he would receive in Works Progress Administration funds for Jersey City to construct Roosevelt Stadium as well as finish the aforementioned Jersey City Medical Center. From 1936 to 1943, New Jersey would receive over $400 million in Works Progress Administration funds, one of the highest for a state (Murray, 23). Although Hague’s influence was already a bit national with his post as vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, it was furthered now. Although Roosevelt is seen as an anti-machine politician and he denied patronage to New York City’s Tammany Hall, he let it flow to Hague’s machine. Hague also managed to get Moore elected to the Senate in 1934. In 1936, Roosevelt won reelection in New Jersey by 20 points, and Republican Senator Warren Barbour lost reelection. In 1940, Hague, along with Mayor Ed Kelly of Chicago (who ran his own corrupt machine), started up the push for Roosevelt to be nominated for a third term, which propelled him to win the primary and general election. Hague would also be of great help in the 1944 election. He was indispensable to Roosevelt, and both benefited from each other. However, this meant that sometimes Hague had to do things for Roosevelt that he’d rather not do, such as support Charles Edison for governor in 1940, but the full telling of that will be for part III.

Hague’s Other Pals

Hague managed to command many allies in New Jersey, including from both parties. Quick to court women voters once they gained suffrage, he got Mary Teresa Norton into politics, and got her elected to Congress representing Jersey City’s southern wards. Norton would be the sponsor of the Fair Labor Standards Act, also known as the law that established the Federal minimum wage. The first Democratic governor that he managed to get in, Edward I. Edwards, who served from 1920 to 1923, allowed Hague to raise taxes on corporations substantially, got him some allies on the public utility commission as well as on the Hudson County tax board and board of elections (Congressman Frank J. Guarini Library). He was allied to him until 1930, when he wanted to again be governor, but by this time Edwards’ career, finances, and general well-being were in free-fall, and after a skin cancer diagnosis the next year he took his own life. Hague’s success in electing Edwards in the 1919 election got him elected the chairman of the New Jersey Democratic Party, a position he would hold for 29 years. George Silzer was another who owed his career to Hague, serving from 1923 to 1926. He most importantly picked Hague’s choice for prosecutor of Hudson County (Frank J. Guarini Library). Hague’s greatest front man statewide, however, was A. Harry Moore, who served as governor from 1926 to 1929, 1931 to 1934, and 1937 to 1940. Hague had befriended Moore early in his career and the man had some advantages to him. First, Moore was Protestant (possibly the first Hague ever met), which made a difference in the minds of numerous voters back then as opposed to the majority Catholic population of Jersey City. Second, he had fiscally conservative tendencies (as a senator he was one of only three Democrats to oppose Social Security), which made him more palatable to Republican voters and let him get on fine with the Republican-controlled legislature. However, Moore most critically would be a party organization man up and down, meaning that he would support what Hague wanted in appointments, patronage, etc. This was especially vital when it came to getting a county prosecutor, thus Hague could direct prosecutions as he pleased. He liked Moore so much that he helped get him elected governor three times and tried to recruit him for a fourth time and got him a Senate seat. However, Moore’s credibility was damaged in his third term after he tapped Hague’s son, who had twice failed to get through law school yet passed the bar, to the Court of Errors and Appeals, the highest court in New Jersey at the time. When Moore exited the Senate in 1937 to serve again as governor, his temporary replacement, John Milton, was Hague’s longtime attorney. Speaking of the state’s highest court, he managed to get his crony, his corporate counsel Thomas J. Brogan, tapped by Governor Moore to be its chief justice, and he served from 1933 to 1946. Hague was able to get some Republican state senators to back him up, which helped him exert some influence over that legislative body, but he was never able to exert control over the Assembly, which was Republican and was just itching to find a way to get him out of office. As for his Republican friends…

“Hague Republicans”

Frank Hague not only managed to become the leading figure of the Democratic Party in Hudson County and New Jersey, he came to dominate the Hudson County Republican Party and command some statewide influence through some of his followers registering Republican in Hudson County. As I wrote in part one, 20,000 people who registered Republican in Hudson County were able to tip the results of the 1928 Republican gubernatorial primary. The Hudson County Board of Elections also had Hague Republicans at the helm, and he managed to turn Republican T. James Tumulty to supporting him (and switching parties) after offering him a job, but the most prominent Hague Republican was Harold G. Hoffman.

In 1934, Democrat William Dill was running for governor again, and although officially backed by Hague, he lost the election to Hoffman, a personally popular figure. Hague turned out to be pretty fine with Hoffman as governor as he likely knew that Hoffman had sticky fingers; per Hoffman’s confession letter revealed after his death he had throughout his political career embezzled over $300,000 from the government positions he had held (Murray, 2024, 58-60). Thus, he made deals with Hague and provided considerable patronage for his machine and came to him for support after Republicans soured on him for his backing of a sales tax. Hoffman also supported certifying the election before an investigation was done, did not support any investigations into Hudson County voting practices, and refused to back the recount of the 1937 election in which A. Harry Moore was once again elected governor (Murray, 2024, 58). Speaking of the 1937 election…

The Stolen Gubernatorial Election

In 1937, Hague faced yet another figure in the GOP he didn’t want to contend with in Lester H. Clee, who he hadn’t been able to prevent from winning the nomination. Clee was a strong opponent of the Hague machine and was eager to act against him. Hague had a lot to potentially lose, and on Election Night 1937 Clee was leading by 80,000 votes…at least until the results of Hudson County were tabulated, and Moore came out over 45,000 votes ahead statewide. The official tally had Moore leading Clee by 129,137 votes in Hudson County while Democrat William Dill had led Harold Hoffman by 89,127 votes in 1934 (Murray, 33).

