Paint it Red: The Rise of the American Left (1908-1932)

[/]

Great work, as always

[Kingpoleon]

Lowden Forever!

Speaking of Illinois Progressives, what's this man up to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Clifton_Copley ?

[Pyro]

Great work, as always

Glad you think so!

Lowden Forever!

Speaking of Illinois Progressives, what's this man up to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Clifton_Copley ?

Hmm. I would imagine he would still be an Illinois Rep. for the Progressive Party.

Copley, like other Roosevelt-Progressives, would probably be disconcerted in the division between the Johnson and La Follette sects.

[Kingpoleon]

If you don't mind me asking, is Johnson or La Follette more acceptable to the Republicans?

[Pyro]

If you don't mind me asking, is Johnson or La Follette more acceptable to the Republicans?

Don't mind at all! I'd encourage you guys to ask questions! =)

If you mean Republicans in Congress, for the most part they somewhat approve of President Johnson's leadership but only a select few would consider supporting either him or La Follette in a presidential contest. Even Joseph Cannon would prefer a liberal Republican president over a conservative Progressive. I think it has more to do with party loyalty than anything else going into the 1920 cycle.

Republican voters who had turned out for Roosevelt in the past elections would probably be divided. TR was able to drum up support from the Left as well as the Right, which is basically how he won against Wilson. Johnson and La Follette both have a similar tenacity to that of Roosevelt, but they have a lot of differences which will divide the Progressive vote. They'll be more info about it soon!

[Pyro]

Fmr. Solicitor General John W. Davis

  Former Governor Wilson (D-NJ) had stated that he would not run for the party’s nomination on October 2nd, 1919. “I gave it my all and Teddy took it all. I will not run.” With Wilson out of the race, the left-leaning Democrats began to worry that their party would slip back into the Underwood-Conservative realm, which could hardly win a national election. W.J. Bryan had essentially left politics by 1919, meaning the liberals likely needed to turn to a new candidate.

  Then, on October 17th, when Senator Oscar Underwood stated too that he would not run, and would be retiring from politics at the end of his term. The only remaining frontrunner was Champ Clark, but he stayed silent on the matter of the presidential contest. Should he be nominated and elected, Clark would be 70 years old at the time of inauguration, thus surpassing William H. Harrison as the oldest president. The Democratic establishment understood that this upcoming cycle would be their best bet for a winning ticket, and DNC Chairman Homer S. Cummings privately discouraged Clark from running. Therefore, we arrive in a precarious situation in which for many months there was no frontrunning candidate. Because of this, a slew of candidates jumped in the race.

  In November, Senator Furnifold M. Simmons (D-NC) announced his candidacy, as did little-known reformist Senator Robert Lathan Owen (D-OK) and Iowan newspaper owner Edwin T. Meredith, though none of these created many ripples. Owen would, the entirety of his campaign, tour his home state and the surrounding states, hoping to secure the Southern vote for himself and in the effort, alter Southern conservativism into distrust for the banks. In the latter, he did find some success. Simmons, a right-moderate, was unable to lift his campaign from the ground, and when the heavy hitters finally began to reveal themselves, he dissolved into the background.

  When John “Cactus Jack” Garner (D-TX) revealed that he would be fighting for a Senate seat instead of the presidency, he mentioned a name: John W. Davis (D-VA). Davis, though relatively unknown at the time, was a former Representative from West Virginia who served as Solicitor General two years prior. He was considered for the role of UK Ambassador, but President Johnson put the brakes on this appointment. Davis was a hard-liner conservative, but had gained respect from TR for being mostly nonpartisan during his legal career. He supported states’ rights and limited federal government throughout his career, initially making him a favorite of the South, but lost some support when he publicly denounced the Ku Klux Klan.

  Davis, who immediately became the leading candidate of the pack, surpassed another expected candidate who would later throw his hat into the ring: Claude A. Swanson (D-VA). Swanson, also a former Virginian Representative, had less of a personality but far more money than Davis. He leaned further left than anyone in the Virginian delegation, and when he became a Senator, often supported Progressive Party causes. Even though the rest of the nation wrestled between parties, Swanson managed to win every one of his elections since 1900 with over 60% of the vote.

[Pyro]

Fmr. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer

  Though, as he later admitted in his private diaries, he had little to no chance of winning the Democratic nomination, A. Mitchell Palmer (D-PA) announced that he would be running for president as a “campaign against revolution and anarchy.” Palmer, who never totally relinquished his party affiliation, had very little support from any party. The Democrats saw him as a traitor for working with President Johnson and as a failure for letting his grip on the Socialist Party fall limp. In response, Palmer paid little attention to other Democrats nor did he work with the party leadership, instead hoping to launch a grassroots campaign.

  Strict anti-socialists and economic conservatives applauded Palmer's efforts to run for the presidency, and he did gain some support early on in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Outside of the party, middle class voters greeted him amiably while he campaigned in rural and suburban districts on the East Coast. Former Mayor of Chicago, Carter Harrison, Jr. (D-IL), was the first Democrat to formally endorse Palmer for the presidency. Then, Majority Leader Underwood formally endorsed Davis on the 23rd, giving the Virginian an enormous boost and effectively putting him ahead of Palmer as the leader of the Conservative Democrats. Davis and Palmer became the party’s new frontrunners throughout most of November, chiefly due to name recognition.

  On the first day of December, junior Senator John F. Fitzgerald (D-MA) declared that he would be seeking the office of the presidency. Fitzgerald had been hugely popular in Boston and became known as “Honey Fitz” because of his ability to entice even bitter rivals to his side. The senator, when he had been Boston’s mayor, had been able to persuade business investment into the city, boosting the amount of jobs in the port city.

  Only having been a senator from Massachusetts for three years, Fitzgerald had a relatively clean record of moderate reform, but did not vote for any of President Johnson’s security measures. Although he had 56 years, his youthful appearance and high charisma quickly made him, as the Boston Globe reported, a “candidate for the youth”. None of the other candidates took the senator seriously in the first months of his campaign, and Fitzgerald’s support seemed to be contained in Massachusetts and Connecticut. In reaction, the energetic senator began planning for a tour of the Eastern United States, from New York to Georgia, which would last from January until March of 1920.

  The first Democrat to endorse Fitzgerald was the former mayor of New York City, George B. McClellan, Jr., giving Fitzgerald some notoriety in the Empire State. In one technical maneuver, Senator Fitzgerald pushed for his son-in-law, Joseph P. Kennedy, to help on be his campaign manager. Kennedy, who had become a stock broker on Wall Street, agreed to do so with only minimal hesitation and the promise of a cabinet position.

[Pyro]

The Des Moines Register: New Year's 1920
Which candidate would you endorse for president?

Republican: Charles E. Hughes: 38%             Democratic: John W. Davis: 29%
                       Frank O. Lowden: 20%                                  A. Mitchell Palmer: 22%
                     William C. Sproul: 20%                                  Claude Swanson: 18%
                     Nicholas M. Butler: 16%                                John F. Fitzgerald: 9%
                     Jacob Burkett: 4%                                        Edwin T. Meredith: 6%
      Other: 2%                                                   Other: 16%


     Progressive: Hiram Johnson: 60%                    Socialist: Eugene V. Debs: 45%
                    Robert La Follette: 30%                             Allan Benson: 40%
                       Ole Hanson: 7%                                       Jeanette Rankin: 4%
                     Franklin Murphy: .5%                                William W. Cox: 4%
                    James R. Garfield: .5%                               Upton Sinclair: 2%
          Other: 2%                                               Other: 5%

  During the last week of December, the first official Des Moines Register poll of the cycle was conducted and then, on January 1st, released as a “New Years’ Presidential Poll”. The new poll has revealed a number of fascinating developments. The election season was still young, but many of the lesser-known candidates wanted to gain some notoriety sooner rather than later. Hughes, with 38% of the GOP poll, easily was leading the race. However, a surprising second place finish for Governor Lowden pushed him into the national limelight for the first time. Butler and Sproul were close behind. In the Democratic column, Davis was leading, though with Palmer close behind followed by Swanson. Fitzgerald won fourth and Meredith fifth. Johnson, as expected, was dominating the Progressive line, though La Follette had a respectable second at 30% to 60%. Lastly, Debs and Benson were leading in the Socialist line, with Debs ahead by five points.

