Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:04:52.802Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

All Politics Are Local: Another Look at the 1890s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2010

Peter H. Argersinger
Peter H. Argersinger
Affiliation:
Southern Illinois University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although rarely considered by historians, legislative and congressional apportionments were among the most important, absorbing, and contentious political issues of the late nineteenth century. Local, state, and national party leaders struggled to shape apportionments and thereby secure disproportionate influence for the counties, districts, and states their followers controlled. Gerrymanders, in turn, not only distorted representation but often incited a furious opposition, which disrupted legislative bodies, transformed political campaigns, and ultimately produced unprecedented judicial intervention. In surveying these overlooked developments, this essay points to important questions that historians must hereafter address.

Type
2008 Presidential Address
Information
The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 7 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 O'Neill, Tip, All Politics Is Local and Other Rules of the Game (New York, 1994)Google Scholar; for Hancock, see Morgan, H. Wayne, From Hayes to McKinley: National Party Politics, 1877–1896 (Syracuse, NY, 1969), 117Google Scholar.

2 For convenient summaries, see Haynes, George H., “Representation in New England Legislatures,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 6 (Sept. 1895): 254–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; , Haynes, “Representation in State Legislatures. I. North Atlantic States,” Annals 15 (Mar. 1900): 204–35Google Scholar; , Haynes, “Representation in the Legislatures of the North Central States,” Annals 15 (May 1900): 405–25Google Scholar; , Haynes, “Representation in State Legislatures. IV. The Western States,” Annals 16 (Sept. 1900): 243–72Google Scholar. See also Reed, Alfred Z., The Territorial Basis of Government Under the State Constitutions (New York, 1911)Google Scholar.

3 Congressional Globe, 40th Cong., 3rd sess., Appendix, 268-70 (March 2, 1869); “Legal Disfranchisement,” Atlantic Monthly, Apr. 1892, 542.Google Scholar

4 Sackett, William Edgar, Modern Battles of Trenton (Trenton, NJ, 1895), 24Google Scholar; Indianapolis journal, Feb. 11, 1885Google Scholar. I have called attention to the importance of gerrymandering in the larger context of political representation in “The Value of the Vote: Political Representation in the Gilded Age” journal of American History 76 (June 1989): 59–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a more recent discussion of gerrymandering, but one which slights the 1890s and the issues raised below, see Summers, Mark Wahlgren, Party Games: Getting, Keeping, and Using Power in Gilded Age Politics (Chapel Hill, 2004), 125–38Google Scholar.

5 For suggestive studies of the social roots of partisanship, see Kleppner, Paul, The Cross of Culture: A Social Analysis of Midwestern Politics, 1850-1900 (New York, 1970)Google Scholar; , Kleppner, The Third Electoral System, 1853-1892: Voters, Parties, and Political Cultures (Chapel Hill, 1979)Google Scholar; Jensen, Richard, The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896 (Chicago, 1971)Google Scholar; McSeveney, Samuel T., The Politics of Depression: Political Behavior in the Northeast, 1893-1896 (New York, 1972)Google Scholar; and Campbell, Ballard C., Representative Democrary: Public Policy and Midwestern Legislatures in the Late Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, MA, 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a particularly good example of party leaders considering the construction of legislative districts by localities and ethnocultural factors, in an attempt to control all five senate districts in Milwaukee when they were certain of only three, see E. C. Wall to William F. Vilas, Apr. 27, 1892, William F. Vilas Papers, Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS). For examples of incoming advice, see the correspondence of Wisconsin's Republican state chairman Elisha Keyes dealing with the 1882 apportionment, especially G. Karpe to Keyes, Jan. 23, 1882; Alex Wilson to Keyes, Feb. 9, 1882; Weeks to Keyes, Feb. 23, 1882; George Esterly to Keyes, Feb. 27, 1882; A. C. Dodge to Keyes, Mar. 23, 1882; W. M. Fogo to Keyes, Mar. 25,1882; all in Elisha Keyes Papers, WHS.

