The 1984 election was a blowout for Republicans on the presidential level but just an okay one down ticket. In the House, they gained 16 seats but in the Senate they had a net loss of two. Newt Gingrich had had some influence on President Reagan’s messaging for this election, notably his embrace of Gingrich’s proposed “opportunity society” platform. However, the 1984 election would also raise Gingrich’s profile in another way, that being the most controversial election of the year.

The “Bloody Eighth” Contest

Indiana’s 8^th district, known at the time as the “Bloody Eighth”, had since its modern configuration in 1932 been a highly contested district. Up to 1985, the district had been represented by Democrats for 32 years and Republicans for 20 years. Democrat Frank McCloskey was a freshman running for reelection. He had defeated Republican H. Joel Deckard for reelection in 1982, and Republicans believed they had a good chance of retaking the district with Rick McIntyre. On election night, it appeared that they had indeed done so, with McIntyre up by only 34 votes. Indiana’s Secretary of State had given him a certificate of victory, which he presented in Washington. However, House Majority Leader Jim Wright (D-Tex.) objected to McIntyre’s seating, and the certificate had been granted on the basis of the outcome of a recount in only one of the state’s counties (Kruse). Democrats also questioned some of the election practices that occurred. For instance, there were thousands of documented cases of ballots being tossed out on technicalities, such as errors by poll workers (Kruse). Congress initiated an investigative group that had two Democrats and one Republican. The most controversial event to stem from this investigation was the casting of 94 ballots that were not notarized or witnessed from these counties, none of which should legally have been counted, yet 62 were among the count and could not be removed. 32 remained, and since the 62 were counted, the Republicans argued, the 32 should be counted as well. However, Democrat Bill Clay (D-Mo.) argued that to count the next 32 “would be to compound the problem that already exists”, but this ran counter to Democratic rhetoric of the time to count all the ballots (Kruse). The outcome of this investigation was that the committee certified McCloskey the winner by a mere four votes. Republicans regarded this as the Democrats stealing the seat and uniformly opposed McCloskey’s seating, but Democrats had a majority. Even to modern day, the surviving partisans of the event stick to their narratives on the rightness or wrongness of McCloskey’s seating. Newt Gingrich in response vowed that, “We will make it impossible for this House to function. You’ll see literal war in the House” (Kruse). There was indeed a sea change, and the language of Republicans, including ones who had been conciliatory in their language, such as Dick Cheney, changed. Cheney justified his shift, stating, “What choice does a self-respecting Republicans have…except confrontation? If you play by the rules, the Democrats change the rules so they win. There’s absolutely nothing to be gained by cooperating with the Democrats at this point” (Kruse). Republicans called for a redo of the election, but Democrats stuck by their procedure. Even Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.), golfing buddy of Speaker Tip O’Neill, said, “Things…will never be the same” (Kruse). Republicans uniformly walked out of the House in protest when McCloskey was sworn in. Now, they were far more receptive to Newt Gingrich’s bomb-thrower style. As Gingrich ally Vin Weber (R-Minn.) reflected on this, “It gave Newt credibility. Newt went from being the kind of bomb-throwing back bencher who was going to remain on the fringe of Republican politics and his ideas kept moving him steadily toward the majoritarian position in the House Republican conference. Because they saw, ‘Yeah, he’s basically right. He’s right about them. He’s right about our relationship to them. And he’s probably right about what we have to do” (Kruse). A subsequent investigation by the Evansville Courier would only further provide further fuel for the fire. Their investigation discovered that of the 32 ballots that had not been counted, 26 of the voters had managed to be contacted, and of those 20 stated that they had tried to cast their ballot for McIntyre (Kruse). Had the Democrats stuck to their rhetoric, McIntyre would have won. Republicans came to believe as Cheney did that the Democrats just changed their own rules when it suited them to win.

The Rest of Reagan’s Term

Gingrich, now having the backing of many more of his Republican colleagues, continued his partisan activity. He was unwavering in his support for the Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”) and backed nearly all of Reagan’s vetoes (South Africa sanctions was an exception). Although Republicans didn’t like Tip O’Neill for his liberalism, they would like his successor, Wright, even less.

Gingrich vs. Speaker Wright

Gingrich shaking hands with Minority Leader Robert Michel (R-Ill.) after winning the post of minority whip.

With the retirement of Tip O’Neill at the end of the 99^th Congress, Wright was the new speaker. Speaker Wright took a stronger partisan tone at least in part because he, like many other Democrats, were concerned about Newt Gingrich and his contingent of younger conservatives. His rule of the House was more imperious than past speakers. For example, Wright decided to completely leave out minority Republicans from decision-making and curbing staff positions for them. Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.) expressed the Republican discontent over Wright, “The dislike of Speaker O’Neill was ideological…he was really the symbol of northeastern liberalism. The dislike of Speaker Wright is different. Republicans think he is basically and fundamentally unfair; that he does not have the respect for the institution like Tip; that deep down he is a mean-spirited person, ruthless in the truest sense of the word” (Wallach). It also should be noted about Wright that he was mentored by Lyndon B. Johnson, so playing hardball was well within his repertoire. He also angered Republicans for attempting to negotiate with the Contras and Sandinistas despite President Reagan’s refusal and that foreign policy is foremost an executive rather than a legislative function. Gingrich suspected that Wright had skeletons in his closet and had commissioned an investigation into his background. It turns out he had suspected correctly, and in May 1988 he filed an ethics complaint against him. In March 1989, as the investigation was concluding, Gingrich was narrowly party whip to replace Dick Cheney over the considerably more moderate Edward Madigan of Illinois, who had been backed by Minority Leader Robert Michel (R-Ill.).