The Hague machine went all out to prevent the election of Lester Clee, and the Republican legislature sought a recount. There was undoubtedly fraud that came out of the election results of Hudson County, as the number of people who were recorded as having voted exceeded the number of eligible people. Some examples of fraud included a rabbi who had moved to Massachusetts three years earlier was recorded as having voted in Hudson County, an institutionalized man was recorded as voting, and people who were confirmed dead were recorded as having voted (Johnson). The recount was performed, but Clee didn’t gain much. The case went up to the Court of Errors and Appeals, and Hague’s man, Brogan, was invaluable in defending the machine from judicial consequences, only permitting a retabulating of cast ballots, not an investigation into the integrity of the election itself (Murray, 38). The high court declined to investigate the election, thus the Assembly pursued the investigation. What the legislature needed was access to the registration list and poll books, and that was something the Hague forces blocked with numerous tactics, including a claim that Board of Elections Commissioner Charles Stoebling, a Republican tied to Harold Hoffman and had custody over the records, was desperately ill at home. Ultimately, the New Jersey legislature was unable to procure the books, as Jersey City police blocked access to the records (Murray, 53). Furthermore, the Hudson County Board of Elections stuck behind Hague (as they were wont to do) and outgoing Republican Governor Harold Hoffman, as mentioned earlier, was outspoken in his support of the election outcome, and his appointees, including the superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, were not inclined to help with the investigation. Democratic Attorney General David Wilentz, another Hague man, went against the investigation. Hoffman’s allegiance with Hague permanently damaged his standing with New Jersey Republicans, and when he sought the nomination for governor in 1940, which was publicly supported by Hague, he was defeated, the nomination going to anti-Hague Republican and future Senator Robert Hendrickson. The investigation came to a screeching halt when the Court of Errors and Appeals ruled 12-3 that it was unconstitutional (Murray, 59).  In 1940, the Senate decided to investigate the 1937 gubernatorial election, but they found that when they asked for the voting books of that election that they had been burned. No, this was not customary; other voting books had not been burned.

Hague’s Quirks

Mayor Hague was eager to counter stereotypes about the Irish and drunkenness, thus he was a resolute teetotaler throughout his life. Although his political career had started out with a loan from a saloon owner, he didn’t come there to drink alcoholic beverages, rather because he had realized this was where local political discussions occurred and where the local political power was. This didn’t just apply to him, if you were seated at a table with Hague, you were not to order an alcoholic beverage, and it was known that at dinners in which Hague was in attendance that people could not start ordering alcoholic beverages until he left, which he would before everyone else (Fleming). He also did not smoke and was a hypochondriac. Although there was much vice in his political behavior, there was no evidence of him straying from his marriage. This is similar to fellow Irish Catholic boss Jim Curley of Boston, who was highly politically corrupt but faithful to his wife.   

Hague vs. the CIO and Communists

An anti-communist rally held by Mayor Hague

Frank Hague was initially a supporter of unions and could get along fine with the American Federation of Labor (AFL), which represented skilled craft laborers. However, in the 1930s a new union arose in the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). This union was more radical than the AFL and represented unskilled laborers, and when they tried to get into Jersey City, Hague was hostile. He already taxed high for his government, and he was eager to attract business to the city. One way he could do that was to block the CIO. Union organizers were arrested for handing out leaflets on the streets. Hague was once alleged to have said “I am the law”, and although the truth has a little more context to it than that, it is undoubtedly true that this was the reality in Jersey City. He also banned the CIO from conducting meetings and no establishment would risk hosting them lest a city inspector come along and inevitably find code “violations” (Fleming). Hague justified his actions on the grounds that he believed that the CIO organizers were communists. His understanding of communism, however, seemed a bit limited. He said in one speech to the Jersey City Chamber of Commerce, “We hear about constitutional rights, free speech and free press. Every time I hear these words I say to myself, “That man is a Red, that man is a Communist” (Vernon, 96). Despite Hague’s stated opposition to communism, he had some similarities to them. His hospital and maternity were mostly funded with public money and his approach has even been called “municipal socialism” (Congressman Frank J. Guarini Library). During this time it was discovered that Mayor Hague was tapping phones, a part of the police state he ran. Hague used a Jersey City ordinance requiring permits from the chief of police for the leasing of any hall, which invariably would not be granted to the CIO thus preventing meetings of any substantive size, to justify his repression of the CIO. However, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, which struck down Jersey City’s ordinance as unconstitutional 5-2 in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (1939). This whole affair presented a terrible difficulty for the Roosevelt Administration, which counted both Hague and the CIO as major supporters, and the Roosevelt Administration did not intervene despite calls from the CIO to do so. Hague was ultimately forced to let the CIO in. Although his understanding of communism was not impressive, it is nonetheless true that there was a significant communist presence in the CIO and some chapters were outright dominated by communists. Although Hague was brought to heel on this one by the Supreme Court, he was still in the heyday of his power. This would start to change in 1940, when Hague would have to contend with one of Thomas Edison’s sons, Charles Edison.

References

Fleming, T. (1969, June). The Political Machine II: A Case History “I Am The Law”. American Heritage, 20(4).

Retrieved from

https://www.americanheritage.com/political-machine-ii-case-history-i-am-law

Frank Hague. Congressman Frank J. Guarini Library.

Retrieved from

https://njcu.libguides.com/hague

Isherwood, D. (2013, December 2). More information surfaces on Jersey City “mystery safes”. NJ.com.

Retrieved from

https://www.nj.com/politics/2013/12/more_information_surfaces_on_jersey_city_mystery_safes.html

Jersey City’s Mayor Hague: Last of the Bosses, Not First Of The Dictators. (1938, February 7). Life Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://www.cityofjerseycity.org/hague/life/haguespeople.shtml

Murray, J.M. (2023). The Real “Stolen Election”: Frank Hague and New Jersey’s 1937 Race for Governor. NJS: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20-67.

Retrieved from

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiu8_37ttOMAxVUITQIHX0LDycQFnoECBkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnjs.libraries.rutgers.edu%2Findex.php%2Fnjs%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F353%2F420%2F779&usg=AOvVaw2UBoSE4-_ie9MeZyy_T5b3&opi=89978449

Murray, J.M. (2024). Research Notes: The Real “Stolen Election”: Frank Hague and New Jersey’s 1937 Race for Governor. NJS: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 57-60.