6 Decatur [IL] Daily Republican, May 2, 1894Google Scholar; Shank, Alan and Reock, Ernest C. Jr, New Jersey's Experience with General Assembly Districts, 1852-1893: Preliminary Draft (New Brunswick, 1966), 51–62Google Scholar; , Sackett, Modern Battles of Trenton, 28Google Scholar . See also Hamm, Walter, “The Art of Gerrymandering,” Forum, July 1890, 538–51Google Scholar.

7 Dilla, Harriette M., The Politics of Michigan, 1865-1878 (New York, 1912), 131Google Scholar; Detroit Free Press, Mar. 26, 1872. In the subsequent 1872 election, Michigan Republicans elected all nine congressmen.

8 Whitewater Register quoted in Columbus [WI] Democrat, Oct. 21, 1892.Google Scholar

9 Alex Wilson to Keyes, Feb. 9,1882, and George W. Ginty to Keyes, Feb. 26, 1882, Keyes Papers; Maniwotoc [WI] Pilot, Dec. 19, 1895Google Scholar.

10 Fort Wayne [IN]Weekly Sentinel, 20, 1897Google Scholar.

11 G. W Hazelton to Keyes, Feb. 5, 1872, Keyes Papers.

12 Joseph Harris to Keyes, Feb. 21, 1872, Keyes Papers.

13 CongressionalRecord, 51st Cong., 1st sess., Appendix, 411-15, 421-22 (June 30, 1890);Buck, A., Frauds and Falsehoods of the Republican Party (Chicago, 1892)Google Scholar;McCarer, Charles H., The Gerrymander: A Statement Showing the Disfranchisement of Those Opposed to the Democratic Party (Indianapolis, 1886)Google Scholar;“The Slaying of the Gerrymander,” Atlantic Monthly, May 1892, 679Google Scholar.

14 For valuable surveys, seeCherny, Robert W, American Politics in the Gilded Age, 1868-1900 (Wheeling, IL, 1997), 97–110Google Scholar;Williams, R. Hal, Years of Decision: American Politics in the 1890s (New York, 1978), 43–70Google Scholar.

15 Grand Rapids [MI] Weekly Democrat, Sept. 11, Oct. 30, July 10, 1890Google Scholar;Columbus Democrat, Oct. 10, 1890Google Scholar;Detroit Free Press, Oct. 16, Nov. 4, 1890Google Scholar;Cedar Rapids [IA] Evening Gazette, Oct. 9, 1891Google Scholar;New York Times, Oct. 10, 20, 1891, p. 4Google Scholar;Olean [NY] Democrat, Oct. 29, 1891Google Scholar. For an important study of the Republicans' admission of new states, see Charles Stewart III andWeingast, Barry R., “Stacking the Senate, Changing the Nation: Republican Rotten Boroughs, Statehood Politics, and American Political Development,” Studies in American Political Development 6 (Fall 1992): 223–71Google Scholar.

16 Milwaukee Journal, Feb. 19, 20, 1891Google Scholar;Grand Rapids Weekly Democrat, Nov. 13, 1890Google Scholar;Columbus Democrat, Nov. 7, 1890Google Scholar;Cedar Rapids Evening Gazette, Oct. 9, 1891Google Scholar;Trenton [NJ] True American, Nov. 7, 1890Google Scholar. New Jersey Democrats had redistricted but not reapportioned the state during die previous years.

17 Some states, of course, reapportioned their legislatures on the basis of state censuses, but the timing was similar. In Indiana, both Democrats and Republicans appealed to voters in the 1890 campaign on the issue that the legislature elected would reapportion the state using the 1889 state census. In New York, Republicans had long simply blocked a new state census, thereby preventing reapportionment. When Democrats gained control of the 1892 legislature, they first enacted a law for a census and then, after adjourning, reassembled immediately in special session to approve a new apportionment.

18 Detroit Tribune, Feb. 25, 26, 1891Google Scholar;Detroit Evening News, Feb. 25, 1891Google Scholar;Kalamazoo [MI] Weekly Telegraph, Mar. 4, 1891Google Scholar;Hornellsville [NY] Weekly Tribune, Jan. 8, 1892Google Scholar;American Law Review 26 (May-June 1892): 425Google Scholar. Democrats used the phrase “rotten boroughs” in their 1877 state platform; seeNew York Times, Oct. 5, 1877, p. 2Google Scholar. For the complex controversy over the contested New York legislative elections, seeBass, Herbert J., ’I Am A Democrat”: The Political Career of David Bennett Hill (Syracuse, NY, 1961), 191–99Google Scholar.

