Hashpipe's Great Biotimeline

[Hash]

*move forward in time*

January 9, 1958
Stephen P. Thomas' (Chairman of the VT Democratic Party) cottage
Stowe, Vermont

Garrett: Good morning Stephen. Happy new year.
Thomas: Thanks, Chris. Have a seat over there, I need to talk to you about something. But first, how's life Chris?
Garrett: Well, you know, I got back into teaching political science at UVT back in January last year, and they renewed me again in September and I'm going back to teaching again this semester.
Thomas: What about politics, Chris?
Garrett: I don't know Stephen, I'm waiting for the best moment to jump back in. I want to, but really this time I need to win and you sure as hell know that no Democrat can win statewide in Vermont. I might move to New York or something if I want to have a real career.
Thomas: Don't, Chris. I've got something to propose to you. You know, it's a certainty in Montpelier circles that Representative Prouty will move up to Senate in November, leaving that House seat open.
Garrett: So? Republicans will find somebody to run for it and all will be fine. Whose turn is it in the cycle?
Thomas: Technically, Governor Johnson would run for it but he's retiring fully, meaning that the cycle is now broken.
Garrett: Look, Steve, you know that nobody can win this thing without being a Republican. It's been that way since my goddamn grandfather was a kid.
Thomas: You never know, Steve. It's a midterm election, and there's the recession which is definitely gonna hurt Republicans around the country.
Garrett: Look, in '32, when we took 97 seats altogether, the Republicans got 64% of the vote here.
Thomas: That was in '32, things were different here.
Garrett: I can't see how things were any different. Look, two years ago, stupid egghead got a f***king creaming over here. Nobody can win. That's it. Just get some lamb to go out and run for it.
Thomas: Chris, you're the best we've got. Your 1956 campaign got us three countries and 43% and was by far the best we did in '56. Your campaign got noticed by the Free Press and your tour was a blowout success.
Garrett: I still lost by 14 points.
Thomas: ... in a bad year for us. This year is going to be different. The Republicans have no anointed candidate now for the House.
Garrett: How?
Thomas: Former Governor Harold Arthur is going to probably run, but there's little backing for him and he's facing a divided primary battle like never before.
Garrett: Republicans have had divided primaries before. Look, Steve, the bottom line is that this isn't like last time. I'm not running to get known, I need to run to win unless I fancy spending my entire life teaching a bunch of kids. And running for the House, Governor, dog catcher or what have you won't guarantee me a win, far from it. I don't think I'm the man who can win statewide for the first time since goddamn 1852 or something.
Thomas: I believe you are, Chris. Your campaign was phenomenal in 1956.
Garrett: For the love of God, Steve, you know as well as anybody else that I was pissing drunk all of October and it wasn't until Lucie stole my whiskey bottle that I got the act together.
Thomas: But you got that act together, you know it. You went from a pitiful wreck to running one of the best end of campaign operations we'd ever gotten. Look, sure it's uphill and sure you need a perfect storm...
Garrett: I'd need a goddamn hurricane, not just a storm.
Thomas: Yes, a perfect hurricane... if the Republicans get a divided primary, that'll leave bad blood. You're a good campaigner, and you'd have all the resources of the party behind you if you ran.
Garrett: Big f***cking deal. The party has as much cash as a Chinese peasant.
Thomas: I think you're underestimating us, Chris.
Garrett: Maybe, but if I run, I need loads of cash and I need operation on the ground like never before.
Thomas: if you run? You're not refusing it anymore, you see.
Garrett: Yes, yes. If I run. I need cash, loads of it. Lucie's fortune won't pay for my campaigns forever.
Thomas: Talking of Lucie, would she back you if you ran?
Garrett: She wants me to run for anything, and certainly she'd love to go to DC... not that I'd ever win.
Thomas: Stop downplaying your chances.
Garrett: Look, Steve. I'll tell you what. I'll consider running once the Republican primary gets under way and once we can see what the hell comes out of that.
Thomas: I appreciate that, Steve. If you run, we'll throw it all behind you.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Is Garret involved in the 2nd Vermont Republic movement or is it too early for that group?

[Barnes]

This is really great Hash, kudos!

[Hash]

Article from the Burlington Free Press
February 10, 1958

DIVISE GOP PRIMARY LOOMING
The retirement of Rep. Winston L. Prouty (R-Newport), in office since 1950, to run for Senate in November opens up Vermont’s sole at-large seat. In the past, the incumbent Governor was traditionally the favourite to take Vermont’s seat in the House, but this year, Governor Johnson is retiring from office without signaling any interest in running for Congress.