The Troubles with Jim Wright

There were some significant issues with Wright. The first was his business connection to Fort Worth developer George Mallick. It was alleged that Wright had accepted almost $145,000 in gifts from him since 1979 (Kelley). The second was that Wright had contravened House ethics rules on limitations on speaking fees through selling his 1984 collection of speeches, titled Reflections of a Public Man, and employed Betty to circumvent limitations on gifts. Third, he employed John Mack as his chief of staff. The problem with him? In 1973, Mack had, in a senseless act, smashed a woman on the head five times with a hammer, stabbed her in the shoulder and chest, slit her throat, and then dumped her in her car, leaving her for dead while he went to see a movie (Time Magazine). The woman survived and he had been sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for malicious wounding with intent to kill but only served 27 months in county jail. Why only 27 months? Mack had the good fortune to be the brother of Wright’s son-in-law (Time Magazine). What’s more, he was the executive director of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. That Mack had had this felonious episode in his past was known among Washington insiders, but for the public to hear it was shocking to them and this exposure forced Mack to resign on May 11, 1989. This wasn’t all for Wright; on April 17, 1989, he was charged with violating 69 House ethics rules. Furthermore, this was around the time of the Savings & Loan scandal, and Wright’s rise was alleged to have been assisted by S&L fraudsters including the infamous Charles Keating. The deputy head of the Federal Savings and Loan Corporation, William K. Black, alleged that Wright had intervened in favor of S& L executives. However, these allegations were not among them. Things were only going to get worse for Wright, thus he resigned on June 6, 1989, the first speaker ever to do so. Interestingly, Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.) filed an ethics complaint against Gingrich in April 1989, accusing him of violating House rules with a book promotion deal in 1984, and publicly stated, “Mr. Gingrich is a congressional Jimmy Swaggart, who condemns sin while committing hypocrisy” (Los Angeles Times). He would file a second one against him as well, but on March 7, 1990, both complaints were dismissed by the House Ethics Committee as they concluded that Gingrich’s book promotion had not violated House rules or the law. After the ruling, he dismissed the charges as a “political smear…I am glad the committee was thorough, and I am happy the charges have been exposed as politically inspired nonsense” (CQ Almanac, 1990). The committee’s ruling probably saved Gingrich’s reelection, as in 1990 he had a close call for reelection, winning by only 974 votes against Democrat David Worley. However, Gingrich’s focus on ethics for Wright would come back to haunt him later, but that’s going to be in the next Gingrich post. Wright’s successor was Tom Foley (D-Wash.).

Gingrich and the “Gang of Seven”

The 1990 midterms were known as the “election about nothing” and was pretty sedate given that Democrats only gained eight seats in the House and one in the Senate. However, it did send seven new Republicans to Congress who sought to shake things up. This group, which included future Speaker of the House John Boehner of Ohio, was known as the “Gang of Seven”.

In 1992, Gingrich decided to give his tacit blessing to them in their exposure of the mismanagement of the House Bank, as he figured this scandal would do more damage to Democrats than Republicans. The House Banking scandal resulted in the convictions of four former representatives, a former delegate, and the House Sergeant at Arms. The House Ethics Committee singled out 22 representatives for leaving checking accounts overdrawn for at least eight months, and 18 were Democrats. These representatives had between 89 and 996 checks overdrawn. One of the 22, incidentally, was Gingrich antagonist Bill Alexander, who would not run for reelection in 1992. Gingrich himself had 22 overdrawn checks, but his paled in comparison to the number and length of time of the 22 representatives. This was a risky exposure for him, and he faced a significant primary challenger. That year, state legislator Herman Clark challenged Gingrich for renomination, criticizing his overdrawn checks and his use of a chauffeured limousine (The Christian Science Monitor). However, Gingrich narrowly pulled off a victory, winning by 980 votes. There would be yet another scandal with the exposure endorsed by Gingrich by the “Gang of Seven”, and this was the Congressional Post Office scandal, which resulted in Congressional Postmaster Robert Rota pleading guilty to three criminal charges in 1993 and implicating House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) and former Representative Joe Kolter (D-Penn.), who were convicted on corruption charges.

