1942: Democratic Party

The Democratic party, rounding out a decade of political supremacy in 1942, continued in control of the presidency, the Congress, and the greater number of the state governments. In the Second Session of the Seventy-seventh Congress, the party dominated both houses by decisive majorities. Up to the time of the November elections, Democrats in the House of Representatives numbered 259, as compared with 166 Republicans, 2 Progressives, and one member each from the Farmer-Labor and American Labor parties. Sam Rayburn of Texas and John W. McCormack of Massachusetts, both Democrats, filled the offices of Speaker and Majority Leader respectively. In the Senate, the party's numerical advantage was even more impressive, its 65 seats assuring it of a clear two-thirds majority. A Progressive, an Independent, and 29 Republicans completed the roster of the upper house. The veteran Carter Glass of Virginia was chosen as president pro tem. Among the states, Democrats held 28 of the 48 governorships. Despite recurrent rumors of impending resignation, Edward J. Flynn continued as chairman of the National Committee throughout the year. The party reported receipts of $170,145.92 and expenditures of $232,088.68 during 1941.

While the Democrats were firmly seated in power as the year opened, the prospect was uncertain. Public support had rallied to the President in impressive fashion following the Pearl Harbor attack, and promises of loyal cooperation were quickly forthcoming from spokesmen representing every shade of political opinion. This expression of national unity of purpose did not mean, however, that the American people had abdicated their traditional right to criticize government policies or that the party system had been shelved for the duration. In striking contrast to the great majority of the war-ridden populations of the world, United States citizens remained in full and free possession of the ballot. Since the war effort overshadowed all other public concerns, a continuation of previous Democratic successes in the coming fall elections was certain to depend to a considerable degree upon the electorate's reaction to military developments abroad and to the measures adopted by the Administration for mobilizing material and manpower resources at home.

An early indication of the quickening of party activities appeared in New York City when 71-year-old Christopher D. Sullivan was ousted from the leadership of Tammany Hall by a revolt of district leaders on Feb. 6, 1942, after a tenure of only two and a half years. Several weeks of maneuvering ensued, during which the principal aspirants angled for White House support. Finally, on April 14, Representative Michael J. Kennedy, leader of the Fifteenth Congressional District and a vigorous critic of the Sullivan regime, was chosen to head the New York County organization.

New York State Convention Fight.

The midsummer months were highlighted by a contest which developed unexpectedly in New York between President Roosevelt and State Chairman James A. Farley over the naming of the party's candidate for governor. While ostensibly the question involved was simply a matter of selecting the strongest possible entry for the approaching gubernatorial race, there were unmistakable signs that the struggle had larger implications directly linked with the control of the national party convention in 1944. The events leading up to the conflict were set in motion by Governor Lehman's announcement early in May that he would not be a candidate to succeed himself. Upstate support thereupon developed rapidly, under Farley's generalship, in favor of Attorney General John J. Bennett, Jr. For more than two months the President avoided any definite statement on Bennett's candidacy. Both Farley and National Chairman Edward J. Flynn, who conferred individually with Roosevelt in June, appear to have gained the impression that the Chief Executive would abide by the convention's choice of a nominee. By the end of the month, however, New Deal leaders from the Empire State were voicing opposition to Bennett on the ground that he would be unable to hold the Labor Party vote which had proved the decisive factor in Lehman's victory in 1938. As July advanced without a definite statement from the President, uncertainty and tension increased. Farley, aware that a movement to draft Senator James M. Mead was afoot, consolidated his forces and lashed out at the leaders of the New Deal wing of the party. On July 22 rumor became fact when Mead announced his candidacy and received the endorsement of the President, Senator Wagner, and, eventually, Governor Lehman. On Aug. 19 the convention opened in Brooklyn. When, on the following day, Farley rejected Lehman's plea for a compromise candidate, advanced on Roosevelt's behalf, the fight for Mead was carried to the convention floor. Flynn and Kennedy stood by the Administration, but the all-important Queens and Brooklyn delegations refused to bolt the Farley camp and Bennett was nominated by a vote of 623 to 393. Although the party leaders went through the motions of restoring harmony and the White House subsequently issued a mild declaration in favor of Bennett, the damage caused by the conflict was irreparable as far as the fall campaign was concerned. When the Labor Party proceeded to name its own candidate, Dean Alfange, a Republican victory was assured. On Nov. 3, Dewey defeated Bennett by a plurality of 647,628, while the Labor Party polled 403,555 votes for Dean Alfange.