  It was far early to tell, but out of the four leading contenders, Hughes, arguably, had the greatest chance of electoral victory. Northern analysists believed Davis would have a tough time matching, much less surpassing, the Democratic vote reached by Oscar Underwood in 1912. Johnson was losing support from the Roosevelt Progressives and if he would become the nominee, the battle to win back states like California would be most difficult. Debs had rising popularity, but compared to Hughes who had been constructing his electoral victory for years, he was but small potatoes. Hughes would therefore put tons of resources into Pennsylvania, Illinois, and California to work towards a turnaround in these Progressive bases.

  President Johnson was quickly becoming a lame duck going into 1920. He knew that to become re-elected he needed to push for more changes which would appeal to a wider base. As he understood correctly, Roosevelt was re-elected for a third term because he was pronouncing systemic change in two forms: the addition of a major party to counteract the duopoly and legislation defending working people. By 1920, as it seemed, the Progressive Party was no longer an insurgent force, but a piece of the status quo.

  1908 was won by professing moderate change. 1912 by sweeping change. 1916 by international change. 1920 would have to be won with a similar message, Johnson believed. However, the public was beginning to become adverse to these messages of change. The offered changes usually meant very little in terms of real reform, and with the May Revolt in recent memory, it had become obvious that the Progressives was just as conservative as the rest. True, there were those diehards who allied with the Progressives in 1920 as a "lesser evil" approach or believed that the "party of Roosevelt" had defended American interests for eight years, but the increasingly class-conscious working classes, which were murdered by the Johnson regime in the streets, were not expected to vote in another Progressive: whether it be Johnson or La Follette.

  The Eighteenth Amendment had been formally certified by the states and was adopted into the Constitution in January. This was an enormous victory for the Prohibitionists who sought the elimination of alcohol-related crime among other things. The temperance movement had grown to roughly half the size of the women’s suffrage movement, and the two main parties quickly latched onto it as a positive change for the country. The Progressive Party was largely in opposition to the bill, but President Johnson approved of the measure as a means to reduce “criminal intent”. As a means to prevent crime and lower domestic violence statistics, it took no time at all for the states to approve of the measure.

  However, there were those who were against the bill. One of these, New York Governor Al Smith, stated that although the motive for alcohol prohibition was just, those who desire to attain illegal products will find them regardless. Robert La Follette, a “Wet Progressive”, stated that the illegalization of alcohol transport and production would end in disaster, and only "divert police efforts from real issues." President Johnson, leader of the “Dry Progressive” sect, attempted to classify La Follette’s statement as anti-women. “If Robert does not consider domestic violence a ‘real issue’ then I have few words for the man.”

[Pyro]

Button for the Socialist Labor Party 1908 Ticket, featuring August Gillhaus

  Judging by rally sizes and polling regarding political affiliation, the Progressives and their president experienced an enormous drop in support in the period from 1919 to 1920. The Democrats won much of this support, and especially in swing states like Iowa, they were setting up the pieces to fall exactly where they wanted. Still, it was not the Democrats but the Socialists who had the most dramatic rise in support following Johnson's ascension and subsequent re-election bid.

  The SP had gone from a relatively obscure party twenty years ago to once of national significance. The rise of popular support, both in the polls, on the streets, and in the ballot box, was unprecedented. More so, it had gone from a party with a conservative leadership to one teeming with radical ideologies of all sorts. From reformers to revolutionaries, the SP was bursting with potential energy. When the conservative leadership was toppled in the discovered "Palmer Schemes", sympathy was given to the Socialists, not the federal government. The “Red Scare”, though definitely prevalent in a top-down perspective, was teetering when it came to public support. National organizations and major workplaces still blatantly discriminated against those affiliating with the Socialist Party or any Left/pro-union organization, but it was not uncommon to see flags and leaflets in urban communities depicting solidarity with the labor movement and the May Uprising martyrs.

  In 1919 the Socialist Labor Party underwent a major schism, with roughly half of the leadership voting to join with the SP to create, to somewhat echo the slogan of the IWW, "One Big Party". The other half was against the motion, stating that the SP was in disarray and without clear leadership. Even though the Socialist Party leadership had changed, the left-wing of the SLP, led by Arthur Reimer, stood adamant that the Socialist Party was a reformist institution and could not bring forth genuine systemic change. The SLP ultimately voted down the measure for unification, but when popular partiers like August Gillhaus and William Wesley Cox announced their decision to move to the SP, a great deal of the total membership followed their example. As Gillhaus stated, "We would be fools to cover our eyes and ignore the direction of the tide"

  Although still effectively led by the aging Eugene Debs, the Socialist Party was receiving an influx of participators from all corners of the country. Following the US entry into the Great War, major demographic changes brought in new waves of migrants from rural parts of the country into cities as jobs needed filling. These young men, some in their teens, were used to the self-determinist lifestyle of rural farming and were unfamiliar with industrial supervision. As such, they were expected to ally with the big bosses if strikes were to occur. When the war did end, this is not what occurred. In fact, they quickly became adverse to the devastating exploitation of factory labor. When the events leading to the May Revolt unfolded, this generation of laborers became the first to call for strikes and the first to urge for IWW participation opposed to that of the AFL.

[Pyro]

Ernest Hemmingway, Red Cross Serviceman and Author. 1918.

  In 1919 and 1920, the demographic with the most dramatic shift into the SP was, by a decisive margin, those born around the turn of the century. This demographic later became known as the "Lost Generation" by author Ernest Hemmingway, another veteran who joined the Socialist Party in 1919. These men who had suffered, physically and psychologically, in the Great War had grown disassociated with capitalism and the wars it needs. In one eye-opening Chicago Tribune poll, it was discovered that roughly 71% returning soldiers saw capitalism and its profit motive as the root cause of the Great War and 81% say the war was unnecessary. That is not to say that these men were unpatriotic. In fact, 83% of those polled stated that would again support the United States in the event of another war.

  U.S. Tank Corps commander George S. Patton and American Expeditionary Forces leader John J. Pershing were of those in the military who voiced support for some of the Socialist Party’s goals. Ace pilot Eddie Rickenbacker stated, “Seeing first-hand the horrors of modern warfare, for one to call for a different society, one based in the common good instead of individual gain, must be admired.” None of these men explicitly called for revolution or decried the Constitution, but many stated that the bare demands of the SP and the labor movement as a whole were reasonable.

  The president was having none of it. As he mentioned in a campaign address on January 28th, “The Socialist Party would force insurrection in the United States. In supporting them, you support not only violent means towards a Bolshevist state, but a reign of terror which would forever sever this nation’s democratic legacy.” In truth, barely half of the SP leadership supported the Bolsheviks in 1920. Undergoing an economic stranglehold from Europe, Lenin was having a tough time incorporate any essences of socialism into Russia’s infantile industrial system. Controversially, he chose to consolidate his government bureaus to conserve resources and ensure that only a tight-knit league of revolutionists had say in the federal government.