The 1994 Election – Contract with America

The 1994 midterms weighed rather heavily on the Clinton Administration for several reasons. There was a backlash against the proposed “Hillarycare”, the Brady Bill was unpopular in a number of rural areas with Democratic incumbents, and Republicans were far more energized to turn out than Democrats. Heavily inspired by President Reagan’s 1985 State of the Union Address, written by Gingrich and Dick Armey (R-Tex.), and with input from the Heritage Foundation, came the Contract with America. This document was a pledge to the American people that if Republicans got a majority they would enact eight institutional reforms as well as bring ten key bills to the floor of Congress for a vote within the first 100 days of Congress. This provided a clear message and platform for the Republicans and although the degree of this document’s impact on the election is certainly debatable, it gave Republicans a solid platform to run on and made the midterm national. Republicans won nearly 9 million more votes than they ever won in midterm elections, while the Democratic vote had shrunk by 1 million from the 1990 midterms (CQ Almanac, 1994). Republicans gained 54 House seats, getting them a 230-204 majority, while they gained 8 seats in the Senate, resulting in 52-48 majority. This was the first time in 40 years that Republicans had held a majority in the House, and they had only held the Senate for 6 of the last 40 years.

Some of the biggest defeats of the 1994 midterms were that of Speaker Tom Foley of Washington, the beleaguered Rostenkowski, and Judiciary Committee chairman Jack Brooks of Texas. As far as Gingrich and the Republicans were concerned, 1994 had granted them a mandate, so how would Gingrich and this “Contract with America” do? That is for the next Gingrich post.

References

Capitol Offense. (1989, May 15). Time Magazine.

Retrieved from

https://time.com/archive/6702510/capitol-offense/

Formal Ethics Complaint Filed Against Gingrich by Democrat. (1989, April 12). Los Angeles Times.

Retrieved from

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-04-12-mn-1694-story.html

Gingrich Case Dismissed. CQ Almanac 1990.

Retrieved from

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal90-1112264#_

Gingrich Wins Close Race In Congressional Primary. (1992, July 23). The Christian Science Monitor.

Retrieved from

https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1992/0723/23033.html

Kelley, E. (1989, April 18). 69 Ethics Violations Cited Against Wright. The Oklahoman.

Retrieved from

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/1989/04/18/69-ethics-violations-cited-against-wright/62616749007/

Kruse, M. (2023, January 6). The ‘Stolen’ Election That Poisoned American Politics. It Happened in 1984. Politico.

Retrieved from

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/01/06/indiana-8th-1984-election-recount-00073924

Rare Combination of Forces Makes ’94 Vote Historic. CQ Almanac 1994.

Retrieved from

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal94-1102765#_

Wallach, P.A. (2019, January 3). The Fall of Jim Wright – and the House of Representatives. The American Interest.

Retrieved from

When you think of Democratic states, Utah is not a name that comes to mind, but the state was not always the Republican bastion it is today. Indeed, in the first presidential election it participated in its voters overwhelmingly voted for Democrat William Jennings Bryan given his stance for free coinage of silver. Democrats could in many cases win handily statewide, and its longest-serving senator was William Henry King (1863-1949).

Born in the Utah territory, King’s career began all the way back in the early days of statehood. In 1894, President Grover Cleveland tapped King to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the Utah Territory. He was the first person to serve a full term in the House from Utah, succeeding Republican Clarence E. Allen in the 1896 election.  In 1898, the Democrats nominated Brigham H. Roberts, who won the seat but there was a problem: Roberts was a polygamist. This was not something that Congress, which had refused to admit Utah until Mormons dropped polygamy, could accept and he was not seated. King was elected instead to complete his term. By 1900, however, Republicans had gotten much more popular as the economy had recovered by this time and the Spanish-American War was a resounding military victory, and he lost reelection to conservative Republican George Sutherland. King’s effort to get back into Congress in 1902 was rebuffed, and indeed Democrats had a tough time in Utah for a while. He was also the pick of Democrats for the Senate in 1905 and 1909, but to no avail. Indeed, the voters of the state opted to reelect William Howard Taft in 1912, one of only two states to do so. However, among numerous people and groups President Woodrow Wilson became increasingly popular, and this was most dramatically true in Utah. In 1916, King easily defeated incumbent Sutherland for reelection that came with Wilson’s resounding win in the state.

Although King was often regarded as a progressive, his record was actually quite independent and he could be fiscally conservative. From 1918 to 1919, he served on the Overman Committee, which investigated foreign propaganda and subversion, which was the first committee to cover communism in its investigations. King would be a staunch foe of communism throughout his career and he was also a staunch supporter of the Versailles Treaty. Indeed, he would be consistent in support for his party on foreign policy. During the Republican administrations of the 1920s, King opposed some key Republican proposals, such as high tariffs, but his fiscal conservatism showed in his votes to uphold presidential vetoes of veterans bonus bills. He would also do so during the Roosevelt Administration. King was strongly opposed to American interventions in Latin America, and was recognized by the government of Haiti for his efforts (Sillitoe). Interestingly, this was quite a turnaround for Haiti, as the government had previously thought him as “undesirable” (Hill). He was sufficiently popular to not only survive the 1928 election, but win by nearly 12 points while Herbert Hoover won the state by 8 points.