The Elections.

Apart from the nomination fight in New York, the campaign was generally lacking in color and excitement. The balloting on Nov. 3, however, resulted in the sharpest Democratic setback in fourteen years. While the Administration retained control of both branches of Congress, the Republicans gained 9 seats in the Senate and 44 in the House, thereby reducing the Democratic margin, apart from Progressive and Labor votes, to 19 and 13 respectively. This meant that anti-New Deal Democrats and Republicans would have a clear majority on many domestic issues in the new Congress. Of the 32 governorships at stake, the Democrats captured 13, the Republicans 18, and the Progressives one. New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and California were numbered among the states in the Republican column. The total popular vote for Congress was nearly 22,000,000 under that of 1940 and approximately 7,500,000 under that of 1938. Of this striking decrease, the Democrats bore by far the heavier share. Their vote was about 14,000,000 less than in 1940, and some 4,500,000 less than in 1938, while the Republicans were able to hold their loss to about 8,000,000 as compared with 1940, and to 3,000,000 as compared with 1938. For the first time since 1928, the Republicans polled a majority of the votes cast (50.6).

The extent of the Democratic reverse was greater than had been generally predicted and was unquestionably a surprise to the party leaders. Numerous interpretations were offered by both sides. The more thoughtful commentators were inclined to the opinion that far too many factors were involved to warrant any simple explanation of the vote. In all probability, impatience over the delay in assuming the military offensive, irritation at rationing and price-stabilization policies, and dissatisfaction with the Administration's handling of labor and production problems contributed appreciably to the result. There could be no question, however, but that the President would find the new Congress far less amenable to executive domination than its immediate predecessors.

1941: Democratic Party

Democratic Party, one of the two major parties in the United States, in 1941 continued in control of the national and most of the state governments. During the year there were no changes of importance either in the national organization of the party or in its Congressional setup. In Congress, Sam Rayburn, of Texas, was reelected Speaker of the House; and Alben W. Barkley, of Kentucky, was again made Democratic floor leader of the Senate. Senator Pat Harrison, of Mississippi, was elected President Pro Tempore of the Senate; and Senator Lister Hill, of Alabama, was made party whip. An exception to the prominence of Southerners in the Democratic organization of Congress was John McCormack, of Massachusetts, who was chosen majority leader in the House. Edward J. Flynn, of New York, continued as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. A change was made in the treasurer; Richard J. Reynolds, of North Carolina, succeeding Oliver A. Quayle in that position.

A report on May 31 on the Democratic party's finances placed its outstanding obligations at $223,764. Receipts of $336,514 were reported from Jan. 1 to May 31, nearly all of which came from the Jackson Day Dinners on March 29. Usually the dinners are held on the Saturday nearest to Jan. 8, the date of Andrew Jackson's victory at the Battle of New Orleans, but this year they were held later, owing to the fact that many Democratic leaders were too busy, preparing for the inauguration of the President, at the usual time. The Jackson Day Dinner in Washington was postponed because of President Roosevelt's absence from Washington on the scheduled date. His speech, broadcast the evening of March 29 from the yacht Potomac, off the coast of Florida, was heard at the various dinners all over the country.

The international situation has had an odd effect on Democratic harmony in Congress. In the past, many of the sour notes came from Southern critics of the New Deal. The South, however, has been conspicuous for its almost solid support of President Roosevelt's measures involving foreign affairs and national defense. As a result, despite the discordant notes sounded by isolationists, there was an unusual degree of party harmony among Congressional Democrats in 1941.

As a rule, in the so-called off years, there are no elections or other local occurrences which are of any particular significance to the party as a whole. The past year, however, may prove to be an exception. Their consequences can only be guessed at, since they remain to be seen, but it is possible that events in New York and New Jersey during the course of the year may yet prove to be of considerable importance to the national party.