19 Jonesboro [IL] Gazette, Jan. 28, 1893Google Scholar;Iowa City Daily Citizen, Jan. 7, 1893Google Scholar;New Albany Tribune, repr. in Indianapolis Journal, Feb. 9, 1891Google Scholar;Detroit Evening News, Feb. 25, 1891Google Scholar;Illinois State Register (Springfield), Jan. 31, Feb. 15, 1893Google Scholar.

20 Detroit Free Press, Apr. 18, June 12, 1891Google Scholar;Illinois State Journal (Springfield), Apr. 29, May 17, 19, 1893Google Scholar;Journal of the House of Representatives of the Thirty-Eighth GeneralAssembly of the State of Illinois (Springfield, 1893), 627Google Scholar;Illinois State Register, Feb. 7, 1893Google Scholar.

21 Indianapolis News, Jan. 30, Feb. 4, 1891Google Scholar;Kendall County News, repr. in Illinois State journal, May 10, 1893Google Scholar;Illinois State Register, May 16, 1893Google Scholar.

22 Carmi [IL] Courier, Mar. 9, 23, 1893;Illinois State Register, March 28, 1893Google Scholar;Indianapolis Journal, Feb. 7, 1891Google Scholar;La Crosse [WI] Republican andLeader, Mar. 28, 1891Google Scholar;Middletown [NY] Daily Press, Apr. 27, 1892Google Scholar;Illinois State Journal, May 27, 1893Google Scholar.

23 O. F. Berry to Shelby Cullom, Jan. 18, 1893, Shelby Cullom Papers, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library (ALPL), Springfield, Illinois; William R. Bates to James McMillan, Mar. 9, 1891, James McMillan Papers, Detroit Public Library;Milwaukee Journal, Apr. 3, 1891Google Scholar;New Castle [IN] Courier, Mar. 6, 1891Google Scholar;New York Tribune, Apr. 26, 27, 1892Google Scholar;Wisconsin State Register (Portage), Apr. 16,17, 1891Google Scholar;Illinois StateJournal, Mar. 29, 30, Apr. 7, 13, May 5, 27, June 8,10, 1893Google Scholar; Illinois State Register, Apr. 14, May 5, 27, 1893. Illinois Democrats subsequently found technical error in the law and had to reassemble in Springfield to repeat the tumultuous process all over again.

24 Wisconsin State Journal (Madison), Apr. 16, 1891Google Scholar;Milwaukee Journal, Apr. 16, 1891Google Scholar.

25 Henry Casson to Jeremiah Rusk, Apr. 15, 20, 1891, Jeremiah Rusk Papers, WHS;Wisconsin State Register, Apr. 18, 1891Google Scholar;Indianapolis Journal, Jan. 31, Feb. 26, 1891Google Scholar;Illinois Journal, May 27, 29, 1893Google Scholar;Middletown Daily Press, Apr. 16, June 2, 1892Google Scholar;Jackson Citizen quoted in Lansing [MI] State Republican, July 8, 1891Google Scholar;New York Tribune, Apr. 22, 27, 1892Google Scholar;New York Times, Dec. 10, 1891, p. 10Google Scholar. For a fuller discussion of Harrison's concerns and the national implications of state apportionment legislation, seeArgersinger, Peter H., “Electoral Reform and Partisan Jugglery,” Political Science Quarterly 119 (Fall 2004): 499–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Baltimore Sun, Dec. 11, 14, 1891Google Scholar;Grand Rapids Weekly Democrat, Dec. 24, 1891Google Scholar. What the Democratic critics failed to mention, of course, was that while Harrison's victory in the Electoral College stemmed from Republican pluralities in states with divided electorates, the Democrats' edge in the popular vote rested on their suppression of the votes of African American Republicans in southern states. In either case, again, voters' influence depended upon their location.