Governor Johnson’s decision not to seek the seat means that there is no frontrunner in the Republican primary, considered tantamount to election given that only Republicans have represented Vermont in the House since 1881.
 
The top Republican contender to date is presumed to be former Governor Harold J. Arthur, a conservative who served as Governor in 1950 and was defeated in the 1950 Republican primary for the same House seat by the liberal Prouty. However, Arthur’s low notoriety leaves him with a small base and he has been out of office since January 1951. He thus cannot be considered to be a frontrunner.

Other lesser-known potential candidates for Prouty’s House seat include Windham County attorney Luke Crispe, Burlington Mayor C. Douglas Cairns and constitutional scholar Harris E. Thurber of Middlebury. This divisive primary may generate a battle divided along regional lines, but also along traditional ideological fault lines with Arthur favoured by the conservatives and Crispe favoured by liberals such as Senator George Aiken.

There is a chance that Democrats could exploit this potentially divisive primary as they look towards making important gains nation-wide in November, but in Vermont it would be more than an uphill fight for a Democrat given that no Democrat has won statewide since the 1850s. Former State Representative Christopher A. Garrett (D-Burlington), who lost to Robert Stafford (R-Rutland) in the 1956 lieutenant gubernatorial contest, is the party’s main contender but has yet to indicate interest.

[Hash]

March 17, 1958
Phone conversation between C. Garrett and S. Thomas

Garrett: You called for me?
Thomas: Yes, Chris. Where are you at on your reflections?
Garrett: For November?
Thomas: Yes, of course.
Garrett: I don't know. I'm still shaky about this given that I have a tiny chance of pulling it out and this is make-or-break for my career in politics as a Democrat.
Thomas: I have reason to think that you have more than a token chance, Chris.
Garrett: You say that since January. What gives?
Thomas: The Republicans. All their candidates are weak, flawed like never before. This isn't a mere liberal versus conservatives primary, but rather a primary between piss-poor candidates like they've never had.
Garrett: Really? They've got a former Governor on one hand and an attorney with Aiken's backing on the other.
Thomas: But Arthur isn't well liked by the liberals and he's been out of it for like seven years now and has totally lost his base within the party... and at the other hand Crispe has a penchant for the bottle and Aiken certainly isn't pulling rabbits out of a hat to to help him...
Garrett: Look, Steve, they've had their bad candidates and bad fights in the past; they inevitably win the general
Thomas: You need to go back a longtime to have a battle between a guy who's been out of it since 1951 and a liberal lacking liberal support and with a bad penchant for intoxication.
Garrett: I didn't know it was that bad...
Thomas: It is, and our sources are telling us that if Arthur wins the primary, you'll be getting a lot of liberals who won't be doing much to help him to say the least...
Garrett: Is Arthur the favourite to win? The conservatives are a minority.
Thomas: Actually, he is. He has the most notoriety statewide against an attorney, a mayor and some scholar... and the liberals are split between Crispe and Cairns... and there aren't any runoffs here...
Garrett: This is interesting, Steve... What would you say our chances are?
Thomas: They're still nothing without you... Look, the only guy besides you who wants to run here is one William Meyer, and he's a freaking communist. If you run, as I've always said, you've got all our backing...
Garrett: Hmm....
Thomas:  My recommendation is, if you're gonna go for gold, go for it right now so you can be out there in the villages while the Republicans are out there killing themselves, and start building that machine right away and work out all your old support bases...
Garrett: Okay, fine, Steve. I'm in.
Thomas: YES!

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Mr. Garret goes to Washington!!

[Hash]

March 23, 1958
Garrett campaign event
Swanton, Vermont

Fellow Vermonters

I come forth to you today... to announce to you that I am Christopher Garrett, and I'm a candidate for United States Representative from the great state of Vermont!

When our country is faced with some of the toughest times since the end of the War... when unemployment is reaching unprecedented heights... when our farms are going out of business... and when our families are struggling every day... It's time for change. It's time for something new.

And nowhere is that as true as in Vermont... It's time to finally break the monopoly of the archaic Republican Party... so powerful that it confounds the government of the state with the party... and so powerful that it is impotent in the face of suffering felt by people all across the state... A party so powerful that it plays its petty politics out there in the open, in blatant disrespect to the great people of Vermont... To this, my friends, we must say, loud and clear, Stop. Your party isn't the state... your constituents are not the Vermont Republican Committee... but rather the people of Vermont!

Government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from this earth... It is the creed of our democracy, it is the cornerstone of our values... Let us defend us the government of, by and for the people before it is further confounded to mean government, of, by and for the... Vermont Republican elites...