Retrieved from

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiFmeWzqdSMAxXCMDQIHVjJFg0QFnoECCAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnjs.libraries.rutgers.edu%2Findex.php%2Fnjs%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F353%2F420%2F779&usg=AOvVaw2UBoSE4-_ie9MeZyy_T5b3&opi=89978449

Vernon, L.F. (2011). The life and times of Jersey City mayor Frank Hague: I am the law. Mount Pleasant, SC: Arcadia Publishing.

Frank Hague, The Dictator of Jersey City, Part I

Frank Hague (1876-1956) is a forgotten name among many outside Jersey City today, but he was among the foremost political bosses of his time and the control he exerted over Jersey City was so extensive and the means he used to win were such that they surpassed election law. He had a strong quid pro quo relationship with FDR and used Hudson County to decide races for governor in New Jersey.

Early Life and Political Start

Born to a working class Irish family in the Horseshoe area of Jersey City, Frank Hague did not excel at school, in fact, he was expelled for his bad behavior at 13, thus he only had a sixth grade education. Indeed, some of Hague’s enemies would later swear that he was barely literate and could read no more than headlines in a newspaper (Fleming). Although school ended early for him, his political career started early too. At the age of 20, after securing a loan from bar owner Ned Kenny, he began his campaign for constable and won by 3 to 1 margin. Through his effectiveness at voter turnout for Boss Bob Davis, he was rewarded with the post of deputy sheriff and continued to rise in the political organization of Jersey City, including delivering his ward to the Democrats when Republican Mark Fagan won the mayoral election. Hague had an early scandal when in 1904 he and Deputy Sheriff Thomas “Skidder” Madigan covered for Red Dugan, a friend of his, who had been passing fraudulent checks in Boston by providing a false alibi under oath (Watkins). Dugan would subsequently admit he had done it, and the Boston court wanted to indict Hague for perjury but couldn’t extradite him. This didn’t hurt Hague with many working class Irish voters, as helping a friend, especially doing so at the behest of said friend’s mother, which Hague said was the case, was a sufficient excuse (Watkins). He made a break with Boss Davis in 1906 over an appointment and he sided with reformer H. Otto Wittpenn for mayor, who when he won in 1907 he appointed Hague city custodian. He also made an important connection with Wittpenn’s secretary, A. Harry Moore, who would become a close ally, as well as with John Milton, who would serve as his lawyer throughout his political career. After Davis died in 1911, Wittpenn sought to lead the Democratic Party in Hudson County only for Hague to turn on him and accuse him of bossism, yet Wittpenn would win. He would also critically back a new reform figure in New Jersey politics in Governor Woodrow Wilson, including his destruction of the machine of Boss Smith of Newark (Fleming). Indeed, in this time, Hague was thought of as a reformer or at least he put on the mask of one.

Hague: The Reformer?

In 1911, Hague won the post of street and water commissioner, in which he quickly cut the budget from $180,000 annually to $110,000 and fired half the staff, only to quietly bring in more than the number he fired with his own men after he won praise in the press (Watkins). He also quietly and with success requested the city council to reverse the budget cuts. Hague then set his eyes on the police department, which had become a bad joke under Boss Davis, who freely allowed all sorts of vice. Hague did so by ruthlessly enforcing regulations, including having 125 officers tried in a day for violating them, and ruthlessly demoted or fired police officers (Fleming). These men were replaced by men Hague could count on. These men would serve as a surveillance network within the police force, and soon petty bribery was stamped out. Laws against prostitution and after-hours drinking were enforced, and women were barred from saloons with legal (and possibly extralegal) punishments threatened for violations by saloon owners (Fleming). Streets were also literally cleaned. While previously the streets would have a fair amount of garbage at any one time, Hague mandated the spraying down of the streets with a fire hydrant every night (Watkins). In 1913, his efforts were crucial in netting the Democratic gubernatorial candidate James Fielder a victory. Hague managed to produce a 25,959 vote lead in Hudson County (Fleming). After this, he was widely acknowledged as the leader of the Hudson County Democratic Party. Despite being a Democratic leader, there were occasions in which he tacitly supported a Republican candidate. The first instance of this was to counter his chief rival, Otto Wittpenn.

The 1916 Election: Hague Makes a Deal

In the 1916 gubernatorial election, Hague got some bad news in the Democratic primary: Otto Wittpenn was the winner! Fearing that his influence would be countered if he managed to be elected governor, he got into contact with Republican candidate Walter Edge’s campaign manager, Nucky Johnson. Hague worked out a deal with Johnson to get Edge elected governor, and this would be done by Hague not pushing for Wittpenn’s election partly in exchange for the Holland Tunnel, to be constructed, to end in Jersey City (Murphy). Edge was elected governor with Hudson County reporting a mere 7,430 vote lead for Wittpenn, the worst for a Democratic nominee for governor in decades (Fleming). His electoral career was over, and in the following year’s municipal election, Hague won after Mark Fagan decided to step down.

Mayor Hague

Although Hague was now in power, he did not have some of the conventional skills of a leader. I mentioned earlier that his education was limited, and even though he got training for public speaking once mayor, he would still have problems. Hague was on record, for instance, saying that “One hundred ten thousand voters has endorsed my administration”, that Jersey City was “the most moralest city in America”, and once ended a speech with “And thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for the privilege of listening to me” (Fleming). Fortunately for Hague, he was not short of other means for power.

The source of Hague’s power as the mayor of Jersey City and the leader overall of Hudson County lay in the economic circumstances of Jersey City. All railroad lines that had terminals in Jersey City with cargo intended for New York City had to go through the Port of Jersey City to be shipped across the Hudson Bay, as no freight lines existed between the two cities. This gave Hague the power to control the conditions in which such goods would be transported out to New York City. This was a rich source for kickbacks and shakedowns that immensely profited Hague and others who wielded control over the Hudson Waterfront (Murphy). He also maintained his power through expanding the number of public employees. Jersey City had the highest number of public sector employees of any city of that size, some of these were rewards for help in political campaigns and some had no duties, rendering them welfare by another name (Watkins). This extensive public payroll had to be funded somehow. He did so through multiple means. One was requiring that public employees kick back 3% of their pay to fund the Hague machine. Another was through raising taxes. After 20 years of Hague’s rule of Jersey City, taxes had been increased threefold, property assessments had doubled, and the city’s debt was increased by 500% (Life Magazine). He also, popularly for many of his constituents, sought huge tax increases on major businesses. In 1917 and 1918, he dramatically increased annual tax assessments on Standard Oil (from $1.5 million to $14 million), the Public Service Corporation (from $3 million to $30 million), and railroads (from $67 million to $160 million), to which they promptly went to the State Board of Taxes and Assessments, which canceled all his increases (Fleming).