  As far as international coordination, the moderates in the SP vastly preferred the French Republic. France itself had been healing quickly since the war. Although Johnson restricted trade with the nation, as had Germany and Britain, it was able to survive economically due to sea trade with Russia. President Johnson and Kaiser Wilhelm reached an agreement with the French Republic that they would not conduct intrusive measures to counter French sea trade if they agree to paid German tariffs on certain goods. This allowed for a reduced famine in Russia and an economic acceleration in both Germany and France. Still, as Lenin had argued years earlier, the Fourth French Republic was Social Democracy, not Communism. France turned into a command economy where the state decided economic affairs instead of business, not a planned economy where a workers' council had control over the factories. The majority government (SFIO) called itself socialist, but even to Eugene Debs, “there is a strange, new democratic phenomenon in France, but it is not Marxism.”

  In March of 1920, the leadership within the Socialist Party voted to align itself with the Communist International, or Comintern. This International was a congress of socialist parties, organizations, and governments which sought to bring about international socialism. It was headed by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, but had members from Europe and North America. The Socialist Labor Party had been at the founding conference, but the much larger Socialist Party would come to take center stage as the United States party delegation. The Industrial Workers of the World would be the largest United States union present. The French Communist Party attended, as did the far-left Spartacus League of Germany. The latter had been operating underground due to harsh measures making illegal all Communist and Marxist organizations in the Kaiser’s Germany, but was still large enough to constitute a leading voice in the Comintern.

  All in all, the Socialist Party was growing in such a pace that, in sheer size, it was the largest “fourth” party by far. From within and outside the party, many spoke about the possibility of an inevitable split. The vote to take part in the Comintern was won with about 56%: barely half. For every pro-Bolshevik revolutionary, there were two reformists. It was often said that the Socialist Party was only held together by strings and wires. Though the Palmer Schemes resulted in a far more unified party, this was not a permanent solution and the leadership desperately needed an answer, and soon.

[Pyro]

President Johnson meets with Senator Borah of Idaho

  In late March, President Johnson began to reshape his campaign. Fearing that his program, “Common Sense Policies for a Safe America”, was alienating to too many members of his party, he took a note from Roosevelt’s campaigns and introduced minor reforms into his speeches. The chief one of these was a constitutional amendment allowing for limited universal suffrage. Congress had debated similar legislation, but the measure failed twice between 1918 and 1919. When the House began debate for the proposed amendment in spring of 1920, President Johnson wholly endorsed it. “No persons born in the United States should have their most sacred right taken from them. I endorse the measure in the House to allow for all citizens, regardless of race or sex, the right to vote.”

  In truth, the amendment as brought up by House Democrats, would have only opened the doors to allowing women the right to vote. However, the Socialists then declared that they would vote down any measure that did not more explicitly lead to universal suffrage: that is, a guarantee that all citizens can vote. The Progressives took the middle of the road, as stated by Minority Leader William Stephens (P-CA). “Neither extreme is tolerable. In the spirit of the Constitution, all citizens regardless of ethnicity or sex ought to have voting rights. Beyond these parameters, we cannot say more.” The Socialists pushed for the broadest terms possible, as to eliminate the 21-year age requirement and any boundaries based in religion, sexual orientation, and past criminal convictions.

  In May, The House ended up moving forward with the Progressive’s version of the amendment, and most of the Socialist Congressmen folded and voted with them, as did the Democrats. Many Republicans and conservative Democrats stood in opposition to the measure. Nonetheless, it passed with over two-thirds of a majority. Roughly one month later, the Senate, in a tight vote, chose to keep the bill as it was and passed the measure, 63 to 24. In less than one week, Wisconsin, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Ohio, and New York ratified the measure. President Johnson’s hope that the ratification process would be completed before the 1920 election did not come to pass, however. Not until January 5th, 1921, when Connecticut became the 36th state to ratify, did the amendment finally take effect. Still, many states, including Washington and California, already did allow women the right to vote.

  Out of all the nominating races, none became so dirty so quickly as the Progressive race. Johnson attempted to stay above the fray and focus on leading the country, but was repeatedly called out by La Follette. When Johnson made a speech in New York on the merits of what he called “politics of the majority”, La Follette conducted a counter-speech decrying the president’s policies as reactionary and his executive actions as disastrous. “President Roosevelt created the Progressive Party as a means for us forward thinkers to separate our policies from those of the Right Republicans. President Johnson is becoming the William Jennings Bryan of our party. He is pushing us back into the Republicans as Bryan did with the People’s Party. We are not men of the centrist complacency, of progressive activity.”

  Johnson had trouble fighting against "Fighting Bob" and his counter speeches, but did manage to stay ahead in the Des Moines polls during the spring. In response to his poll numbers being stuck at around 30% to Johnson's 60%, La Follette had some of his campaign staff approach the Chicago Daily News organization about running a counter-poll to the Iowan newspaper. As he later wrote, "The influence of these polls cannot be denied. Four years ago, Woodrow Wilson was expected to win the election because his numbers beat Roosevelt's, but this mindset changed when the polls changed." The Chicago Daily News would begin releasing presidential polls utilizing a different formula to the Des Moines tactic, focusing more on proportional representation of different demographics to provide an accurate sample size. Fearing that these new polls would prove advantageous to La Follette and that he would end up striking a chord with dissatisfied Progressives, the party leadership scheduled their national convention earlier than planned: on June 12th instead of July 16th.

[Pyro]

Governor Portrait of Charles Evans Hughes

  C. E. Hughes was the clear frontrunner since his announcement, and his lead was only strengthened as time went on. The former Attorney General was already the chosen candidate of the Republican establishment, but there had been some in the upper echelon of the GOP who preferred other candidates. Frank Lowden suffered a major setback when reports of profligate spending were released. Lowden's campaign manager was discovered bribing RNC delegates, plummeting the governor's polling numbers. Still, he went right on damage control. “The Missourian in question has been released from my campaign. We will move forward and once we win the nomination, will bring our country back to its former grandness.”

  Lowden, who had been in politics since the start of the century, to the GOP-leaning swing voters revealed everything wrong with establishment politics. Of course, Hughes was also a major political insider, but kept his lead because of his popularity in the Midwest for perceived center-left policies in regards to American workers and farmers. Murray Butler initially received a poll bump from Lowden’s fall, but when he began a brief speaking tour with Elihu Root, his bubble burst. Root had offhandedly mentioned, "those yellow cowards in New York and Pennsylvania" who voted for TR instead of him. This comment struck Butler's campaign, pushing him into a distant fourth place.

  The one who stuck with his “outsider” status was William Sproul. He had been Pennsylvania’s governor for a little over a year, and had been contained to the Pennsylvania State Senate before that. Sproul pushed for two major objectives in his May March, when he traveled from New York to California in a huge, expensive campaign measure. These objectives were an enlargement of the McKinley/Roosevelt government public funds program and a massive expansion of Roosevelt’s forestry and national parks programs. “I admire what President Roosevelt was able to accomplish in each of his terms. I disagreed with his foreign policy and consider some of his programs too extreme, but the spirit of the McKinley/Roosevelt administration should continue forward.”