[...] Our farmers are faced by a Secretary of Agriculture who has declared war on them and their way of life... The government wants to kill our farmers, the very farmers who were at the core of our republic, in the name of some broader objectives... To that, it is our duty to stand up and fight for our family farms, for our farms and for all those... men and women... who, everyday, rain or shine... work hard... to make our country the great country it is... We cannot, as Vermonters, as Americans, let these men and women... perish from this earth... [...] As your representative... I vow to defend our farmers... I vow to fight for federal subsidies to our farmers... to protect their livelihood...

[...] Our families are struggling... We're struggling to make ends meet... We hardly see the end of that tunnel... Everyday, across America and Vermont, you'll meet families... who must struggle to put food on the table... for their children... Is this, my friends, the American dream? ... It isn't. What have our Republican representatives done for Vermonters? What has the Republican executive done for Americans? I couldn't tell you... because they haven't done anything... As your representative, I vow to ensure that no family will go hungry... that no family should have to face the tears, hardships and discouragement of unemployment... I'll stand up for Vermont, I'll stand up for America. I'll stand up for the families which make our country great... and not for the special interests, big businesses or for the wallets of Wall Street... Instead of overthrowing governments in other countries... this government should feed Americans...

[...] This land, my friends, is our land... it's my land... it's everybody's land... My ancestors came to Vermont by 1750... They worked the land, they made their living on the frontier of Vermont... my great-great grandfather worked up the ladder... and achieved the American dream... I'm proud of this land, I'm proud of my ancestors... I'm proud of my state... And we've come to take it back!

Thank you, God bless you and God bless Vermont!

[Barnes]

Just a quick back story question: Did Garrett serve in WWII?

[Hash]

Just a quick back story question: Did Garrett serve in WWII?

No, as I wrote, Garrett was in university by 1936.

[Hash]

Announcement to Primary: March - September 1958

Christopher Garrett had the advantage of facing no opposition in the Democratic primary. His only potential rival, William H. Meyer, a socialist, announced that he would not run. Therefore, Garrett could work on building up his base and building a GOTV operation as early as March, while Republicans fought amongst themselves until the primary in September.

The Democratic Party in Vermont was still very weak, had a small war chest which couldn't provide for a strong campaign and it totally lacked organization in much of rural Vermont. Furthermore, the DCCC had other races to focus on and never wished to get involved in a rather irrelevant contest in Vermont which, in addition, it doubted it could win. Garrett himself had no personal war chest of his own to rely on, though his wife, Lucie, had some family money of her own and her own father, a prominent lawyer, could provide Garrett's campaign with funds. To fund his campaign, Garrett used almost all the resources of the State Democratic Committee, controlled by his friend and party boss Stephen Thomas. But he also organized a series of $2 lunches throughout Vermont starting in late May and running through August both to raise funds and as a chance to meet voters (and lay groundwork for a GOTV machine).

In May 1958, Garrett's profile received a major boost when he attended a banquet organized by Senator John F. Kennedy (D-MA) in Boston. Garrett had a positive opinion of Kennedy by their first meeting at that banquet, and Garrett was introduced to the crowd by Kennedy. Kennedy's introduction of Garrett got Garrett significant media coverage in Vermont and New England, though the DCCC did not channel funds to Garrett's campaign.

Starting in April, Garrett kicked off a new version of his 1956 whirlwind tour of the state, reaching out to heavily Republican rural areas throughout the state.

Garrett still had a base of local contacts, mostly in northern Vermont, from his days as a state representative when he served on the Transportation Committee. His local contacts included local politicians, retired local politicians, major local farmers or lobbyists and other active member of the local civil society. In Burlington, a traditional Democratic base, Garrett himself was well known and his association to Lucie Jefferson's father gave him a further boost. Garrett used his local connections in rural areas and his personal notoriety in Burlington to organize a strong network of local volunteers and supporters who could compete with the Republican Party's powerful GOTV machine. However, Garrett said:

[...] Our operation on the ground was good, but it was never the strong Republican base which had strong grassroots and a huge network of supporters in all villages which was diffused by the small town feel which the Republicans had but which us Democrats could never have dreamed of having. [...] No matter how many lunches we did, people liked us but they were still uneasy and our campaign knew that those folks weren't all definite supporters in November. [...] What we needed, we knew it since day 1 of the campaign, was a bloody Republican primary where the conservative [former Governor Harold J.] Arthur would win and where we could hope on taking a lot of liberal Republicans...
-Born to Campaign: My Love for Politics by Christopher A. Garrett, 1973.