King initially supported the New Deal, voting for most key measures such as the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act. In 1934, he handily won reelection as a supporter of FDR and the New Deal. However, King started having significant disagreements with the Roosevelt Administration. He opposed the death sentence clause of the Public Utilities Holding Company bill and voted against the Bituminous Coal Act in 1935. By 1936, he could be counted among the foes of FDR’s domestic policy, labeling himself a “Constitutional Democrat” (Sillitoe). In 1937, Senate Majority leader Joseph Robinson (D-Ark.) dropped dead from a heart attack, and the top two candidates to succeed him were Alben W. Barkley of Kentucky and Pat Harrison of Mississippi. Although both were known as friends of the New Deal, the fact that Harrison was the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and that King was next in line was a motivating factor for Democrats to prefer Barkley. Ultimately, Harrison lost the post by only one vote. King remained loyal to FDR on foreign policy, but his opposition to the New Deal was not playing well in Utah, which at the time was strongly supportive of both FDR and the New Deal. Due to both his age of 77 and his stance as a dissenter, he was vulnerable to a challenge and he got one in Abe Murdock, the 1^st district representative who was 30 years his junior and who pledged to be a 100% New Dealer. Indeed, Murdock almost never disagreed with Roosevelt. In the Democratic primary, Murdock prevailed on a 2-1 margin, which ended King’s career. Although he was expected to lose the primary, the high margin of his loss was unexpected (Hill). King’s DW-Nominate score stands at a -0.224, accounting for his earlier progressiveness but also his turn against the New Deal. The Salt Lake Tribune wrote in praise of King’s career and considered his loss “less a reflection on him than a tribute to his successor and an evidence of the change in political philosophies of the people” (Hill).  He resumed practicing law until 1947, when he chose to retire to Utah. King did not have long to enjoy his retirement, as in 1948 he suffered a heart attack and his health declined until his death on November 27, 1949. King’s son, David, would serve three terms in the House.

References

King, William Henry. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/5274/william-henry-king

Hill, R. (2024, March 31). Utah Maverick: William H. King. The Knoxville Focus.

Retrieved from

Sillitoe, J. (1994). William H. King. Utah History Encyclopedia.

Retrieved from

There is a notion, one that I have tried my best to combat as a writer, that states have a set philosophy for all time and thus we can look back at how they voted and say that such people would vote a certain way today. This ignores important factors such as demographic shifts and economic changes. As hard as it is for some to believe, the state of Utah at one time was a bulwark for FDR and the New Deal. In 1932, Utah voters gave their longtime Republican senator, Reed Smoot (as in Smoot-Hawley Tariff), the boot. They did likewise for their two Republican representatives, and the beneficiary in the state’s first district was Orrice Abram “Abe” Murdock Jr. (1893-1979).

Murdock made his way up in state politics during the Republican 1920s, including serving on the Beaver city council from 1920 to 1921, multiple terms as county attorney, and serving as city attorney from 1926 to 1933. In 1928, Murdock ran for district attorney in the 5^th Utah district but lost. In 1932, he got his big break when he ran for Congress, defeating Republican Don B. Colton by 3 points.

Murdock was a staunch proponent of the New Deal, although he did oppose Roosevelt’s push to fund the New Deal by cutting veterans’ benefits. This was a fairly minor objection in the grand scheme of things, and he supported all of the major New Deal laws. The voters were with him, and he won reelection in 1934 by 30 points. Murdock was also supportive of water projects to help grow the west. However, he was perhaps best known for his staunch support of labor unions, and fought against the efforts of Howard W. Smith (D-Va.), chairman of the special committee to investigate the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Smith was an opponent of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) and believed that the NLRB favored the CIO. There was, however, one issue that contemporary liberals would not consider Murdock one of their own, and that was that in 1937 and 1940 he voted against anti-lynching legislation.

Although Utah was strongly for the New Deal, one of its senators, William H. King, had turned against it by 1936. Congressman Murdock challenged King for renomination on a platform of 100% support for the New Deal, and the contrast between Murdock and King was strong not only based on domestic policy, but also by age: Murdock was 47 while King was 77. Although the latter was for Roosevelt’s foreign policy, this wasn’t enough as Murdock was supportive too and he won the primary by a 2-1 margin, a resounding rebuke of King. The state’s voters were simpatico with the Democratic primary voters, resoundingly reelecting Roosevelt and electing Murdock by over 25 points.

Senator Murdock

Murdock proved one of the friendliest of all the senators to New Deal policy as well as to organized labor. Contrary to his votes against anti-lynching legislation in the House, he supported the retention of the Fair Employment Practices Committee as well as banning the poll tax in federal elections. His staunch pro-Administration stance included his votes against overriding President Roosevelt’s veto of the Smith-Connally Act in 1943 and the Revenue Act in 1944. Murdock also co-authored the G.I. Bill (The Ogden Standard Examiner). However, politics have a way of changing over the years, and Utah was no exception. 1946 was a far different year than 1940, as President Truman was deeply unpopular and Republicans were keen on rebounding from their losses, which they did. Murdock campaigned on his record of advocacy for agriculture, labor, and veterans, as well as the successful fight to retain the Geneva steel plant (The Ogden Standard Examiner). However, this wasn’t enough to prevent his defeat by Republican Arthur Watkins, although his loss was by less than three points him for reelection, indicative once again of how Utah was not always this staunchly red state. Murdock’s DW-Nominate score is a -0.351. This was far from the end of Murdock’s time in Washington, and President Truman tapped him to be on the National Labor Relations Board. His appointment was opposed by pro-business conservatives, but he was confirmed and served until 1957. Murdock did have disagreements with the Eisenhower Administration during this time, as he regarded its appointees to the NLRB as voting for changes in the law to favor employers (Cook). In 1960, he briefly served on the Atomic Energy Labor-Management Relations Panel before he retired from politics. Murdock died on September 15, 1979 in Bethesda, Maryland.