  One of Hughes' campaigners, in attempting to sway voters away from Sproul, coined the Pennsylvanian as the "lost Progressive" running for the wrong party's nomination. Hughes himself ordered the campaign worker fired. C.E. Hughes was virulent in his idea of 'playing positive politics', meaning running positive campaigns that did not explicitly attack any other candidates, especially none in his own party. In his opinion, Root's negative run against TR in 1916 was what sunk his ship. "Root learned the same lesson Alton Parker did in '04. Thrashing out against another man's personal character is a fool's game." Regardless of Hughes' tactics, the center, anti-establishment trends of the party supported Sproul and pushed him into a consistent second place spot in the polls.
 
  As Sproul moved towards the Left, Lowden began to move towards the Right. When asked if he was a liberal or conservative, Lowden answered, “I consider myself an economic nationalist. I care deeply about this nation, and I believe it needs to be handed back into the hands of its people from the corporate banking complex. Unlike the Progressives, I do not see this change coming from abroad, especially in the monstrous League of Nations. We, Americans, have proven ourselves as a world player, and our natural superiority and individual sovereignty must be recognized.” This line captured a previously undefined feature of the Republican Party: a Roosevelt-McKinley nationalism. By the end of May, Lowden’s campaign began to recover, championed by others within the party referred to as “the Economic Nationalists”.

[Pyro]

Senator Fitzgerald Shortly Before Embarking Through the West

  The Democratic race began to tighten as well as the spring came and went. John W. Davis kept a commanding lead in the polls throughout March and had the largest attendance at his campaign stops. Palmer began to slip as members of the SP flooded pro-Palmer events demanding a recognition of his infiltration into their party. Palmer was viewed in the press and by some party leaders as un-electable because of his past, but he refused to drop out or back down, and began his infamous mudslinging endeavor against John Davis in April, lowering the West Virginian’s numbers significantly.

  Swanson’s campaign had essentially halted by February, with much of his Southern support heading straight into the Davis camp. His front-porch style campaign was dwindling in effectiveness as crowds diminished in size week to week. On April 14th Swanson officially dropped out of the presidential race, stating that this was the one contest he would not be able to overcome. He endorsed Davis for president, and left the race. With this development, Davis was able to top 40% in the Des Moines April poll for president.

  When Swanson jumped ship and Palmer began to slip, John Fitzgerald flew into second place. Fitzgerald had been engineering a labor-friendly message as his campaign continued, countering Davis’ zooming into first. Very few Democrats had joined the Progressive Party, and the entire Wilson campaign in 1916 was based on the moderate-to-liberal majority within the Democrats. Fitzgerald stated that Wilson's loss was directly tied to the result of the Great War and nothing else. He admitted that TR was a fair president, but he was re-elected against Wilson because of "military, not policy".

  When Fitzgerald topped 20% in the April poll, newspapers in the rural West began to cover the Massachusetts candidate. Southern Democrats deemed him an extremely unlikely nominee while Northern Democrats stressed that Fitzgerald was the only “sane” candidate in the race. Towards the end of April, Fitzgerald switched campaign gears and began discussing the mythical “yeoman farmer” as often he spoke of “downtrodden laborers” in factories. From April 23rd to May 25th, Fitzgerald toured the Great Plains states, hoping to recapture a populist element among Democrats. He had some difficulty accomplishing this task in locations like Texas where politicians like John Garner dramatically shifted the political dialogue from the days of the Populist Party. However, in Minnesota, he started attending meetings of the emerging Farmer-Labor Party and made himself well known amongst that crowd.

  During a major campaign stop in St. Paul, Fitzgerald discussed the possibility of Congressional coalition governments. As he spoke, “I am finding deep sympathy with those building the Farmer-Labor Party. For too long our government has ignored the issues of the farmer and since McKinley forced the gold standard law, you have been needlessly suffering while Wall Street gloats in victory. Under the Republicans and now the Progressives, your needs have been set aside to focus on this-and-that other project. Unlike my predecessors, I will not tell you to vote Democratic and all will be well. After witnessing with my own eyes the atrocities that occurred in my state’s recent police strike, I sympathize with you who blame the two-party dichotomy for this mess of a system. For those of who are set on forming this new party, I commend the effort and offer my hand as a partner. If you support me in my bid for presidency, I will command the measure to form a coalition between my party and yours and assist in any way possible to have your issues be heard.”

  This call was unprecedented, and stirred party bosses to act against Fitzgerald. As Davis said, “This man is endorsing a minor party as a corrupt bargaining chip to push himself into office. I bring with myself honor and respectability. No president should act such a fool.” Regardless of this statement and those similar, Fitzgerald rose remarkably in popularity in the West. Then, on May 20th, William Jennings Bryan formally endorsed Fitzgerald and appeared at a few campaign stops alongside the candidate.

[Pyro]

  On May 2nd, the Des Moines Register released the latest of their monthly polls. All seemed mostly unchanged from the months prior. The leading candidates were Hughes, Davis, Johnson, and Debs by decisive margins. Judging by the sizes of rallies held by Lowden and Sproul compared to Hughes, these numbers did not seem quite right. The greatest curiosity was President Johnson's numbers, which remained at exactly 60% from January through May. This is when the Chicago Daily News released their first poll. Dubbed "The Peoples' Poll", this new release countered the tactic of the Des Moines agency and hoped to collect from a larger, more diverse sample size. As thus, the results ended up a bit different.
      

The Chicago Daily News

     

The Peoples' Poll for May 1920

REPUBLICAN PARTY		%		DEMOCRATIC PARTY		%		PROGRESSIVE PARTY		%
Charles E. Hughes		38%		John F. Fitzgerald		29%		Hiram Johnson		52%
Frank O. Lowden		30%		A. Mitchell Palmer		24%		Robert La Follette		42%
William C. Sproul		19%		John W. Davis		24%		Ole Hanson		03%
Nicholas M. Butler		10%		Edwin Meredith		10%		James R. Garfield		01%
Others/None of These		03%		Others/None of These		13%		Others/None of These		02%

  When the Chicago poll was released, there was still much skepticism to the new polling tactic, as there was to all polling of this nature, but the results seemed to be a touch more accurate to the sentiment of the people than the Des Moines polls which clearly favored the establishment candidates. It also indicated that the La Follette-Johnson race was much closer. The Chicago Daily News, though a marginally progressive newspaper, opted not to include the Socialist Party candidates in its poll, citing "anti-American tendencies". Now that there were two major polls running, which would prove to hold more weight?

  On May 12th, 1920, Eugene Debs was shot by a supposed anarchist during the Socialist National Convention in Chicago. He was hospitalized for some time and had no choice but to drop from the race at near-last minute. Out of respect for his adversary, Benson also stated that he would not accept the party’s nomination. The convention went on as scheduled, however, and crowds shuffled back in on May 13th to resume the course of the convention. The center-left and far-left of the party eventually rallied around Seymour Stedman as a compromise nomination. Stedman, a former janitor and civil liberties lawyer from Chicago, was fairly moderate within the party and did not endorse either revolutions in Russia or France, but did advocate for total emancipation of all workers from the system.

  The Vice Presidential candidate chosen by the party delegates was William W. Cox. As a former Congressman from Missouri, Cox represented the interests of the Socialist Labor Party, and not until 1919 after the SLP split did he formally become a member of the Socialist Party. Cox was more radical than Stedman, and the two hoped that tied together, they would serve to unite the differing party factions.