Meanwhile, the Republicans faced a divided field which lacked a dominating figure. Former Governor Harold J. Arthur, a conservative, had the highest name recognition of all the candidates but his absence from electoral politics since 1951 as well as his conservatism hurt him. The strongest liberal candidate, attorney Luke Crispe failed to receive the support of Senator George Aiken and had been hurt by a campaign appearance where he appeared to be intoxicated. Burlington mayor C. Douglas Cairns was strong in Burlington but lacked any organization outside Chittenden County, which made him a weak contender. A split in the liberal base meant that Arthur was the favourite to win despite conservatives being a minority within the Vermont GOP. However, liberal Republicans were uneasy with the idea of a Arthur candidacy.

On September 9, 1958; Garrett won the Democratic nomination for the House unopposed but turnout remained low in the Democratic primaries (only 7000 voters turned out despite Garrett pushing for higher turnout). Nearly 48,000 Republicans turned out to vote in the closely fought House primaries. At first, it seemed as if Crispe would pull out a surprise win, but as the night went by final returns showed that Arthur won 30.2% against 29.8% for Crispe who was by far the strongest liberal candidate against Cairns (18.6%) and Thurber (13%). Crispe dominated in southeastern Vermont in his native Windham, while Arthur won in his native Burlington where Cairns placed second.

Gallup poll: September 15, 1958
09/09-14/58, 350 registered voters, +/-5.2% margin of error
Fmr. Governor Harold J. Arthur (R) 44%
Fmr. State Rep. Christopher A. Garrett (D) 39%
Undecided/refused 17%

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

With Garrett's own political abilities, combined with 1958 pro-Democratic wave all across the country, I can see him winning an election.

[Hash]

September 25, 1958
Congressional Debate (excerpts)
Burlington, Vermont

Arthur: What we've got, my friends, is a university professor with no political experience who wants to represent us in the House of Representatives. What Vermont needs know is not a university professor who has spent his career in classrooms, but rather someone with the necessary experience and skills to represent Vermont in the House during a tough economic recession.
Garrett: While I'm amused by Mr. Arthur's will to classify university professors as inexperienced out-of-touch people amusing, it is a gross misrepresentation of my career. Unlike you, Mr. Arthur, I've spent the last years active in politics. I haven't spent the last seven years in retirement, only to come back at the opportunity to hold office again.
Arthur: Mr. Garrett, what political experience or inherent advantage does teaching in a university give you?
Garrett: A lot more than being retired for seven years, that's for sure. I've had the opportunity to interact with young men and women, to hear their aspirations, desires and hopes for the future, and it's been an invaluable experience for me. Because these young men and women are the next generation of Vermonters, and their aspirations must be heeded if we want to keep them involved in our democratic process.

[...]

Arthur: My friends, the truth is that Mr. Garrett is an unapologetic supporter of Marxism and the Soviet Union.
Garrett: My friends, the truth is that that isn't the truth. Anybody who knows me knows that I don't support the Soviet Union and that their means don't even justify their ends. Instead of waving the red card frantically, it'd be nice if Mr. Arthur could debate the issues instead of hurling false labels to his opponent.
Arthur: If you aren't a supporter of Moscow, Mr. Garrett, why do you teach your students Marxism?
Garrett: For the reason that Marxism is a major theory of political science and international relations, and that it has a major impact on the actions of states in modern global society. Is teaching our students the theories which impact global politics wrong? But, Mr. Arthur, as much as I'd love to debate Marxism with you, I really don't think that our farmers who struggle to provide to their families care much about the theoretical bases of Marxism.

[...]

Garrett: [...] My campaign, my friends, is about ending a monopoly on power by the Republican Party. It's time to change, now more than ever.
Arthur: It is, ultimately, up to the people to decide whether or not they want that change. And unlike in the states governed by Mr. Garrett's friends such as Governor Faubus, the people of Vermont live in a vibrant democracy. Really, does the candidate of the party of the racist Dixiecrats and Orval Faubus have a right to criticize one-party states?
Garrett: Governor Faubus is not my friend, because I think he's a racist reactionary and his rhetoric is un-American and if I had my way, he'd have no place in this party.
Arthur: Why do you associate with his party?
Garrett: Because he is not the representative of the Democratic Party, no more than you are the representative of the Republican Party.

[Hash]

Fall Colours: September - November 1958

Arthur's narrow primary win provided a major, albeit not immediate, boost to Garrett's campaign. Although all major Republican leaders voiced their support for Arthur, crucially no leading liberal went out of their way to campaign for him. Lt. Governor Robert Stafford, running for Governor, declined to campaign. Senator George Aiken likewise declined. Finally, the retiring Representative, Winston L. Prouty likewise did not campaign for Arthur. He received support from some conservative Republicans in and out of Vermont, but his campaign was clearly struggling to get the full and unambiguous support of the Vermont GOP's liberal majority.