References

Cook, J. (1979, September 18). Abe Murdock Dead; Former U.S. Senator. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

For Action…Accomplishment…Leadership…Vote Straight Democratic. (1946, November 3). Advertisement in The Ogden (Utah) Standard Examiner, 9.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/598708429/

King Suffers Crushing Defeat. (1940, September 5). Washington Times-Herald, 3.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/1037944639/

Murdock, Orrice Abram, Jr. (Abe). Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/6800/orrice-abram-murdock-jr-abe

At one time there were people in the Republican Party who were considered prominent and promising who were of the party’s “Rockefeller” or “liberal” wing. One of the last who looked like she was going to go to higher places was Millicent Hammond Fenwick (1910-1992). Born Millicent Hammond, she had tragedy early in her life when her mother was among the casualties of the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915. Her father was the wealthy New York financier and politician Ogden Hammond, who served as Ambassador to Spain during the Coolidge Administration. As a young society woman, she caused some scandal when she fell in love with the older and already married businessman Hugh Fenwick. Fenwick chose her and divorced his wife. He and Millicent were married from 1932 to 1945 (although they had separated in 1938) and had two children. After the separation, she sought to provide for her children by briefly modeling for Harper’s Bazaar and then writing for Vogue magazine, and in 1948 she wrote Vogue’s Book of Etiquette, which sold over a million copies. Although she had first become politically aware in the 1930s, recalling, “Hitler started me in politics; when I became aware of what he was doing to people, I fired up” (U.S. House). By the 1950s she decided that it was time to get into public service.

A strong advocate for civil rights, Fenwick was a member of the NAACP and from 1958 to 1974 she served on the New Jersey Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. She also served on the Bernardsville Borough Council from 1958 to 1964. In 1969, Fenwick was elected to the New Jersey Assembly, serving until 1973. While there, she solidified her reputation as a wit when a conservative member of the Assembly spoke out against the Equal Rights Amendment, stating, “I just don’t like this amendment. I’ve always thought of women as kissable, cuddly and smelling good”, which was met with Fenwick’s retort, “That’s the way I feel about men, too. I only hope for your sake that you haven’t been disappointed as often as I have” (U.S. House). Although an advocate for marriage, she had never remarried after her divorce from Hugh Fenwick. In 1973, Governor William Cahill tapped her to head up the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs. In 1974, with Congressman Peter Frelinghuysen retiring, Fenwick sought his seat in Congress. Running against her in the Republican primary was future governor Thomas Kean, but she defeated Kean by a mere 83 votes and went on to win the seat.

Congresswoman Fenwick

After her election to Congress, Fenwick diverged even more from party line than her moderate predecessor. She voted to override President Ford’s vetoes on strip mining regulations in 1975 and federal day care and public works in 1976. However, she voted to sustain his 1976 veto of a bill loosening Hatch Act regulations. Although Fenwick backed President Ford’s position to deregulate oil prices in 1975, she also supported Representative Neal Smith’s (D-Iowa) 1976 amendment that limited deregulation of oil prices to small producers. On social issues and foreign aid, Fenwick had a liberal voting record. Contrary to a majority of her party, she opposed the Hyde Amendment, the first successful pro-life reaction to Roe v. Wade. In 1980, Fenwick unsuccessfully tried to keep an endorsement of the Equal Rights Amendment in the Republican Party platform. She was, however, also known as fiscally conservative, although this didn’t mean she was solidly down the line on cuts. When a reporter tried to categorize her, she stated, “Everyone asks me whether I’m a liberal, a maverick, a neoconservative or whatever. I simply try to stick to what I believe in” (Malnic). However, it was her stances on ethics that frequently attracted positive attention. Indeed, Fenwick was among the favorites of the mainstream media of the day, with anchor Walter Cronkite once calling her the “conscience of Congress” (U.S. House). She certainly got points not only from her party, but also the general public, when she took on the notoriously mean and tough chairman of the House Administration Committee Wayne Hays (D-Ohio). Fenwick wanted to keep committee meetings open to the public (Malnic). Hays was not happy with this freshman whippersnapper. As Fenwick recalled, “Hays once said ‘If that woman doesn’t sit down and keep quiet, I’m not going to sign the checks for her staff’”. (Malnic). Hays would resign in 1976 after a highly publicized scandal that he hired his mistress who had no secretarial skills as his secretary. She also sat on the committee that investigated the “Koreagate” influence peddling scandal. Fenwick was also widely regarded as the inspiration for the Doonesbury character Lacey Davenport (an ideal Republican by liberal standards), but cartoonist Garry Trudeau denied this was the case. In 1981, she denounced her colleagues for placing in tax deductions for themselves through hasty legislative maneuvering and announced that she would not choose to benefit from these deductions (Malnic). Fenwick was also known for smoking her trademark pipe, which she took up after her doctor advised her to quit smoking cigarettes.