This State Board was a problem, and he needed it replaced, and to replace it, he needed an ally, not Walter Edge, as governor. Hague denounced the board as beholden to special interests and pushed for the election of Jersey City’s First National Bank president, Edward I. Edwards, an important ally (Fleming). Major turnout in Hudson County netted Edwards the governorship. Indeed, Hague’s turnout machine was unrivaled in its time; 92% of eligible voters in Hudson County were registered and 85% or more went to the polls (Murphy). However, Hague was able to secure even more votes than that. It was not legal for names to be removed from Hudson County’s voter registration rolls, thus deaths or moves had to be noted on the rolls, but the Hudson County Board of Elections was deliberately lax on doing this. After all, the appointees to this board were on paper Republicans but in truth, owed their jobs to Hague. This was a rich source of data to produce fraudulent ballots when they were needed (Murphy). Hague needed to use such trickery to the fullest when it came to the 1920 municipal election, in which Democrats were very unpopular with Irish voters given their anger at President Woodrow Wilson, and they were facing an electoral slaughter. Hague’s machine desperately wanted to elect Skidder Madigan to the post of sheriff of Hudson County. Madigan, Hague’s old pal when they were both deputy sheriffs, could be counted on to select grand juries that were to Hague’s liking, in other words, those who would not vote to convict on any activities of Hague’s machine or would vote to convict those that Hague needed convicted. However, Madigan had a problem that year aside from being a Democrat, and that was he couldn’t read or write (Fleming). The Hague machine went all out to get him elected sheriff while other candidates went down to defeat. Violence, fraud, every trick that needed to be pulled was pulled to elect Madigan (Fleming). He also appealed to the Irish voters of the city, capitalizing on their resentments of Republican WASPs and of big businesses.

Hague’s regime, however, did come with its benefits. The poor were assisted in finding jobs and given free food, clothing, and coal (Watkins). The city streets were, as mentioned before, literally clean. Prostitution was no longer a significant presence in Jersey City, and the mob was kept out. Police, fire, and emergency services were pushed to efficiency, and Hague would sometimes personally test this efficiency by making emergency calls from a public phone booth at night. If the responding people did not come in a timely manner that satisfied Hague, he would berate them and occasionally even punch them in the face (Watkins). One example was when he was angered that an ambulance he called had taken 15 minutes to arrive. When he began berating the head intern, the young man responded, “It took me a while to wake up”, to which Hague answered by knocking him down into the gutter (Fleming). It was also due to Hague that Journal Square, the Pulaski Skyway, and the Jersey City Medical Center and a maternity hospital named after Hague’s mother, Margaret were constructed. A major benefit of living in Hague’s Jersey City was that medical care could be obtained by a fee of $35 but it would be waived if you said you couldn’t pay for it, and some of the best doctors in the nation were employed at the Jersey City Medical Center. This resulted in a hospital that cost $3 million to operate annually and received only $15,000 in revenue (Watkins). Public funds made up for the rest.  

Don’t Mess With Hague

The consequences for challenging Hague could be quite serious. In 1937, a man named John Longo sought to challenge Hague from within the Democratic Party and formed an anti-Hague slate, but this was met with arrest and a Hague judge sentenced him to nine months imprisonment on fabricated charges (Watkins). He would be screwed over again by Hague after getting an appointment as deputy clerk in 1943 for Hudson County. He would once again be arrested, and six witnesses committed perjury against him, resulting in another Hague judge sentencing Longo to prison between 18 months and 3 years (Watkins). Hague also employed violence to keep power; he had campaign workers and police beat up people who opposed him. This included one particularly notorious incident in which 245 Princeton students were sent by the Honest Ballot Association to monitor a 1920s election, which resulted in all students being blocked from the polling places and five were beaten so badly they had to be hospitalized (Watkins). Hague’s use of police to violently enforce his will was reinforced with incentives. The police force of Jersey City was the highest paid and most staffed of any police force of a city that size (Fleming). As previously mentioned, Hague could engage in physical violence himself. In one incident, he knocked out cold one of Jersey City’s commissioners, Michael Fagen (Fleming).

Further Rise to Power

In 1924, Hague’s power grew when Al Smith, thankful for his efforts on his behalf to secure the Democratic nomination (albeit unsuccessfully), managed to get him the vice chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, and he would remain in this position until 1952. This gave Hague considerable influence over who the Democrats would select for president, and he certainly played his part in getting Al Smith the nomination in 1928.

Hague Fixes the 1928 Republican Gubernatorial Primary

Frank Hague’s influence did not exist only within the Democratic Party…he extended his grip to the Republican Party in a number of ways as well. A particularly notable event was the 1928 Republican primary, in which the favorite was widely regarded as former judge Robert Carey, who was a prominent critic of Hague and promised to take on his machine. He didn’t want to risk this man winning the election, thus he managed to get 20,000 of his supporters registered as Republicans to vote in the primary, resulting in the victor being State Senator Morgan F. Larson, a mild presence. As it turns out, Hague’s scheme was 100% legal, as New Jersey law permitted a person who had not voted in the last primary to switch party registration without penalty, thus Hague, anticipating 1928 as an important election, had 20,000 of his followers not vote in the preceding primary (Fleming). It was a good thing for Hague that he had done so, as Larson won the election.

More will come on Hague in a follow-up post, as he is a considerable subject.

References

Fleming, T. (1969). The Political Machine II: A Case History “I Am the Law”. American Heritage, 20(4).

Retrieved from

https://www.americanheritage.com/political-machine-ii-case-history-i-am-law

Jersey City’s Mayor Hague: The Last of the Dictators. (1938, February 7). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://www.cityofjerseycity.org/hague/life/life020738.shtml

Murray, J.M. (2022, November 2). The Real Stolen Election – Frank Hague and the NJ Governor’s Race of 1937. YouTube.