Meanwhile, Garrett concluded his summer tour of Vermont and had managed to rack up an impressive sum of cash from all the $2 lunches he had held throughout the state during the summer. This impressive stash of cash allowed him to build a GOTV machine of his own in rural areas and Burlington. Cash, however, was not merely enough. Garrett's campaign decided to unambiguously directly target liberal Republicans in his stump speeches.

[...] What our state needs is not somebody who'll sit around in DC and do nothing for us, paying lip service to his constituents and honour the flawed dogmas of conservatism which equates to leaving those who struggles on the sideline. What we need is somebody who'll stand up for Vermont in DC, somebody who'll have a voice and above all somebody who'll do what's right for the people of Vermont and not what's right for his party.
-Garrett campaign rally, Bennington, VT; Oct. 5 1958

Garrett's campaign focused heavily on local issues and the local fallout of the 1958 recession in rural Vermont and promised to "give Vermont it's fair share" through legislation authorizing federal relief from struggling farmers and federal funding for farms. Where Garrett's rhetoric, however, really struck a chord was in his constant attacks on Arthur's absence from electoral politics since 1951.

[...] So, we have a man here, Governor Harold Arthur, who's been out of it since 1951... and all of a sudden he comes out of obscurity to tell us that not only he's there but that he wants to win an election again. I call that by it's name - opportunism. We need an honest congressman who's gonna go to D.C. to fight for his constituents and not to get more cash for his personal retirement bank account. We also need a congressman who's up to date on the issues facing Vermonters and not a congressman who has been out of it for seven years. [...] Really, Governor Arthur's candidacy is just the most egregious example of the Vermont Republican Party's confusion of state and party and, by consequence, its arrogant belief that it can just get anybody, old or new, to get public office... Let's show those guys that it's not how it works!
-Garrett campaign rally, Newport, VT; Oct. 16 1958

Garrett's campaign, however, did face problems. Arthur still had a well oiled network of friends in rural Vermont who could work the formidable GOP GOTV machine, and he could draw on a much deeper reservoir of money than Garrett could. Arthur skillfully made issues out of issues where Garrett was uncomfortable on. Despite Garrett's skilled answer in the debate, voters were still uneasy with a man who donned an image of an out-of-touch liberal intellectual. Being a university professor in Burlington didn't help, and neither did the well-publicized fact that he thought Marxist theory. Furthermore, Garrett made a faux-pas in October when he made a fool of himself while attempting to give off a populist 'down to earth' image while working a farm. Later in October, at the second debate, Garrett appeared weak on details and unable to give fully coherent answers on economic issues.

When you campaign on economic issues, you better know what the heck you're talking about! [...] Because Chris Garrett doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about, but instead he's rehashing the talking points of House Democrats all over the country and attempting to apply them to Vermont... Let me tell you what Chris Garrett is, folks, he's a city intellectual who tries and fails to be a populist and he's a university prof who should ask his own colleagues about economic issues rather than be campaigning on them!
-Arthur campaign rally, Hyde Park, VT; Oct. 30 1958

The effect of Arthur's final stump speech in Hyde Park was hard to discern. On one hand, many thought that he had effectively crippled Garrett by pointing out Garrett's lack of experience and knowledge on economic issues. On the other hand though, others thought that Arthur's seemingly arrogant attack on Garrett as having 'no clue' and being a 'city intellectual' could backfire on him. Garrett attempted to recover from his debate failure by going back on the offensive against Arthur, again attacking Arthur on his seven-year absence from elective office. However, by November 3 it still seemed that the race was Arthur's to lose and that Garrett was the underdog going into election day.

[Hash]

Questions/comments/dilemmas/quandaries?

[Barnes]

Questions/comments/dilemmas/quandaries?

Excellent so far. I'm eagerly awaiting the election!

[Hash]

Vermont's at-large congressional district election, 1958
Fmr. State Rep. Christopher A. Garrett (D) 51.05%
Fmr. Governor Harold J. Arthur (R) 48.95%



As an historic wave of Democratic success swept through Vermont, Christopher Garrett was elected to the US House representing Vermont, defeating Arthur by 2 points. Garrett won 65% in Chittenden County and 62% in Franklin County, an historic success for a Democrat. He also carried Grande Isle, Essex and Rutland. In rural Republican Vermont, he held the Republicans down considerably and managed to break 30% in such Republican strongholds like Lamoille. Garrett became the first Democrat to represent Vermont since the 1850s.