27 Hornellsville Weekly Tribune, May 6, 1892Google Scholar; E. C. Wall to William F. Vilas, May 18, Vilas Papers; Monroe [MI]Democrat, July 28, 1892Google Scholar;Detroit Free Press, Apr. 17, May 16, 1891Google Scholar;Milwaukee Journal, Mar. 27, Apr. 13, 17, 18, 1891Google Scholar;Illinois State Register, Apr. 29, 1893Google Scholar;Trenton True American, Mar. 17, 1891Google Scholar. In truth, the New Jersey laws surpassed Republican predecessors in population disparities and inequalities of representation.

28 Gerry Hazelton to Andrew J. Turner, May 2, 4, and Oct. 20, 1891, and H. C. Payne to Turner, Apr. 23, 1891, Andrew J. Turner Papers, WHS; John Spooner to John Hicks, Dec. 1, 1891, John Spooner Papers, WHS. Spooner was the key figure in collaboration on obstacles and tactics. See Gerry Hazelton to Andrew J. Turner, May 6, 1891, Turner Papers; Spooner to William E. Chandler, Dec. 1, 1891; Spooner to Edgar L. Murlin, May 18, 1892; Spooner to James A. Blanchard, May 19, 1892; Spooner to Frank Hiscock, April 1, 1892; Spooner to L. J. Nash, Mar. 25, 1892, Spooner Papers; John Spooner to Charles Fairbanks, Sept. 6, 1892, Charles Fairbanks Papers, Lilly Library, Indiana University.

29 Spooner to Andrew J. Turner, Nov. 16, 1891, and Spooner to Philetus Sawyer, Jan. 15, 1892, Spooner Papers; J. F. Ellarson to Andrew J. Turner, Dec. 3, 1891, Jan. 1, 1892, and Charles Estabrook to Turner, Nov. 14, 1891, Turner Papers; C. A. Billington to A. W Wishard, Jan. 24, 1893, and Eugene H. Bundy to Charles Fairbanks, July 7, Aug. 7, 1892, Fairbanks Papers;Indianapolis Journal, Oct. 3, 1892Google Scholar;Chicago Times, Sept. 28, 1892Google Scholar.

30 Indianapolis Sun, Nov. 18, 1892Google Scholar;Illinois State Register, May 12, 1894Google Scholar;Illinois State Journal, Apr. 30, 1894Google Scholar;Chicago Tribune, Mar. 23, 1892Google Scholar, Apr. 29, 1894;La Crosse Republican and leader, January 23, 1892Google Scholar;Franklin [IN] Democrat, September 16, 1892Google Scholar.

31 State v. Cunningham, 51 N.W. Rep. 724 (1892)Google Scholar; State ex rel. Lamb v, Cunningham, 53N.W. Rep. 35 (1892)Google Scholar; Giddings v. Blacker, 52N.W. Rep. 944 (1892)Google Scholar; Board of Supervisors of Houghton County v. Blacker, 52N.W. Rep. 951 (1892)Google Scholar; State v. Wrightson, 56N.J.L. 126 (1893), 28Google ScholarAtl. Rep. 56; Parker v. State ex rel. Powell, 133 Ind. 178, 32N.E. Rep. 836 (1892)Google Scholar; Denny v. State ex rel. Basler, 42N.E. Rep. 929 (1896)Google Scholar; Feslerv. Brayton, 145 Ind. 71, 44N.E. Rep. 37 (1896)Google Scholar; People ex rel. Carter v. Rice, 135N.Y. 473 (1892)Google Scholar; Fletcher v. Tuttle and Blair v. Hinrichsen, 37N.E. Rep. 683 (1894)Google Scholar; People ex rel. Woodyatt v. Thompson, 40N.E. Rep. 307 (1895)Google Scholar.

32 Milwaukee Journal, Feb. 8, 1892Google Scholar; DetroitFree Press, July 30, Aug. 1, 2, 3, 4, 1892Google Scholar;Waukesha [WI] Freeman, Mar. 24, 1892Google Scholar; John Spooner to L. J. Nash, Mar. 25, 1892, and Spooner to David Babcock, Mar. 25, 1892, Spooner Papers;Oshkosh [WI] Daily Northwestern, Mar. 23, 1892Google Scholar;Lansing State Republican, Mar. 24, 1892Google Scholar;Indianapolis Sentinel, Sept. 7, 1892Google Scholar.