The 1982 Senate Election

Fenwick, at the age of 72, decided to run for the Senate. In the primary, she faced Jeffrey Bell, a staunch Reaganite who had been the Republican nominee for the Senate in 1978. A nomination of Bell would have been seen as an affirmation of support for Reagan’s agenda within the New Jersey Republican Party, but Fenwick prevailed. Nonetheless, she got Reagan’s endorsement. Fenwick faced Democrat Frank Lautenberg, a wealthy executive who financed his own campaign. Although she was favored to win the race, 1982 was a bad year for the Republicans as the economy was in a recession, something that Lautenberg heavily capitalized on. He also made the point that if elected, she would strengthen the Senate Republican majority and thus keep Strom Thurmond of South Carolina as chairman of the prominent Judiciary Committee. Thurmond was a former segregationist and had only that year voted favorably on voting rights legislation. Fenwick hit back against this tactic, arguing, ”Is there a black person in this state who doesn’t know where I stand? I didn’t wait until 1982 to Join the N.A.A.C.P. When I was a working woman I was a member” (Norman).  Lautenberg was also able to significantly outspend her, and on election day she fell short by three points. Ideologically, Fenwick sided with the positions of Americans for Democratic Action 66% of the time, the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action 43% of the time, and her DW-Nominate score stands at a 0.134, a bit higher than one might think given these scores. Her case also is an example that conservatives can use that even when Republicans run a candidate that liberals claim to like they still don’t win. President Reagan did not leave her high and dry, tapping her to serve as Ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture, serving until she retired in March 1987. Fenwick died of heart failure on September 16, 1992 at the age of 82.

References

ADA Voting Records. Americans for Democratic Action.

Retrieved from

Fenwick, Millicent Hammond. U.S. House of Representatives.

Retrieved from

https://history.house.gov/People/Detail/13066

Fenwick, Millicent Hammond. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/person/14221/millicent-hammond-fenwick

Malnic, E. (1992, September 17). Millicent Fenwick, 82; Congress ‘Conscience’. Los Angeles Times.

Retrieved from

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-09-17-mn-798-story.html

Norman, M. (1982, October 29). Rep. Fenwick Says Lautenberg Distorts Her Record. The New York Times.

Retrieved from

I hold that the era we have been living in since 2015 can be called the Trump Era. I was loath to believe this at the start of it, but the truth is that the politics of this current age have completely centered on Donald Trump, on matters both political and personal. They centered on him when he was out of office for four years as well, in part because stories about him made media companies tons of money. He has expressed great admiration for another president who so much dominated in attention of the era of his prominence that historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. titled his 1945 book on him, The Age of Jackson. Andrew Jackson’s entry into presidential politics resulted in the demise of the old Democratic-Republican Party into factions, and Jackson ran as being closest to the original values of Thomas Jefferson. Although his first bid, 1824, was a loss, he alleged a “corrupt bargain” had occurred for him to lose, namely that John Quincy Adams had gotten Henry Clay to give him his electors in exchange for Clay being appointed Secretary of State. Such a quid pro quo was denied by Adams and Clay but the allegation stuck in the public mind. Jackson’s triumphant victory in 1828 was marred by the death of his wife Rachel shortly after. Rachel Jackson had been in fragile health, and the 1828 election had a number of nasty charges thrown around, including that Rachel had committed bigamy by marrying Jackson. The truth was that Rachel had not known that the divorce from her first husband had not been legally finalized at the time of the marriage, only discovering this two years after. Jackson blamed her death on the stress caused by such allegations of her political opponents. This added to his already existing sensitivity on personal accusations against women.