Watkins, T. The Political Machine of Frank Hague of Jersey City, New Jersey. San Jose State University.

Retrieved from

https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/bosses.htm#HAGUE

Big Ed Mechem: The Land of Enchantment’s Conservative Reformer

The New Mexico territory began as a conservative Republican stronghold and this was reflected in the first senators the state elected in Thomas B. Catron and Albert B. Fall. However, over time the state’s politics were increasingly inclined towards the Democrats, with the only Republican elected to Congress after the onset of the Great Depression being the progressive Senator Bronson Cutting, who would die in an airplane crash in 1935. From then on it was Democrats all the way, including in gubernatorial races. That was, until the election of Edwin Leard Mechem (1912-2002) as governor.

New Mexico in 1950 was considered quite Democratic, and at that point Republicans often had trouble recruiting candidates for major public offices. However, “Big Ed” (he was a large man) Mechem, a 38-year-old Las Cruces lawyer, stepped up to the plate against Democratic Congressman John E. Miles. Miles, who had had a long career in New Mexico politics, had good reason to think that he was going to win this one, and it didn’t hurt that he was politically moderate, potentially offsetting him being tied closely with the increasingly unpopular Truman Administration. However, Mechem delivered a powerful message against corruption in New Mexico politics and proposed reforms to the structure of the state’s government. New Mexico had had a long history of corruption in state politics, with money often having a strong influence on elections and charges of voter fraud were frequent; Senator Dennis Chavez may have won reelection in 1946 due to voter fraud (Hill). The climate of 1950 was decidedly conservative, and although New Mexico Democrats defeated Republican challengers for Congress (the two Democratic candidates were far from liberal stalwarts), Mechem won the 1950 election with 54% of the vote in an upset. Despite Mechem being quite conservative and the state of New Mexico being Democratic, he proved the state’s biggest vote-getter for the Republicans. He was not the first member of his family to serve as the state’s governor, as his uncle Merritt had done so from 1921 to 1923, also as a Republican.

As governor, Mechem proved a reformer, restructuring New Mexico government and standing independent of political machines. He also was quite politically savvy, and journalist James B. Barber of the Carlsbad Current-Argus noted that he was “a politician who can stumble into a vat of limburger cheese and come up reeking of [Chanel] No. 5. Some of it is luck, maybe, but there’s a lot of political savvy, too, in this big stubborn Las Cruces lawyer, who seldom takes advice from anyone” (28). He won reelection in 1952, running only two points behind Dwight Eisenhower. Mechem had a rather amusing tendency, as Barber noted, to issue forth a deep laugh from his chest that came out “ho ho ho” when he was dodging an inconvenient question (24). However, Mechem was term-limited, and instead of running for governor again, he tried to win a seat in the Senate. His opponent was Senator Clinton Anderson, a shrewd politician who was considered the foremost figure of the state’s Democratic Party. This would produce for him the worst defeat of his career, as the 1954 midterms resulted in the loss of control of Congress for the Republicans, and he would only net 43% of the vote. Mechem was not out of the game for long, and in 1956 he was again elected governor, defeating incumbent John F. Simms with 52% of the vote.

The 1958 election was particularly bad for Republicans, with Mechem losing by only a point to Democrat John Burroughs, but in a rematch in 1960 he campaigned against Burroughs’ forming his own political machine and came out ahead by less than a point. The Gallup Daily Independent had endorsed his bid for a comeback, citing his record as an efficient governor without ties to political machines (4). Although a victory, voters were less enthused about Mechem than in the past, and in 1962 Democrats managed to get New Mexico Representative Jack Campbell, a man known for being free of the control and influence of machines, to run against him. Campbell defeated him by 6 points. However, fate granted him an opportunity. On November 18th, the long-ailing Senator Chavez died, and Mechem pulled a maneuver that seldom works out in the long-run for politicians: resigning the governorship and having his successor appoint him to the Senate. This move was highly controversial in New Mexico as the voters had just rejected him for another term in public office only for him to move into the Senate.

Senator Mechem aligned himself closely with the staunchly conservative Barry Goldwater and his record proved among the most conservative in the Senate, opposing all major New Frontier and Great Society measures considered in his time in office as well as the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action rated him zeroes in both 1963 and 1964, not an easy feat to accomplish. He sided with Americans for Constitutional Action (Mechem would later serve on its Board of Trustees) 98% of the time by contrast, with the only position he had taken they considered liberal being voting against Senator Proxmire’s (D-Wis.) proposal to cut to Labor-HEW Appropriations in 1963. This meant, rather controversially for his state in which there were many Latinos, that he was one of six Republican senators to vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mechem also opposed most sections of the bill and was the only Republican to vote in favor of Senator Gore’s (D-Tenn.) motion to recommit the bill to ease the provision cutting off aid to segregated schools. Mechem’s DW-Nominate score was a 0.585, placing him as the fourth most conservative senator in the 88th Congress. Although he had voted his conscience as his voting was far from tailored to win reelection in New Mexico at the time, this was politically tough as he was up for election to a full term in 1964, and that year was worse for the average Republican candidate than 1962 had been.

The 1964 Election: “Big Ed” vs. “Little Joe”

The 1964 election was one of great contrasts, both in the presidential election and in the New Mexico Senate election. “Big Ed” was facing a challenge from Joseph “Little Joe” Montoya, who represented one of New Mexico’s two At-Large districts. Little Joe supported JFK’s New Frontier legislation and LBJ’s Great Society, Big Ed did not. Little Joe supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Big Ed did not. A lot of support for Mechem’s campaign likely came from people remembering him as a good and effective governor of the state, but the candidacy of Barry Goldwater was tough for him to work with, especially since he voted with him on almost all key issues.