SOCIALIST BALLOT		1st Call		1088 DELEGATES
Seymour Stedman		951
George Kirkpatrick		102
L.E. Katterfeld		25
Jeanette Rankin		4
OTHERS/BLANK		6

SOCIALIST BALLOT		1st Call		1088 DELEGATES
William W. Cox		1070
OTHERS/BLANK		18

  The following day, was when the bulk of the party platform was debated. Opening with a brief plenary of the lessons learned from the May Revolt, it took little time for debate to erupt. This debate was lengthy, tense, and stressful for all involved. It was to be reformers against revolutionaries, with the issue of the Comintern highlighting the chief differences between the factions. Center-left socialists like Morris Hillquit urged an adoption of a lighter platform, with no direct affiliation with the Comintern. Hillquit and Benson were the minority, but still had a major voice. They stood firm in that the Bolsheviks were on the wrong road, and that a continuation of moderation was the best path forward.

  The leading revolutionaries, led by John Reed, Bill Haywood, and L.E. Katterfeld, pushed for the adoption of a radical platform. The SP was, officially, already affiliated with the Comintern, so as Reed stated, any action taken to leave the organization would be against the party's own interests. Lenin had already endorsed the Socialist Party as a vehicle for revolutionary socialism in America and hardline communists like Reed stood firm that he was in the right. As they held the majority, the radical platform was eventually adopted. Moderates were angered by the rush of the debate, and felt as though their minority voice meant little in the party. Quietly, some of these moderates did not attend the following day of the convention.

  Since his nomination, Seymour Stedman began orchestrating his campaign in urban centers across America. From July to August, Stedman worked chiefly on the East Coast, spreading socialist ideals in swing cities like Philadelphia and Milwaukee. Benson and later on, Debs, appeared alongside Stedman on the campaign trail, boosting the candidate’s legitimacy. His rallies had attendance higher than any SP candidate prior, and even though there was a definite security presence, these crowds were louder and arguably, more enthusiastic about their candidate than the other parties. With the help of the elected Socialist Party representatives and senators, including Emil Seidel (S-WA), Ashely Miller (S-NV) and Jeanette Rankin (S-MT), Stedman was able to afford political capital to spend on this massive organizing drive. A huge part of the Stedman campaign was to elect a Socialist Congress which would, if someone like Davis or Hughes was elected, block conservative and reactionary agendas.

Socialist Presidential Candidate Seymour Stedman (Right) Returns from Visiting Eugene Debs.
June 5th, 1920.

edit: correction

[geekknight]

Great update, it should be interesting to see which polls perform better in the end. Let's hope the socialists gain some ground in Congress.

[Pyro]

Shot of the Attendees inside of the 1920 Republican National Convention.

  On June 8th, the second of four mainline national conventions kicked off: The RNC. It took place in Chicago, though at a different venue from the SP. The crowd was roughly the same size at the Socialist Party Convention, though of a totally different makeup. Instead of young, enthusiastic radicals were older, more politically experienced men in dress coats and top hats. As later revealed by the press, the number of convention attendees was, though slightly higher than four years prior, still far less than 1912. Still, the party’s convention retained the same sense of notoriety that any prior had.

  Will H. Hays of Indiana, the sitting chairman of the Republican National Committee, took the initiative to reshape the party’s image. Enlarged portraits of Lincoln and McKinley covered the stage wall and the slogan “return to normalcy” became paired with the GOP. The Republicans had been the nation’s leading party since 1861, and relied on a sense of nostalgia to push the election bid of their nominee. Bouncing from this, a platform of universal, steady conservatism was agreed upon on the first day of the convention and the push for a nominee began.

  The use of the primary to dictate delegate allegiance fell out of favor with establishment Republicans, as well as with the Democrats. The press paid little attention to the primaries which did take place, though Hughes managed to win each of the binding primaries. Charles Hughes remained the party’s leader, and according to the Chicago Tribune, was to be the “Great Unifier.” Following the opening prayer, former President Philander Knox was the first to speak on the main stage, where he formally endorsed Hughes for president in a short address. Though he received a standing ovation, Knox was wholly irrelevant and disliked by the delegates for his failure to maintain the age-old dominance of the GOP.

  Hughes, as symbolized perfectly when he was endorsed by the last Republican president, was the candidate of the establishment. He was positioned as a centrist candidate by the convention, and was expected to win an easy ride to the nomination. However, Sproul and Lowden, in representing other factions within the party, each challenged Hughes on his centrism. For some in the party, it felt as though since McKinley, the same administration was ruling the nation. Roosevelt ascended under McKinley, the returned in 1912 and now his vice president was president. When the first ballot took place, the results were thereby unsurprising.

REPUBLICAN BALLOT		1st Call		984 DELEGATES
Charles E. Hughes		273
William C. Sproul		254
Frank O. Lowden		253
Nicholas M. Butler		70
Jacob Burkett		42
Hiram Johnson		18
John C. Pritchard		8
OTHERS/BLANK		10

  Though it a shock to the Hughes camp, dissatisfaction with the status quo of the party erupted into a quarrel when Sproul and Lowden came so exceedingly close to the Hughes mark. Hughes landed with 273 votes, Sproul with 254 and Lowden with 253. Subsequent voting calls ended in no avail and no results. On the 4th call, Nicholas Butler dropped out of the convention and endorsed Hughes to try and push the convention along. Jacob Burkett did the same. On the fifth ballot, Hughes reached 289 delegate endorsements, but was still short of the required amount for nomination. Sproul and Lowden both pushed for their own nominations, but both of their camps were the minority. As Hughes then mentioned, if Sproul or Lowden were to drop out and endorse the other, that person would have enough votes to win the nomination. However, this did not exactly occur.

  Following the seventh ballot call, with the fear of a convention stalemate in mind, the governor from Pennsylvania, William Sproul, announced that he would be withdrawing his name from the balloting. “There is a time to fight, and there is a time to lay down your arms. I am withdrawing from your presidential contest.” Sproul did not endorse another candidate. About 2/3rds of his constituency directly flooded to the Hughes camp. The remainder fled to Lowden and other candidates.

REPUBLICAN BALLOT		1st Call		5th Call		8th Call		984 DELEGATES
Charles E. Hughes		273		389		648
Frank O. Lowden		253		263		295
Hiram Johnson		18		15		19
Calvin Coolidge		8		6		11
William C. Sproul		254		277		4
Nicholas M. Butler		70		7		0
Jacob Burkett		42		6		0
OTHERS/BLANK		10		21		17

  With this, the convention decided to nominate Charles Evans Hughes as the Republican nominee. Hughes made a short statement upon victory, and pledged unity, liberty, and as was the party’s slogan, a “return to normalcy” for all Americans. Neither Sproul nor Lowden endorsed the nominee, though he did receive a follow-up endorsement by Governor Calvin Coolidge (R-MA). The party then nominated the incumbent Senator John W. Weeks (R-MA) for the second consecutive time as the vice presidential candidate.

REPUBLICAN BALLOT		1st Call		984 DELEGATES
John W. Weeks		703
Marcus Holcolmb		146.5
Henry J. Allen		68.5
Henry W. Anderson		28
Charles W. Lippitt		11
OTHERS/BLANK		9

  The establishment had certainly won, and this was printed all over the morning press. “Hughes Unites Divided GOP”. The Atlanta Times even went as far as to predict that the Progressive Party would end up nominating Hughes to truly return to normalcy and guarantee a return to Republicanism after an eight-year interim. However, this was not to be.

  Lowden, who had refused to make a statement after his loss, instead of announcing full support of his party’s candidate, chose to wholeheartedly withdraw from the party itself. On June 11th he stated, “Teddy was right about one thing. The men in these smoke-filled rooms which operate behind the scenes control the entire mechanism of the Republican Convention. We have our disagreements, but I am sure Mr. Sproul agrees that one of us were destined to be the nominee. Alas, the Old-Guard will never loosen its grip. I cannot endorse Mr. Hughes and I can no longer align myself with the Republicans.” When asked for a follow-up statement, William Sproul retorted, “I will only say this once so listen here. The only candidate I shall endorse and the only man I would be satisfied with sitting in the Oval Office is Bob La Follette.”