Despite a wave of Democratic success in the state, Garrett remained the only Democrat to have won though a Democrat won 49.7% in the gubernatorial race against Lt. Governor Robert Stafford, who became Governor.


November 4, 1958
Garrett victory speech
Burlington, Vermont

Fellow Vermonters... I cannot express in words my gratitude to you tonight and I cannot express how honoured I am to have been elected as your Congressman [...] I'll admit freely that only a few months ago, I was convinced that we had no chance... but you proved me and everybody else wrong, and for that, I say to you tonight, thank you from the bottom of my heart!

[...] Tonight is an historic night for the people of Vermont... You have broken over one hundred years of one-party domination in this state, and you have demanded change... As your congressman, I shall do my utmost to live up to the task you have elected me to, and I promise to never let you down.

[...] Certain people thought that they could be dragged out of their retirement... and come back unhindered to public office... after years of absence from public service... and to this affront to the values of government of, by and for the people you have said no, loud and clear... After tonight, politics in Vermont will never be the same!

[...] I shall go to Washington, and I'll show them what the Green Mountain Boys are capable of, even today! I shall fight for the people of Vermont... and not for the people of my party's back rooms... I shall fight for those who don't have a voice... I shall fight for those whose presence in our society has been forgotten, as to lay the foundations of a new American dream for all Vermonters... and all Americans... regardless of income, race, sex, region or religion.

[...] I offer my victory to the people of Vermont... and I thank them again for giving us a chance to change politics forever... I offer my thanks to all those men and women who worked on this campaign; to all those who knocked on doors, rain or shine; to all those who attended a million hot dog lunches throughout the summer with me... You made our long-shot dream a reality... and you are the architects of the change we shall build [...] I also thank my wife, Lucie; my young son, Ethan Lawrence; and my entire family... whose support was invaluable to me throughout my career...

[...] Thank you, God bless you and may God bless America and the great state of Vermont! Thank you!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Questions/comments/dilemmas/quandaries?

Your character is married with children?

HP.

[Hash]

Article from the Burlington Free Press
November 5, 1958

STATE ELECTS FIRST DEMOCRAT IN OVER 100 YEARS
BURLINGTON, VT. -- As Democrats made gains in yesterday's congressional midterm election, no gain was more shocking than the one they made right here in Vermont. Former State Representative Christopher Garrett (D-Burlington) defeated former Governor Harold Arthur (R-Burlington) by two percentage points to claim Vermont's sole seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Vermont had not elected a Democrat statewide for 102 years, before the Civil War.

Pundits had predicted Vermont's congressional contest might be close, but most did not predict that the Democrat would pull it off. In his victory speech, Mr. Garrett offered thanks to his supporters for breaking "over one hundred years of one-party domination in this state" and "demanding change"

Mr. Garrett's campaign had campaigned heavily on the Republican Party's domination of politics and on other local issues such as agriculture, but he had been hurt in the final days by questions over his knowledge of economic issues following statements made at a debate last week. In his victory speech, Mr. Garrett vowed to " fight for the people of Vermont, and not for the people of my party's back rooms" and further said that he would fight for "those who don't have a voice".

Republicans, who held all other statewide and federal offices up for election yesterday, made few comments on their candidate's defeat in public. Mr. Arthur himself quickly conceded the race to Mr. Garrett last night and offered his congratulations to the new congressman. Senator-elect Winston L. Prouty (R-Newport), who retired from this House seat to run for Senate, did likewise. But in private, certain Republicans have confided that they might have chosen the wrong candidate, one insider even going to say that they had made "the worst choice in years" in choosing the former Governor, who has been outside elective politics since 1951 and is unpopular with liberal Republicans.

Mr. Garrett, 40, was elected to the Vermont House of Representatives in 1950 and reelected twice before running, unsuccessfully, for Lieutenant Governor in 1956. Yet his candidacy served to enhance his local standing and win him the support of the small Vermont Democratic Party. Mr. Garrett, a university professor, is married and lives in Burlington with his wife and only child.


[...] Never the biggest optimist, I waited a long time on election night before going out to announce that I had won. Lucie had wanted me to go out early and make my victory speech, and she was frustrated by my cautiousness in doing so. Looking back even today, my victory came as a shock. [...] Arthur called me to concede, and at that point I decided I really should go out, given that he had conceded on his side. [...] Arthur was very friendly over the phone, way more than what I had seen of him in the debate, which has given me the personal impression that he was relieved that he had lost and that he didn't really want to go to D.C.