Although Mechem tried his best, he was defeated by nine points in 1964, with Montoya getting excellent results in Spanish-American areas. Mechem’s move to the Senate had only temporarily stayed the execution of his political career, and he demonstrated that he was the rule and not the exception when it came to governors getting themselves appointed to the Senate. As a side note, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin is an example of how to do it right; after Senator Robert Byrd died in 2009, he appointed an interim successor and ran in a proper election to finish the late Byrd’s term in 2010 and won despite West Virginia no longer being competitive for Democrats in presidential elections and the 2010 midterms being what President Obama called a “shellacking” for the Democrats. Journalist Will Harrison (1964) wrote of the outcome for Mechem, “The Nov. 3 election was very likely the end of Ed Mechem’s political career. It is possible that he might have beaten Montoya in a head-to-head run without the presidential influence, but the writing was on the wall for Mechem in 1962 when Jack Campbell demonstrated that a clean, aggressive Democrat could beat him without outside influence. Mechem’s 1962 loss of Albuquerque and his home county of Dona Ana, and the loss of such formerly reliable areas as San Juan and Santa Fe were signals that he had reached the end of his string” (4). Harrison was right; the New Mexico voters had tired of “Big Ed” Mechem, and he would never again be elected to public office. However, one important person had not tired of “Big Ed”, and that was Richard Nixon.

Judge Mechem

In 1970, President Nixon nominated Mechem, who he dubbed “Mr. Republican” as a Federal court judge for the district of New Mexico, and he was confirmed. While a judge, Mechem’s judicial record was not influenced by his political leanings; he ruled that age discrimination was occurring at Sandia National Labs, that sex discrimination was occurring in the Albuquerque police department, that the Socorro County jail had been indifferent to the medical needs of a prisoner who died, and made several rulings favorable to American Indians (Hill). Mechem assumed senior status (a state of semi-retirement for judges) in 1982 but would continue to work as much as he could for the last twenty years of his life. He died on November 27, 2002, at the age of 90 from his longtime heart condition.

Future of New Mexico Politics

Interestingly, not too long after Mechem’s 1964 defeat, the politics of New Mexico improved considerably for Republicans and conservatives, with Richard Nixon winning the state in 1968, two Republicans being elected to Congress that year, and the 1972 election resulting in the election of Republican Pete Domenici to the Senate, who represented the state for 36 years. New Mexico today is now politically what it was during the time of FDR, Democratic all around for major offices, and the last Republican the state voted for in a presidential election was George W. Bush in 2004. Is a comeback in store for the Republicans in New Mexico? Undoubtedly at some point, but when that’s going to be is anyone’s guess.

Correction, 3/4/25: I had originally written of Joe Manchin’s election in 2010 to the Senate as for a full term, but it was actually to complete the late Senator Byrd’s term. Manchin ran for a full term in 2012. My thanks to Daniel Fox for spotting this.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Barber, J.B. (1953, May 10). If It’s Politics, Big Ed’s Coming Out Ahead. Carlsbad Current-Argus, 28.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/504660962/

Barber, J.B. (1953, March 29). Will Mechem Try For Senate Seat? Ho Ho Ho. Carlsbad Current-Argus, 24.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/504706110/

Harrison, W. (1964, November 8). Perfect Drive For Little Joe. Carlsbad Current-Argus, 4.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/504842775/

Hill, R. E.L. Mechem of New Mexico: BIG ED. The Knoxville Focus.

Retrieved fromhttps://www.knoxfocus.com/archives/this-weeks-focus/e-l-mechem-new-mexico-big-ed/

Mechem, Edwin Leard. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/10811/edwin-leard-mechem

Hells Canyon Dam – Private vs. Public Power

The 1952 election brought Dwight Eisenhower to the presidency as well as Republicans to a majority in Congress. One of Eisenhower’s policies was instead of public construction of dams, as had been the norm with the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations, that there would be a partnership between government and private companies, with government using private companies to construct and own the dams generating power. This proved highly controversial in the West, and the proposal for constructing the Hells Canyon Dam was at the center of this controversy.

Hells Canyon is a deep canyon between Idaho, Oregon, and a small portion of Washington, and has the snake river, and was seen as a rich source of hydroelectric power. The Eisenhower Administration favored the Idaho Power Company constructing three dams to generate power, but this met strong opposition from Democrats. Unfortunately for the Republicans, there was more opposition than that among the public. In 1954, Oregon Republican Senator Guy Cordon, the last conservative to represent the state in the Senate, narrowly lost reelection to Democrat Richard Neuberger despite President Eisenhower coming to Oregon to campaign with him, and one of the key issues Neuberger pushed was opposition to private power as opposed to public power, painting it as a giveaway of public rights (LaLande). After the 1954 election, Oregon had two Democratic senators for the first time since the Wilson Administration.