[Pyro]

Entrance to the Progressive National Convention. June 12th, 1920

  There was only a 12-hour interim between the ending of the RNC and the start of the Progressive National Convention. As previously addressed, the Progressive race was dirty and personal between the two leading candidates: Johnson and La Follette. Johnson still maintained a comfortable lead going into the convention, but La Follette carried with him a huge delegation of oppositionists to Johnson’s “security” policies. With Sproul’s endorsement of the former secretary, La Follette was pushed into a more legitimate place and had a new slew of support. However, when the convention opened its doors, it was very clear from the police presence and Johnson-inspired propaganda littering the convention that he was the favorite of the party’s fairly new establishment.

  After opening prayer and brief debate of the party’s center-left platform, party leaders and sitting representatives including Senate Minority Leader William Borah (P-ID) spoke briefly on the accomplishments of the party and the direction it should be headed before endorsing President Johnson. The Progressives had very concise left and right wings, embodied by La Follette and Johnson respectively, and each promoted varying reforms which made their way into the party platform. Prior to the vote tally, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. spoke for twenty minutes on the merits of his father and the proposed vast legacy of the Progressive Party. He wholly endorsed President Johnson near the end of his speech. Then the votes were cast.

PROGRESSIVE BALLOT	1st Call	2054 DELEGATES
Hiram Johnson	1609
Robert La Follette	386
Ole Hanson	18
William R. Green	1
OTHERS/BLANK	40

  As the New York Times commented days after the PNC, if Roosevelt had lost in 1916 and the party was starting off fresh (ie; without an incumbent), then La Follette would easily have had far more delegate support. However, Johnson wrapped things up rather quick. The Progressive Party was still, for all intents and purposes, in its infancy. Party leaders recognized that the organization needed to back the incumbent and stay firm in supporting the party’s executive in chief.

  Robert La Follette bowed out of the race, and gave a short address. “There are issues I recognize cannot be agreed on between the president and myself, but I do respect what Mr. Johnson has done to break free of the binds of the two-party system and defy the bureaucrats on Wall Street. I guarantee you, if Wilson had won, we would still be fighting in the trenches to this day.” He had little choice but to endorse the president, for he did not wish to split the party. As he wrote in his autobiography, La Follette would go on to set up plans for a 1924 run almost immediately following the convention.

PROGRESSIVE BALLOT	1st Call	2054 DELEGATES
James R. Garfield	2051
OTHERS/BLANK	3

  Popular Senator James R. Garfield (P-OH) was selected for vice president in a near-unanimous decision. His efficiency as Secretary of the Interior and booming influence as senator had driven Garfield into the spotlight by 1920. Garfield and Johnson practiced a more front-porch-style campaign, and let local Progressive parties perform the bulk of the campaigning. Johnson himself focused more on passing legislation in Congress during the summer of 1920 than his re-election.

[Pyro]

The Democratic National Convention, June 28th, 1920.

  As for the Democratic Party, no one candidate had been able to rise above the others and claim the title of "frontrunner". Davis, Palmer, and Fitzgerald were the leading candidates, but the polls had them deadlocked. The Des Moines Register consistently had Davis in the lead while the Chicago Daily News had Fitzgerald leading the pack. While the other parties had a fair idea of which candidate was going to be the nominee going into their national conventions, the Democrats would have to wait for official balloting.

  When the DNC finally began in San Francisco, California on June 28th, it had a lot to live up to. The press had extensively covered the other three party conventions, and the Democratic National Committee was unsure if they could effectively measure up to the excitement. However, as it turned out, the DNC had a greater number of attendees than any of the other conventions. It made sense, according to DNC Chair Homer Cummings, who stated, "We've seen the disintegration of the Republican Party into two competing camps. The Democratic Party is united in bringing some stability and sensible policies back into the White House."

  On the first day of the convention, the party platform, one of "sensible change" and "moderation" was agreed upon unanimously and multiple speakers addressed the convention. Among these speakers were Champ Clark and Woodrow Wilson, both of whom received standing ovations. Clark, who still held reservations regarding the Democratic establishment, still agreed to speak for a short time. The audience was fervent in pushing Clark to run for the party's nomination, but he ignored these pleas and went on with his address.

  At last, the nominating process began. The three major candidates also went in full force from the start, but none of them were expected to win on the first ballot. As Chairman Cummings stated, "There is some division regarding our presidential nominee, but this is expected to be worked out after one or two ballots." The first ballot revealed a total split between the three candidates, with Davis leading. Then the second ended in no avail. This was followed by split ballots one after the next. After twenty ballots, the party began to grow concerned that they were in for another deadlock similar to the 1912 DNC.

DEMOCRATIC BALLOT		1st Call		10th Call		20th Call		1088 DELEGATES
John W. Davis		321		354		362
John F. Fitzgerald		301		344		341
A. Mitchell Palmer		250		255		231
Furnifold M. Simmons		60		51		55
Roberrt Latham Owen		42		24		35
Champ Clark		30		26		35
Edwin T. Meredith		31		15		18
Alfred E. Smith		3		3		1
OTHERS/BLANK		50		16		10

  The worry began once again about a 1912-esque party split. If Davis were to be nominated, then the left-leaning Democrats may branch off into a second Liberal Party, thus handing the election to another Progressive victor. On the other hand, the nomination of Fitzgerald may lead to a party bolt as the conservative National Democrats had once before. However, it would not take long from this point for unity to be reached.

  Palmer had absolutely refused to drop out of the race. "This is a campaign against radicalism and plots against the United States government. If I should be nominated by this party and win this election, never again will you see "uprisings" take place within our borders." Fitzgerald, who had been quiet on the issue of the May Revolt then started up, "What Mr. Palmer wants is far worse than what the Socialists speak. He would have mass deportations. He would authorize firing squad murder of American civilians. He would tear up the First Amendment and ban all political parties he does not personally agree with. If the Socialists and Anarchists are calling for a Storming of the Bastille, Mr. Palmer would ensure a Reign of Terror." Palmer did not respond to Fitzgerald, and his campaign began to flounder.

  Meredith and Owen both dropped out of the race and endorsed Fitzgerald, yet the party was still deadlocked. Finally, on the sixth day of the convention, Champ Clark came back into the convention hall and gave another short speech. "Friends, we have seen quite the commotion here, indeed ... It is time we choose our nominee and the next president of the United States. Therefore, I shall endorse Senator Fitzgerald." This, in addition to Palmer's earlier moment of being discredited, pushed enough delegates into the Fitzgerald camp to award him the nomination.

DEMOCRATIC BALLOT		1st Call		10th Call		20th Call		30th Call		34th Call		1088 DELEGATES
John F. Fitzgerald		301		344		341		365		843
John W. Davis		321		354		362		382		120
A. Mitchell Palmer		250		255		231		200		117
Furnifold M. Simmons		60		51		55		40		5
Alfred E. Smith		3		3		1		4		1
Roberrt Latham Owen		42		24		35		0		0
Champ Clark		30		26		35		66		0
Edwin T. Meredith		31		15		18		0		0
OTHERS/BLANK		50		16		10		31		2

  Davis and Palmer bowed out respectfully and each endorsed the nominee. Fitzgerald, on the following day of the convention, would give his acceptance speech where he made an optimistic speech. "If elected president, I shall work to ensure that this upcoming decade shall be a decade of hope, a decade of promise, and most importantly, we shall win a decade of peace." He chose to endorse Champ Clark himself for vice president, a move highly criticized by the establishment. Nonetheless, Clark was unanimously nominated for vice president. This Democratic ticket was certainly balanced, between the relatively inexperienced John Fitzgerald and the veteran Speaker of the House Champ Clark, but whether or not this strategy was palpable in bringing about electoral victory was debated virulently in the press.