A Controversial Appointment

John H. Eaton

The trouble for Jackson began when he was picking his first cabinet, seeking to reward supporters. One of them was his close personal friend, biographer, and fellow Tennessean John H. Eaton for Secretary of War. Eaton had nine months before married a woman named Margaret “Peggy” O’Neill, who had been a bar maid at her father’s boarding house and had a reputation of being flirtatious with customers. Her first husband, a man who was 22 years her senior in Navy purser John B. Timberlake, was known for having two problems: drinking and debt. Senator John Eaton, who had befriended the couple, got Timberlake an overseas position to help him out. On April 2, 1828, he died abroad, and although an autopsy concluded that he had died of pneumonia, rumors spread throughout Washington society that he had committed suicide over an alleged affair with Eaton and it was further alleged that Eaton had gotten Timberlake the post so he could freely court Peggy. Indeed, only months after Timberlake’s death, John and Peggy were married. Based on this short grieving period and such rumors, the wives of Jackson’s cabinet officers socially ostracized Peggy Eaton, refusing to invite her to any events and would not attend any events in which she was present. Furthermore, Peggy Eaton was considered too outspoken for a woman by others. As John F. Marszalek (2000) wrote, “She did not know her place; she forthrightly spoke up about anything that came to her mind, even topics of which women were supposed to be ignorant. She thrust herself into the world in a manner inappropriate for woman…. Accept her, and society was in danger of disruption. Accept this uncouth, impure, forward, worldly woman, and the wall of virtue and morality would be breached and society would have no further defenses against the forces of frightening change. Margaret Eaton was not that important in herself; it was what she represented that constituted the threat. Proper women had no choice; they had to prevent her acceptance into society as part of their defense of that society’s morality” (56-57). This greatly upset Jackson. Jackson himself had advised Eaton to marry her as soon as possible and defended him and Peggy throughout this ordeal. The woman who was leading this ostracism was none other than his vice president’s wife, Floride Calhoun. John C. Calhoun may also have been using this as a way to boost his views within Jackson’s cabinet, as he and Eaton had significant political disagreements, including on tariffs and nullification. This whole matter became known as the Eaton Affair or the Petticoat Affair.

Peggy Eaton
A furious Jackson called a cabinet meeting to defend Peggy, and supposedly in the process commented that she was “as chaste as a virgin!” despite her having twice been married and having had three children (Hill). Although cabinet officers tried to explain to Jackson the reasoning for their wives’ ostracism of her, the subject became closed once Jackson compared her situation to that of his late wife. Only Secretary of State Martin Van Buren, a widower, and Postmaster General William Barry, who had appreciated Peggy nursing his very ill child, stood by her. This matter was a deepening sore in the administration, and John Eaton would in retaliation release accurate documentation that as Secretary of War to President Monroe Calhoun had supported censuring Jackson over his 1818 invasion of Florida. Calhoun only made matters worse when due to miscommunication he released correspondence between himself and Jackson in 1831. This major rift between Jackson and his cabinet threatened to derail his presidency, so the cunning Van Buren, who Jackson came to increasingly trust, came up with a scheme to resolve the situation.  

Van Buren would first resign his post, followed by John Eaton, thus politically permitting Jackson to ask for the resignations of all his cabinet officers with the pretense of a cabinet reorganization. Of course, Vice President John C. Calhoun could not be part of this, thus he and the ringleader in this ostracism would remain in Washington. This matter, in addition to Calhoun’s support of South Carolina’s nullification of the “Tariff of Abominations” completely alienated Jackson from Calhoun, and made him one of his two most hated rivals. When asked in 1837 if he had any regrets about his presidency, Jackson reportedly responded, “Yes, I regret I was unable to shoot Henry Clay or to hang John C. Calhoun” (U.S. Senate). With all resignations in hand, Jackson remade the cabinet, and in the process brought Van Buren back as Minister to Great Britain, but a vote to continue in his post was defeated by the influence of Calhoun. However, this came off as Van Buren being a victim of petty personal politics, and Jackson would pick him to serve as vice president in his second term. John Eaton would never attain the political heights he had reached before his marriage to Peggy; he did not succeed in a bid to return to the Senate in 1834 (he was made governor of the Florida Territory instead) and then alienated himself from Jackson by becoming a Whig and endorsing William Henry Harrison in 1840.

References

Hill, R. (2013, August 11). Peggy Eaton: The Woman Who Brought Down A Cabinet. The Knoxville Focus.

Retrieved from

https://www.knoxfocus.com/archives/peggy-eaton-the-woman-who-brought-down-a-cabinet/

John C. Calhoun. UVA Miller Center.

Retrieved from

https://millercenter.org/president/jackson/essays/calhoun-1829-john-vicepresident

Marszalek, J.F. (2017, October 8). Eaton Affair. Tennessee Encyclopedia.

Retrieved from

Marszalek, J.F. (2000). The Petticoat Affair.: manners, mutiny, and sex in Andrew Jackson’s White House. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.

The Attempt to Kill “King Andrew”. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Attempt_to_kill_King_Andrew.htm