Votes on Hells Canyon Dam and an Alleged Deal

In 1956, the Senate voted down public construction of Hells Canyon Dam 41-51 on July 19th. Most Republicans voted against it along with several Southern Democrats. The 1956 election didn’t produce a different party makeup of the Senate, as Republicans and Democrats both gained and lost different seats. Yet, on June 21, 1957, the Senate approved public construction of Hells Canyon Dam 45-38. The senators who had voted against in 1956 but voted for this time were George Smathers (D-Fla.), Richard Russell (D-Ga.), Russell Long (D-La.), Margaret Chase Smith (R-Me.), James Eastland (D-Miss.), Sam Ervin (D-N.C.), and George Aiken (R-Vt.). The flip of five Southern Democrats was key to securing this victory, and Senator Charles Potter (R-Mich.), a supporter of a strong civil rights bill and opponent of public ownership of Hells Canyon Dam, alleged right after the vote that this flip was done in exchange for the support of Western Democrats for watering down the pending civil rights bill (The New York Times). Senator Wayne Morse (D-Ore.), a supporter of strong civil rights legislation and a co-sponsor of the Hells Canyon Dam denied the charge. Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho), who had voted for both of the key amendments weakening the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and had co-sponsored the Jury Trial Amendment as well as the Hells Canyon Dam bill, denied that a deal had occurred. He stated, “There was never any understanding between Lyndon Johnson and me that I would take a role in the Civil Rights Bill or I would join in the sponsorship of the Jury Trial Amendment in exchange for his help on Hells Canyon. That’s pure fiction utterly without any basis in fact” (Gellman). Although this flip of the Southern senators is suggestive of a deal, there was a public explanation for the flip from the de facto leader of the Southern Democrats. Senator Richard Russell (D-Ga.) stated as to his own reason, “I happen to be one of the five Democrats who changed his vote on Hells Canyon. I did it because of the tax amortization feature which made it very apparent that the Federal Government was going to pay for the dam in any event. If we were going to pay for it, I thought we ought to have title to it” (Bill Downs, War Correspondent). Several senators who were alleged to be participants in this deal denied that a deal occurred, but historian Robert Caro gave this allegation credence as he reported that Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson (D-Tex.) masterminded this deal. However, historian Irving Gellman (2015) contests this, holding that Hells Canyon Dam had been killed in a House subcommittee before the vote on the Jury Trial Amendment. However, this counter-argument might be off as well, as the exchange, according to Time Magazine, was over the vote to send the Civil Rights Act of 1957 to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by segregationist James Eastland (D-Miss.), to undo Minority Leader William Knowland’s (R-Calif.) maneuver bypassing it. Indeed, the vote on sending the bill to the Judiciary Committee was held the day before the Hells Canyon Dam vote and numerous Western senators voted with the South on this one, with the five Southern senators voting for the dam allegedly in gratitude for the support of Western senators. Interestingly, Frank Church was not among the senators to vote to bring it back to committee, pointing to his denial being accurate that he didn’t make a deal. Although Wayne Morse voted to send it back, his record was consistent as a stickler for legislative procedure and he voted against efforts to weaken the bill, making his denial credible as well. Although several senators had denied there was a deal, Russell Long (D-La.) would give credence to the notion of an informal deal, stating, “Johnson put together sort of a gentleman’s agreement where about four of us would vote for the high dam at Hells Canyon and about four on the other side would vote with us (…) on a completely unrelated subject: civil rights” (Lange, 69).

Political Consequences of Support for Private Power

There were significant political consequences for those in the Pacific Northwest who supported private construction and ownership of the Hells Canyon Dam; although President Eisenhower easily won reelection in Oregon, Oregon Republicans got hit hard; Oregon Republican Congressmen Sam Coon and Harris Ellsworth lost reelection in districts that had been held by Republicans since the 1942 election. Coon’s loss was directly attributed to his opponent Al Ullman’s opposition to private construction of dams in Hells Canyon (Foss). Indeed, the 1956 election had bad results for Oregon Republicans by and large. That year, Republican Governor Elmo Smith lost reelection to Democrat Robert Holmes and Democrats won control of the state legislature for the first time since 1878 (Swarthout). In Idaho, Democrat Frank Church, a supporter of public ownership of dams at Hells Canyon, defeated Republican incumbent Herman Welker, a supporter of private ownership, in the last election in which a Democrat would defeat a Republican Senate incumbent in Idaho. Although in this case, Welker’s loss was attributable to more than that as his behavior was increasingly volatile and erratic, with him being prone to temper tantrums and bouts of depression as well as appearing to have poor balance, which included a public incident of stumbling and falling down airplane stairs (Hill). At the time his critics alleged that this was the product of heavy drinking, but the truth was worse: it turned out Welker had a brain tumor, and it would kill him on October 30, 1957. Welker’s strong support of Joseph McCarthy also proved a hindrance rather than a help by 1956.

Despite these political consequences, the Hells Canyon legislation being killed in the House subcommittee proved to be the final word on it, as the Idaho Power Company would later construct three dams on the Snake River.

References

Foss, C. Albert Conrad “Al” Ullman. Oregon Encyclopedia.

Retrieved from

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

Gellman, I.F. (2015, November 9). Robert Caro Gives LBJ More Credit than He Deserves for the Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. History News Network.

Retrieved from

https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/robert-caro-gives-lbj-more-credit-than-he-deserves

Hill, R. Idaho’s Conservative: Herman Welker. The Knoxville Focus.

Retrieved from

https://www.knoxfocus.com/archives/this-weeks-focus/idahos-conservative-herman-welker/rom

HR. 6127. Civil Rights Act of 1957. Point of Order Against Objection by Knowland to Referral of Bill to Judiciary Committee. Rejected. (Bill Thus Bypassed the Judiciary Committee). Govtrack.

Retrieved from

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/85-1957/s57

LaLand, J. (2022, September 16). Guy Cordon. Oregon Encyclopedia.

Retrieved from

https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/cordon_guy_1890_1969_/

Lange, O.M. (2017). “The Miracle of 1957”: Southern senators and the making of the 1957 Civil Rights Act (Master’s thesis). University of Oslo.

Retrieved from

National Affairs: Balance Tipped. (1957, July 1). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6611890/national-affairs-balance-tipped/

Potter Charges Dam – Rights Deal. (1957, June 22). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Russell Rejects Criticism of South on Civil Rights. (2024, February 13). Bill Downs, War Correspondent.

Retrieved from

https://www.billdownscbs.com/2024/02/1957-senator-richard-b-russell-rejects.html

S. 1333. Authorize Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of Hells Canyon Dam. Govtrack.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/84-1956/s200

S. 555. Authorize Federal Construction of Hells Canyon Dam. Govtrack.

Retrieved from

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/85-1957/s59

Swarthout, J.M. (1957). The 1956 Election in Oregon. The Western Political Quarterly, 10(1).

Retrieved from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/444252

The 1920 Election: A Massive Mandate

I’ve noticed these days that any win gets portrayed as some great mandate for leadership in a presidential election, both for the president and his party. However, there have been no elections that I would call a major mandate since Barack Obama’s win in 2008. Democrats expanded on their House majority and turned a slight Senate majority into one that could overcome a filibuster. Obama also won the states of Indiana and North Carolina, not ones that have landed in the Democratic column since. Since that election, wins have either been narrow or in the case of Obama in 2012, still having one of the House of Congress in the control of the opposing party. The 1920 election, however, was one for the ages.