[Pyro]

Violence Breaks Out in the Chicago Race Riots, August 1920.

  With each of the presidential tickets firmly set in motion, the candidates began the five-month election cycle. President Johnson was relieved that he had handily won the nomination, and without La Follette in his path, he believed it was a cakewalk from here on out. However, right when he began prepping talking points for re-election speeches, new tragedies broke out both at home and abroad.

  Race riots had broken out in Chicago between the already-present ethnic Irish, the majority white population, and the growing number of African Americans migrating from the Southern United States. Businesses in Chicago were explicit in their hiring discrimination, meaning when the war ended, many of the migrants were fired when veterans returned. Ethnic gangs sprung up throughout the city, and when a group of black men decided to take a trip to a segregated beach, violence broke out.

  It escalated so quickly that the entire Chicago economy had shut down within days. Governor Frank Lowden decided to immediately call for state police and request the National Guard. It took only a few days to get things under control once again, but the damage had been done to the city and any semblance of racial solidarity was gone. Governor Lowden mainly acted impartially toward the riots, but did make it a point that, "Nothing like this had happened since my living in Chicago. Something needs to be done about this negro migration.”

  This prompted Lowden to go full-in with his political gambling. After a few days of positive press for his handling of the riots, Lowden organized a major speech outside of his home in Chicago. “I am here today to declare my decision to run for president on an independent ticket. Unrestrained by party politics, big business, and selfish means, I shall seek to widen the conversation beyond its current scope and provide for you, law and order for this nation. Together, we will launch a campaign to set in motion twentieth-century economics and modern social policies.”

  Then on September 5th, a French ship carrying cargo to Russia was obliterated by a German U-boat in the Baltic Sea. Germany had quietly pushed through a measure (one which was supported by the majority in the League of Nations) thereby making any trade to a “Communist State” illegal and punishable to the highest degree. Sweden, Denmark, and each of the Baltic States had signed off on this measure, and it therefore had a sense of international agreement. Britain stayed silent on the issue and there was no official recognition of the event from President Johnson.

  The ship was carrying much-needed food and medical supplies to St. Petersburg, but now there was no plausible means of delivery. German Chancellor Hermann Muller used this as a talking point against the Bolshevik system of government. “[The Soviet structure] just cannot function. It is doomed to fail. Ask the people of Russia what they think of Communism while they starve in the streets.” Out of options, Lenin began work on a new measure to introduce a temporary mixed economy and move away from collectivized farming.

  John Fitzgerald was the first to speak out against the attack. As he stated during a campaign stop in Baltimore, "This administration has proven itself unwilling to deal with international tragedies of this nature. Due to the inference from this ongoing policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, one which I propose we end immediately, millions may die in Russia. Although I partially agree with Chancellor Muller in the failings of the Bolshevik State, targeting supply ships will do nothing but harm those workers and peasants we claim to protect." Later on, Seymour Stedman would use Fitzgerald's assessment of the situation as an example of a major theme of his campaign: "Half-Hearted Nature of the Democrats", meaning although the senator was condemning the German use of unrestricted force, he still promoted imperialism in Russia.

[Pyro]

C.E. Hughes Campaigning in Winona, Minnesota. October 1920.

  The weeks continued to tick by closer to the election as each of the candidates, and their parties, embraced the tossup to come. Even as close as November 1st, there were very few worthy publications willing to call the election for any one candidate. As one journalist printed in the New York Times commented, “Every so often we have ourselves an election such as this, where it could easily end up a three, or even four-way, tie. That scenario is most unlikely, but we have long left behind the days where a tossup meant Missouri swinging towards the Republicans.” The Philadelphia Inquirer had a front-page article on October 25th featuring, “History’s Squeakers: Jefferson-Adams, Hayes-Tilden, Garfield-Hancock, Harrison-Cleveland, Roosevelt-Wilson. Is Johnson-Fitzgerald-Hughes Next?” The final Des Moines poll, released on October 28th, revealed how close the election truly was.

The Des Moines Register: October 1920
Which candidate would you endorse for president?

Hiram Johnson: 28%
John F. Fitzgerald: 28%
Charles E. Hughes: 26%
Seymour Stedman: 11%
Frank O. Lowden: 7%

  Charles E. Hughes had embarked on an expensive railroad trip across the nation, hoping to spread his message: “A Return to Our Conservative Roots”. Though he assured the nation that he would not touch the gains of the Square Deal legislation, he would work to ensure an “America safe for business”. Hughes was the only candidate to focus almost exclusively on the economy. He gained a plethora of support from large corporate interests for his stern opposition to any 8-hour workday legislation and outspent the other contenders 2-1.

  At an election stop when Hughes was asked about the splitting of the GOP, Lowden’s candidacy and the difficulty in reaching enough electoral votes to win, he responded, “I certainly understand the frustration and dissenting opinion. Many of us who have been integral within the Republican Party since President William McKinley remember a momentum time when the GOP stood by its namesake and won over the American public time and time again. I do differ with some of my colleagues when I say that we should have seriously considered nominating Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. He had the support from all corners of the nation, and he possessed the energy to not only win two additional terms, but lead the country through a tumultuous war.

  “I have immense respect for Senator Root, and personally supported his campaign, but I believe he did more to tarnish the Republican name in his discrediting of President Roosevelt than anyone else. Now to be clear, the Progressive Party’s very existence was on the pledge to elect Theodore Roosevelt to the presidency when the Republican Convention failed to do so. It did that. That party has succeeded in its mission. President Johnson has soiled the purpose of his own party and will be held personally responsible for swaying the nation towards the Democrats should Senator Fitzgerald be victorious.”

[Pyro]

House Portrait of John Fitzgerald

 Hughes’ speech had won him over a great deal of support from the La Follette branch of Progressive Party dissidents and anti-Johnsonites, and, especially in what were once Progressive strongholds, Hughes captured much of the magic from the old Roosevelt camp. Fitzgerald kept on his heels for the entirety of October and up to Election Day. He hammered Hughes on his silence on the issue of internationalism and his unwillingness to support laws which would benefit industrial and agricultural workers, including the 8-hour day.

  Still, Fitzgerald’s campaign was chiefly directed toward what he called a “New Day for America”. He concentrated on federal regulation of factories and hazardous workplaces and stressed coalition building between the Democrats and the emerging Farmer-Labor Party. "I shall support the will of the American people in every regard, including working with the other parties to ensure meaningful progress in Washington."

  A great deal of Fitzgerald's support was his 'outsider' status. While Hughes and Johnson were part of the establishment, Fitzgerald was relatively untouched by the Democratic machine. The same did not quite apply to his running mate, but Clark's experience in dealing with Congress did not harm the ticket. Still, there were plenty in the party who believed that the ticket should have been the other way around, with Clark as the chief nominee, and feared that Fitzgerald was to be only a mere figurehead.

  Fitzgerald did not often go negative against his opponents, but did famously work to tie together Johnson and Hughes as “Two fat legs on the same elephant”. Hughes did not comment much on the Democratic nominee, but as exemplified through his aforementioned speech, concentrated on defeating Johnson to bring unity back to the Republican Party. All in all, the Campaign of 1920 was against President Johnson for his failure to live up to the promises of Roosevelt, his inability to work with Congress, and his hugely unpopular push for security legislation.