[...] Arthur had hammered me hard on economic issues a day or two before, and it had really gotten the whole team down; and on election day rumors of low turnout in my Burlington base didn't put our moods up.

[...] It's hard to say what caused my surprise victory, but I'd say that it'd have to be a mix of a good campaign and groundwork on our side and a bad candidate on the GOP's side which served to divide the base.
-Born to Campaign: My Love for Politics by Christopher A. Garrett, 1973.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Great update!

[homelycooking]

Not to be nit-picky, Hash, but the word Grand in Grand Isle County has no "e".

Fantastic work so far. (How about some town maps, though? I would love to see if Garrett is winning Calais and Newfane. )

[Hash]

Fantastic work so far. (How about some town maps, though? I would love to see if Garrett is winning Calais and Newfane. )

You'd be killing me. You can do them if you want, though !

I might do a town map when I get to a major election with Garrett.

[Hash]

Credit to homelycooking for this phenomenal map:

[Hash]

Introduction: Garrett in the 86th US Congress

Christopher Garrett moved in a house in suburban Washington in Maryland with his wife and child in late December 1958. Lucie Hill Garrett was pregnant when they moved to Maryland and the couple's second child, a girl named Samantha, was subsequently born in February 1959. Ethan Lawrence Jr, their first child now aged 5 (and 6 in October 1959) entered a private school in Maryland.

Garrett was not really noticed much in the team of freshmen and the wider Democratic caucus, aside from the inevitable human interest in the man that had ended 102 years of Republican dominance the Union's safest Republican state. He was assigned by the House leadership to the Committee on Agriculture, presided by Howard Cooley (D-NC). It was on the Agriculture Committee that Garrett met George McGovern (D-SD), reelected to his second term in the House in November and being shuffled into the Agriculture Committee after being in the Education and Labor Committee during the 85th Congress. Garrett and McGovern, both liberals who shared similar goals vis-a-vis rural development and electrification quickly became close friends and collaborators on committee. McGovern was often at Garrett's house in Maryland, and other congressmen started noticing "the two youngins".

Garrett opened an unprecedented network of 'constituency offices' in Vermont: one in Burlington, Rutland and Brattleboro. As part of his commitment towards strong constituent service, he traveled back to Vermont at least twice a month during the session and moved back to Vermont during the September-January break separating the 86th Congress' two sessions.

Garrett's main top aide in his DC office was a 37-year old law graduate named Michael Peterson. They quickly became very close confidantes and close collaborators. Garrett later wrote about Peterson in his book that "I'd never have done what I did... and wouldn't have gotten that far in DC if it wasn't for Michael... That guy was a real genius, a real encyclopedia on facts ranging from the stats on rural development in New England to the state of Vermont's dairy industry... he was also a legal mind, which helped me, whose legal experience was limited outside what you have in political science departments..."

[Hash]

February 16, 1959
House debate on Hawaii statehood

REP. CHRISTOPHER A. GARRETT (D-VT):
We must give the people of Hawaii... the means to decide for themselves the future they wish... and if they want statehood, we must offer to them like to all other Americans the benefits of statehood. I am personally favourable to Hawaii's admission to the Union, but I strongly believe that Hawaiians should have the means to decide for themselves if that is what they want... And if they want statehood, then we must offer it to them...

It appears to me as if the opponents of even putting statehood on the table... are backed only by an unreasonable fear of communism and, frankly, racism. I haven't seen the opponents of statehood offer any other reasoning... than that of Hawaii being a supposed haven for communists... and a close-minded fear of offering statehood to a state which isn't majority white. I have had the opportunity to talk with my good friend Territorial Delegate Burns of Hawaii... a man who has been at the forefront of the movement and who has proven himself to be a tireless fighter for those Hawaiians who were in the past dominated by an oligarchy of industrialists. Mr. Burns talked at lengths to me about the movement of 1954 which he participated in... and the role of the Communist Party in the movement. I have understood from both talking to Mr. Burns and from research into the background of the 1954 movement... that communist support and association to the movement of 1954 did not and does not contribute a threat to our national security... furthermore, I have reason to believe that the Communist Party of Hawaii was allowed to be that strong... only because of social and economic conditions in Hawaii prior to 1954... and that once Hawaiians, all Hawaiians, are treated as equal American citizens... the Communists shall lose their raison-d'etre. As thus, saying that Hawaii would provide a safe haven to communists... is ridiculous.