Given the unpopularity of the defeated Versailles Treaty as well as a mini-depression that was occurring, it was nigh impossible for anyone to take up Woodrow Wilson’s mantle and win. Ohio’s Governor, James M. Cox, attempted it anyway. Ohio Senator Warren Harding’s call for “normalcy” resounded across the nation as the nation stood disillusioned with progressivism, tired of extensive involvement in foreign affairs, alarmed by race riots, strikes, and an anarchist bombing of Wall Street, and hurting from the depressed economy. Although old rumors that Harding had black ancestry made their way to the public, it didn’t seem to have much of an impact, and he won in a landslide, getting 404 to Cox’s 127 electoral votes. Only the states of the former Confederacy plus Kentucky backed Cox. The Solid South also had a breakaway in Tennessee, the first former Confederate state to vote for a Republican presidential candidate since Reconstruction.  Harding could fully claim a mandate, especially with the legislative results that accompanied his election.

House

The House results were catastrophic for Democrats in the North, with Republicans, already having a majority, gaining 63 seats. The following House delegations became or remained entirely Republican after the 1920 election:

Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Pennsylvania was with one exception entirely Republican, and that exception, Guy Campbell, would vote like a Republican in the 67th Congress and subsequently switch parties.

Outside the South and Border States, Democrats were reduced to 19 representatives:

Carl Hayden, Ariz.

Clarence Lea, Calif.

John Raker, Calif.

Edward Taylor, Colo.

John Rainey, Ill.

Adolph Sabath, Ill.

Thomas Gallagher, Ill.

Peter Tague, Mass.

James Gallivan, Mass.

Charles O’Brien, N.J.

John Kindred, N.Y.

Thomas Cullen, N.Y.

Christopher Sullivan, N.Y.

Daniel Riordan, N.Y.

W. Bourke Cockran, N.Y.

John Carew, N.Y.

Anthony Griffin, N.Y.

Peter Ten Eyck, N.Y.

James Mead, N.Y.

Guy Campbell, Penn.

The Urban Areas

Republicans had massive success in urban areas, particularly shocking being in New York City, where they won a majority of the city’s districts in Congress. This feat has not been repeated since and was achievable because Tammany Hall largely sat on their hands in this election as well as some of the left-wing vote going to Socialist Party candidates arguably cost Democrats victories in New York’s 3rd, 7th, 8th, and 23rd districts. By contrast, today the only New York City district that Republicans often win is Staten Island. New York’s 12th district once again elected Socialist Meyer London, one of only two members of the Socialist Party to ever win a seat in Congress. In neighboring New Jersey, a Republican won a seat in the Northern portion of Jersey City, a feat that has only been repeated once since.

In Illinois, Republicans won all but three of Chicago’s House seats, although Chicago was considerably more Republican than it is now. Outside of Chicago, this election produced future House Speaker Henry T. Rainey’s only reelection loss.

In Ohio, Republicans won both seats in Cleveland, a feat they have yet to achieve again.

Ethnic Germans and Irish, usually rich sources for the Democratic vote in major cities, were hostile to the Versailles Treaty and to President Wilson. These groups had beefs with Britain, and yes, at that time anti-British politics were still something that could be capitalized on in the US. The result was many ethnic Germans and Irish either voted Republican or stayed home in 1920, and the Democratic machines that served these groups were not particularly willing to help the Cox/Roosevelt ticket. The degree of success Republicans had in the 1920 election in urban areas has been unheard of since.

The Border states were a disaster for Democrats too, with them only holding the staunchly Democratic 2nd and 11th districts in Missouri, the latter based in St. Louis. In Maryland, Democrats only won Maryland’s 1st and 4th districts, the latter based in Baltimore. In Oklahoma, Republicans won five of the eight House seats. The norm was for Republicans to only hold the 8th district while the 1st district, based in Tulsa, was highly competitive. The Socialist Party in Oklahoma arguably cost Democrats the 2nd, 4th, and 6th districts. Kentucky was the only state in which things were fairly normal for Democrats, with them holding 8 of 11 of the state’s House seats.  

The South remained mostly solid for Democrats, but Republicans won three seats in Tennessee that they didn’t usually win, putting Republicans on par with Democrats. The status quo of only two Republican representatives from East Tennessee would return with the 1922 election. They also won a single seat in Texas based in San Antonio, which they managed to win a few more times, as well as kept a seat in Virginia.

The Senate

The Senate Democrats took a bad lump, but the six-year terms of the Senate shielded them from worse. One retiring Democrat, Edwin Johnson of South Dakota, was succeeded by Republican Peter Norbeck, while 12 incumbents either lost reelection or renomination.

Arizona: Democrat Marcus A. Smith was defeated for reelection by Republican Ralph Cameron, making Cameron the first ever Republican elected to Congress from the young state, which at the time was usually strongly Democratic.

Arkansas – Democrat William F. Kirby lost renomination to Congressman Thaddeus Caraway, and in the South statewide the Democratic nomination contest was the real election.

California – Democrat James Phelan lost reelection to Republican Samuel Shortridge.

Colorado – Democrat Charles Thomas’s political independence resulted in him refusing to run for renomination with Democrat Tully Scot winning the primary, and then Thomas lost reelection as a member of the Nationalist Party.

Georgia – Democrat Hoke Smith lost renomination to fiery populist Thomas E. Watson.

Idaho – Democrat John F. Nugent lost reelection to Republican Frank Gooding.

Kentucky – Democrat J.C.W. Beckham lost reelection to Republican Richard P. Ernst.

Maryland – Democrat John W. Smith lost reelection to Republican Ovington Weller.

Nevada – Democrat Charles Henderson lost reelection to Republican Tasker Oddie.

North Dakota – Republican Asle Gronna lost renomination to Edwin F. Ladd, who won the election.

Oklahoma – Democrat Thomas P. Gore’s independence from the Wilson Administration cost him renomination to Congressman Scott Ferris, who lost the election to Republican Congressman John W. Harreld.

Oregon – Democrat George E. Chamberlain lost reelection to Republican Robert N. Stanfield.

The major gains of this election would result in many Republican policies being passed in the 1920s, but the extent of them would prove temporary as in 1922 Republicans would more than lose their 1920 House gains. Senate Republicans would lose seven seats. However, a Republican majority would persist in the House until the 1930 election and the Senate until the 1932 election, when the United States was in the Great Depression.