Henry Cabot Lodge

The 1888 election was a close one, and one that Republican Benjamin Harrison won narrowly, and only by the electoral vote. It was in this election that Republican got for the first time since the Grant Administration unified government. The Republicans set to work on numerous bills that they did not have a chance at passing if either the House or Senate were Democratic. One of these, proposed by Congressman Henry Cabot Lodge (R-Mass.) was the Federal Elections Bill. If enacted, this measure would have, among other provisions, authorized the federal supervision of Congressional elections in cases in which 500 petitions had been made from the respective districts about voting practices to the Judge of the District Court no less than two months prior to the election (The New York Times). This bill only covered Congressional elections, and was constitutional given that Congress has the explicit authority to regulate elections for senators and representatives except for the places in which senators are chosen under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1. The primary purpose of this measure was to implement the 15^th Amendment, as it was often the case that blacks were subjected to voter intimidation and fraud to keep their numbers down. There were several Congressional elections in which Congress overturned the result due to voter intimidation and fraud in the South. In 1890, for instance, Thomas E. Miller of South Carolina and John Mercer Langston of Virginia, both who identified themselves as black (Miller was mostly white), were seated after findings by Congress that a fair election had been denied. However, it was a bill that applied nationwide. Thus, the shenanigans of Northern city machines could very well be impacted too. Lodge stood steadfastly by his bill. Something to note here is that Lodge was not in keeping with radical egalitarianism, indeed in response to a letter that expressed concern over “ignorant Negro votes”, he responded, “Nothing in this bill or any other prevents a state from excluding ignorance from the suffrage. Massachusetts has an educational test. South Carolina can do the same, but will not because she wishes to exclude black ignorance and let white ignorance vote” (Gwin, 105). That sounds like a color-blind policy to me!  On July 2, 1890, the bill passed 155-149. It was on to the Senate, where the bill’s sponsor was George Frisbie Hoar (R-Mass.) and it commanded a lot of Republican support. But was it enough?

Although the House passed it, the bill did not seem terribly popular. The Weekly San Diegan (1890) noted, “It is significant that the San Francisco and Portland Councils of Federated Trades have adopted resolutions condemning the federal election bill as dangerous to the freedom of the ballot box” (2). They were not the only unions to oppose this measure. Indeed, Knights of Labor leader Terence V. Powderly (1890) opposed, arguing that the measure itself would intimidate voters and encourage fraud, and furthermore claims hypocrisy, stating, “The Democratic party does its best to intimidate the colored citizens of the South, and they give as a reason that if they did not do so they would be subject to negro rule down there, or as they put it, “ignorant rule.” In the North the employers of labor intimidate the workmen in the interest of the Republican Party, but that party cannot lay claim to so respectable an excuse as the desire to avoid “ignorant rule,” for the workmen of the North have never imposed ignorant rule where they elected their own representatives” (10).

On August 13^th, it was reported that Pennsylvania boss Matthew Quay (R-Penn.) introduced a resolution to postpone consideration of the Lodge Bill so the tariff bill could be passed (Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, 1). It was said that Senator Arthur P. Gorman (D-Md.) and Quay were making an agreement behind the scenes, and it would make sense for those two to do so; both men were at the head of political machines that had engaged in corrupt practices to maintain political dominance. And indeed, the Lodge Bill was postponed, being again considered in the Senate during the lame-duck session of Congress. One of the opponents, notably, was Senator William M. Stewart (R-Nev.), who had authored the 15^th Amendment. Opponents in the Senate, led by Gorman, sought to defeat the bill by delay, and they succeeded. Silver Republicans, such as Stewart, had joined the Democrats to defeat the bill given a promise from Gorman not to interfere with their silver interests (The New York Times, 1906).

Although modern liberal opinion is positive on this measure*, liberal opinion did not historically approve. Historian Richard E. Welch, Jr. (1965) noted that “The standard liberal interpretation of American history applauds recent efforts in behalf of greater political equality for the southern Negro. It continues, however, to deplore the Federal Elections Bill of 1890: its introduction, its provisions, the motives of its originators and proponents. In the lexicon of American history the defeat of the force bill of 1890 was a “good thing”” (511). This is quite reminiscent of President Kennedy’s simultaneous support for civil rights in his time and his belief that Republican Reconstruction had been a mistake.

Would the Lodge Bill have made the sort of gains on civil rights like the 1960s? I think it a mistake to believe this law would have been a panacea and would have had difficulty surviving after the next election. However, if it remained, it would have constituted a fair (in my opinion) and constitutional means of not only enforcing a race-neutral application of voting laws but also countering the fraudulent antics of big city machines. I can see this measure as both garnering historical support from contemporary liberals (now that the “little guy” isn’t just a white working man) and contemporary conservatives as a way to actually apply color-blind standards, possibly rendering more federally intrusive measures unnecessary, and countering voter fraud.

* – The pro-critical race theory The Forum Magazine’s 2022 article on the subject, which compares Republican efforts in 1890 to Democratic efforts for the For the People Act in 2022, even though the bills have many substantive differences.
 

References

A Federal Election Bill. (1890, March 15). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Encourages Fraud. (1890, August 3). The Saint Paul Daily Globe, 10.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/81068633/

Gorman Dies Suddenly; Was Seemingly Better. (1906, June 5). The New York Times.

Retrieved from

Gwin, S.P. (1968). The Partisan Rhetoric of Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr. University of Florida.

Retrieved from

Remonstrance Against the Federal Election Bill. (1890, July 24). The Weekly San Diegan, 2.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/1048031780/

Senator Quay’s Move. (1890, August 13). Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, 1.

Retrieved from

https://www.newspapers.com/image/394966835/

The Federal Elections Bill of 1890. Library of America.

Retrieved from

https://storyoftheweek.loa.org/2024/10/the-federal-elections-bill-of-1890.html

Welch, R. (1965, December). The Federal Elections Bill of 1890: Postscripts and Prelude. The Journal of American History, 52 (3), 511-526.

Retrieved from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1890845