33 The New York court's decision upholding the 1892 law did so, in fact, because however imperfect the measure might be, it was far superior to the Republican 1879 law, which would otherwise govern the election. People v. Rice, 135 N.Y. 473. See alsoSilva, Ruth, “Apportionment of the New York Assembly,” Fordham Law Review 31 (Oct. 1962): 12–13Google Scholar.

34 Detroit Evening News, May 5, July 3, 19, 1892Google Scholar;Lansing State Republican, July 19, 1892Google Scholar;Indianapolis Journal, Sept. 2, 1892Google Scholar;Grand Rapids Evening Leader, Mar. 23, 1892Google Scholar;Tanner, John R. to “Dear Sir,” Oct. 26, 1894Google Scholar,Tanner, John R. Papers, ALPL; Sackett, Modern Battles of Trenton, 363Google Scholar;Cincinnati Enquirer, Oct. 31, 1891Google Scholar;Milford [IA] Mail, Sept. 24, 1891Google Scholar;Fort Wayne Weekly Gazette, June 30, 1892Google Scholar, Jan. 10, 1895;Chicago Tribune, Apr. 26, 1894Google Scholar.

35 Monroe Democrat, July 21, 1892Google Scholar;Detroit Free Press, Oct. 3, July 30, 1892Google Scholar;Franklin Democrat, Oct. 7, 1892Google Scholar;Illinois State Register, May 2, 4, 8, 1894Google Scholar.

36 Indianapolis Journal, Sept. 2, 1892Google Scholar;Olean Democrat, Oct. 29, 1891Google Scholar;La Crosse Republican and Leader, Nov. 10, 1894Google Scholar;Chicago Tribune, Jan. 26, 1894Google Scholar;Illinois State Journal, Sept. 29, 1894Google Scholar.

36 Detroit Evening News, Apr. 10, 1895Google Scholar;Manitowoc County Chronicle, repr. in Oshkosh Daily Northwestern, Nov. 8, 1895Google Scholar;Chicago Tribune, Dec. 4, 1897Google Scholar.

38 Chicago Times, 23, 1892Google Scholar;Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia, 1896 (New York, 1897), 618Google Scholar;Reock, Ernest C. Jr, and Friedelbaum, Stanley H., Congressional Districting in New jersey (New Brunswick, NJ, 1956), 16Google Scholar;Indianapolis Sentinel, Mar. 6, 12, 1895Google Scholar.

39 For New Jersey, see Shank and Reock, New Jersey's Experience with General Assembly Districts, 88-92. For Wisconsin, see L. W. Nieman to William F. Vilas, Feb. 3, 1896,Vilas Papers; La Crosse Morning Chronicle, Dec. 7, 1895Google Scholar; William H. Phipps to John C. Spooner, Feb. 24, 1896, Spooner to L. J. Rusk, Mar. 1, 1896, and Henry Putnam to Spooner, Feb. 11, 1896, Spooner Papers;Madison Democrat, Feb. 21, 1896Google Scholar.

40 Chicago Tribune, Mar. 20, 1897Google Scholar; W. H. Hainline to Lawrence Sherman, Dec. 18, 1897, W. I. Larash to Sherman, Dec. 20, 1897, and Jett Kirby to Sherman, Dec. 18, 1897, Lawrence Y. Sherman Papers, ALPL;New York Times, Dec. 24, 1897, p. 1Google Scholar;Chicago Tribune, Dec. 24, 1897Google Scholar;Decatur Daily Review, Apr. 30, 1898Google Scholar;People ex rel. Mooney v. Hutchinson, 172 111. 486, 50 N.E. Rep. 599 (1898)Google Scholar.

41 , McSeveney, Politics of Depression, 64–67Google Scholar;Revised Record of the Constitutional Convention of the State of New York…1894 (Albany, NY, 1900), 4:691Google Scholar;New York World, Aug. 17, 1894, p. 2Google Scholar;Barber, Kathleen L., Proportional Representation and Election Reform in Ohio (Columbus, OH, 1995), 41Google Scholar;McKay, Robert B., Reapportionment: The Law and Politics of Equal Representation (New York, 1965), 324Google Scholar.