 President Johnson did little campaigning at all, leaving this up to Garfield and his campaign workers. He had hoped to look presidential by staying above the fray. This, however, opened him up to incessant attacks from the other campaigns, especially the Hughes campaign. In October, he did make some brief stops in swing cities like Charleston and Boston, but it was becoming too late to turn the tide.

  Lastly, Seymour Stedman continued on his objective to elect “the First Real Democracy” in the U.S. Congress. He campaigned alongside nearly every single Socialist running for the House or the Senate, including Upton Sinclair in California, M.J. Martin in Florida, and Frank Weber in Wisconsin. Weber, a union organizer and carpenter from Milwaukee, was the only non-incumbent Socialist forecasted to win his election, and Seymour, in turn, had huge popularity in the Badger State.

  The last presidential poll of the season, from the Chicago Daily News, had the candidates closely matched. It would take Election Day itself to discover exactly who would be sitting in the Oval Office come March.
    

The Chicago Daily News

     

The Peoples' Poll for November 1920

John F. Fitzgerald		30%
Charles E. Hughes		30%
Hiram Johnson		28%
Frank O. Lowden		06%
Others/None of These		06%

[NeverAgain]

Was Stedman not included in Chicago's polling?

[Pyro]

Was Stedman not included in Chicago's polling?

Right! I think I mentioned it in an earlier part. In order to better gauge voter tendencies of the top candidates they do not include the Socialists as an option in the polls. With the Chicago riots and the fear from the Red Scare in recent memory, the organization opted not to include Stedman.

[Pyro]

Women Voting on Election Day 1920

    Then came Election Day itself. On November 2nd, 1920, the people of the United States once again went to the polls to choose the leader for the following four years. There was the incumbent President Hiram Johnson, the Progressive, who was hoping for a huge turnout in his favor similar to his predecessor.

  The incumbent had four major challengers. Democratic nominee John F. Fitzgerald of Massachusetts, who had spent his campaign championing his outsider status and relatively liberal economic policies, was fighting to be the first Democratic president of the 20th century. Republican Charles Evans Hughes, former Attorney General to President Knox and Governor of New York, sought a victory through a total rejection of Johnson’s social policies and a unified resurgence of Republican conservatism. Socialist Seymour Stedman, though focusing on electing a “Socialist Congress”, had worked diligently in support of workers’ issues and hoped to each a high enough Popular Vote to thrust his ideology into the mainstream. Finally, there was the independent Governor Frank Lowden of Illinois who, upon losing the Republican nomination, won over a high number of supporters after crafting his own campaign preaching “economic nationalism” and anti-liberalism.

  The election was a tossup. Both major polling agencies concluded that it was anyone’s game. The New York Times estimated a slight Progressive advantage due to the groundwork laid by Theodore Roosevelt. However, states like Pennsylvania and Ohio who had easily gone to TR would be an uphill battle in this close match.

  Although the 19th Amendment had not yet been ratified by enough states, many states did already allow women the right to vote. As such, in 1920, there were quite a few instances of women registering to vote in states that allowed them to do so. Pennsylvania, a state which did not have women's suffrage legislation, had many of its women leave the state and vote in "suffrage states" like New York and Ohio. Analysts were unsure exactly which way the "Women Vote" would go, with one Gerard Dickson of the Chicago Tribune stating, "This new variable could very much decide this election."

  As the vote totals began to come in, with the results being revealed live on radio, it became clear that this political landscape was not the one from four years earlier. C.E. Hughes dominated New England, picking up Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island with clear-cut amounts each. These states had always been Republican strongholds, but TR had come close in each of these states and had won Maine in both 1912 and 1916.

  New York was called for Fitzgerald relatively early in the night. The Empire State saw a close split vote between the contenders, although President Johnson ended up receiving a lesser vote total than Seymour Stedman (16.4% to 16.6%) while Hughes carried 27% and Fitzgerald 40%. New Jersey, a state carried by Wilson in 1916, was won by Fitzgerald in a five percent advantage over the president.

  Pennsylvania, in a most curious way, ended up turning to C.E. Hughes. It had been an expected win for Johnson, as TR had easily won Pennsylvania in both prior elections, but the president lacked the magnetism of his predecessor, and even Philadelphia had a greater percentage choosing Hughes over Johnson. Stedman locked in a healthy 6% of the vote in Pennsylvania, and Lowden managed 3%. Honey Fitz did not spend much time in the Keystone State, though his vote total just barely missed surpassing Johnson's for second place.

  Woodrow Wilson had done a great job in 1916 in setting up the dominoes to fall in just the right way for a Democratic advantage in 1920. Although Fitzgerald himself barely campaigned in the South, every single Southern state went to Fitzgerald with well over 50% of the vote. The entire former Confederacy, including the border states of Kentucky and Missouri, went straight into the Democratic column. Oklahoma, a state won by Allan Benson in 1916, narrowly went to Fitzgerald in this race in a tight vote over Stedman. At this moment, Fitzgerald only needed 29 more Electoral Votes to win. Although, the easy part was over. Once again, it would come down to the Midwest to decide the race.

[Pyro]

Citizens Lining up to Vote on Election Day.

  Fortunately for President Johnson, his advantage was always in the West. Although Fitzgerald worked hard to win the upper hand with farmers, Johnson had continued the agrarian policies of his predecessor and won notoriety for it. As such, the president won Michigan, Minnesota, both Dakotas, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming by over 50%. He also handily won California and Oregon, both from a three-way split. South Dakota had a major push by the Farmer-Labor Party fusion ticket with Fitzgerald, giving him a strong second-place finish. Minnesota was one of the strongest finishes for Stedman, where he won almost 16%.

  Utah and Nevada also both went to the president, with a nearly four-way tie in each state. New Mexico, a state heavily concentrated on this year by the Democrats, was easily won by Fitzgerald. Arizona, with a huge push by Senator Miller, was won for Stedman with nearly 40% voting for him, with Fitzgerald in a near-second. Washington, one of the closest states in this cycle, also ended up narrowly being won by Stedman. It (and the entire coast) had been trending Progressive for some time, and because of this Hughes did not work whatsoever on the West Coast. Fitzgerald and Johnson both considered the coast a win for the incumbency, but this was not the case. Along with popular Senator Emil Seidel, Stedman was able to win the state of Washington and its seven electoral votes with nearly 42% of the vote.

  Stedman also concentrated heavily in Wisconsin, a state which had been trending to the Left for a number of years. Milwaukee and Madison each had about eight labor strikes since the May Uprising, and this collection of workers was not about to vote for the president who ordered in the National Guard to end most of these battles. Fitzgerald had most of his popularity in the East, as did Hughes, which meant that the alternative was explored. Thus, you have a third win for the Socialist candidate.

  As for the hotly contested Midwest, the states were fairly divided in who to choose. Ohio was narrowly won by President Johnson, as was Iowa and Indiana. Illinois, which had been trending Republican in recent polls, ended with a surprise win for the president. Lowden captured about 14% of the vote in his home state, putting him in a distant third. Hughes was in second, and would later quietly put the blame on his loss to Lowden's separate candidacy.

  At last, the election reached its close when Kansas, another close state in this election, was won by Fitzgerald with about 41% of the vote, with Johnson in second. Fitzgerald ended up coming out victorious in West Virginia, Nebraska, and Colorado as well. With that, the Election of 1920 was won by the Democrat, John F. Fitzgerald of Massachusetts with 272 Electoral Votes.