I have also heard my fair share of racist opposition to statehood... a bigoted fear of the consequences of granting statehood to a state with a majority minority population. I do not use the term 'racism' easily, and I weigh my words, but in this case I haven't been able to see anything else than old close-minded racism influencing the opposition of some... I can't do much for the racism of some, but on my part I believe that we should, as the leader of the democratic world, offer the benefits of the United States to all... regardless of race or ethnicity. To me, part of the American Dream... means to allow all people, again regardless of ethnicity, to be integrated into the American family... Let us integrate Hawaiians, if they so desire, directly into the American dream... and also, let us end this antiquated, archaic territorial system... which is not fit to a democratic nation in this day and age. By consequence, let us extend statehood and democracy, representative government and the American dream to Hawaiians... and free them from the undemocratic, antiquated territorial system.

*certain Southern Democrats boo*

[Hash]

Towards legislative accomplishment: February-June 1959

Garrett knew that he owed his victory in November to certain non-permanent factors such as an unusually weak Republican opponent and a massive Democratic wave which swept the country. Already, most Republicans and many journalists were writing off Garrett's victory as aberration and a fluke. Such talk of his win being a fluke intensified by the spring of 1959 when Governor Robert Stafford (R-VT) made no secret of his intentions to himself run for Congress in 1960. Already, Stafford was a very popular governor, and unlike Arthur, had the full backing the GOP's liberal elites. Stafford did not announce his candidacy, but it was the worst kept secret in Montpelier that Stafford had federal ambitions as early as 1960. At a GOP state convention in May, Stafford said that Garrett's 1958 victory was a fluke and that "we shall be able to dispose of Mr. Garrett's services in Washington next year". Furthermore, with the Republican presidential candidate in 1960 still a lock to carry Vermont, Garrett worried that coattails might further hinder his reelection campaign.

It didn't take much talk to convince Garrett that if he was to have a chance at reelection in 1960, he needed a major legislative accomplishment which would both get him well known in DC circles (hopefully with the effect of the DCCC channeling funds to his 1960 campaign) and to raise his star in Vermont as a prominent congressman and defender of the Green Mountain State's interests.

In his 1958 campaign, Garrett had talked at lengths about farms and the declining revenue for farmers in the wake of the 1958 recession. He had then announced his support for federal funding for farms and his general support for federally-funded rural development and completion of rural electrification. In late February, he charged his aide Michael Peterson with the task of drafting rural development legislation. He further contacted McGovern and Cooley, with McGovern voicing his enthusiasm about such legislation and Cooley voicing his interest.

In June 1959, Peterson had finished drafting the rural development legislation working alongside McGovern's and Cooley's office. Garrett, as sponsor, and McGovern, as co-sponsor, introduce the rural development legislation on the desk of the Clerk on June 16. The rural development legislation, in its original version included a 50% increase in federal funding for family farms; federal funding for projects of "rural development" including road construction, maintenance or upgrade, rural school and clinic construction, water system upgrades; and tax credits for farmers on the purchase of necessary farm equipment such as tractors. The omnibus bill also reformed the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) by expanding its scope and amending its statute as to transform it into a central agency working with state governments to provide loans and to supervise rural development projects which use federal funds.

In Garrett's agriculture committee, Southern Democrats held considerable power and in the House as a whole, Southern Democratic support was crucial to the passage of the bill. Populist Southern Democrats liked the bill's objective, as it could allow them to gain control over more federal funds and get their hands on pork-barrel spending which they were famous for. In committee, the support of Chairman Howard Cooley (D-NC) was crucial to moving the bill along. Some moderate and liberal Republicans from rural areas such as the Corn Belt in Ohio and Indiana also liked the bill's objective. However, conservative Democrats and other Republicans alike disliked how the omnibus bill would centralize loans and rural development funding in the hands of a revamped FmHA with little input from state governments. Alarmed by the potential intrusion of the federal government into their field of action, many Southern Democratic governors notably John Patterson (D-AL) urged legislators to decentralize the funding and loans that Garrett's omnibus bill created and transfer those powers to the state governments. Soon, other governors from non-Southern states demanded similar decentralization. Old Right conservatives were generally unhappy with the bill, especially the heavy federal control and violently denounced Garrett as "the Soviet Commissar for Farms" and decried the omnibus bill as "similar in every regard to the Soviet Union's kolkhoz policy".

Despite the opposition from many different groups, Garrett and McGovern remained on their positions throughout the summer. Garrett feared that decentralizing control over the bill's plans would hijack his legislation and turn it into "the usual pork barrel spending free-for-all" and was wary about given state governments control over funding and loans, notably at the risk of "letting certain states give a lot, and others not at all" and thus create "two classes of farmers".