In New Jersey, the upshot of a legislative dispute over railroad taxes was the resignation of Frank Hague as state leader of the Democratic party, a position he had held for twenty-five years. Governor Charles Edison, who was opposed to Hague in the railroad tax issue, had announced before the latter's resignation that he intended to wrest Hague's leadership from him. Hague's reply was to resign in favor of Governor Edison, saying that he did not want the tax issue to get tangled up with the question of state leadership. Hague's reasons, in addition to the alleged one, for giving up the state leadership were the subject of widespread speculation. Informed opinion favored the conclusion that the move was the beginning of his withdrawal from active politics. Long a favorite target for the slurs of political reformers and Republicans, 'Boss' Hague has nevertheless been a tower of strength to the Democratic party in New Jersey. Widely known as the 'Democratic Czar' of Hudson County, he is serving his eighth term as Mayor of Jersey City, and also continues as vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

In New York, a rather complicated situation in the Democratic party grew out of the mayoralty election in New York City, in which William O'Dwyer, District Attorney of Kings County (Brooklyn), was the Democratic candidate for mayor against the incumbent, Fiorello H. LaGuardia, who was supported by the combined Republican, American Labor, and Fusion parties, the voters of the last-named being largely independent Democrats. The regular Democrats of New York were not without obligations to the independently-minded LaGuardia for past favors in state and national elections, but with one distinguished exception, the principal leaders of the party turned a cold shoulder to the Mayor's candidacy for reelection. O'Dwyer found himself enjoying the vigorous support of such outstanding Democratic figures as Governor Herbert E. Lehman, National Chairman Edward J. Flynn, and State Chairman James A. Farley. The one distinguished exception was President Roosevelt, who at a press conference on Oct. 24 announced his unqualified endorsement of LaGuardia's candidacy.

President Roosevelt's action not only widened the gulf between him and certain elements among the New York City Democrats, but it placed Edward J. Flynn, the Bronx leader, in a curious position. Since Flynn was national chairman, as well as Democratic leader of the Bronx, his whole political future could very well depend on the outcome of the election. Flynn, who had been virtually hand-picked for the national chairmanship by Roosevelt, now found himself on the opposite side of the fence from his sponsor. The defeat of O'Dwyer, the Democratic candidate, it turned out, did not result in any particular loss of prestige for Flynn, chiefly because his organization succeeded in carrying the county offices. An aftermath of Democratic defeat in the Borough of Manhattan was a demand that Christopher D. Sullivan resign as leader of Tammany Hall. This he refused to do, asserting that the demand came from a distinct minority.

Political commentators remarked upon the dissension among the Democrats in the New York City election, and also professed to see signs that the party's strength in the metropolis was waning, which, if true, would portend a future loss of power in the state as well. But, on the other hand, it was pointed out that the Democrats poled far and away the most votes of any single party. Attention was called, however, to the fact that the city mayoralty elections, in which LaGuardia has figured, have not accurately reflected the normal distribution of political allegiance in New York City, chiefly because of his large personal following, particularly among laborers.

See also REPUBLICAN PARTY.

1940: Democratic Party

The Democratic Party, one of the two major political parties in the United States, was continued in control of the Federal Government by the 1940 elections. In the 77th Congress which convened in January 1941, the Democratic party had 66 Senators, in the total of 96, and 267 members of the House of Representatives, out of a total of 435. The party also continued to be a powerful force in many states; 29 of the 48, for example, had Democratic governors in January, 1941.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Third Term Issue.

At the beginning of 1940, there was considerable confusion in the Democratic ranks. President Roosevelt's flat refusal to discuss the prospects of his running for a third term completely nonplussed other potential candidates for the Democratic nomination, since they were reluctant to start their own campaigns without knowing the President's intentions. Virtually everything seemed to be at a standstill within the national Democratic party, for even the date of its National Convention was awaiting the announcement of the date of the Republican Convention. On Feb. 5, Chicago was chosen as the place of the Democratic Convention; and on the 17th of the same month, the day after the Republicans announced the date of theirs, the date of the Democratic Convention was set for July 15, the latest date since 1864.

President Roosevelt's unbroken silence on the subject of the third term was said by many prominent Democrats to be demoralizing the party. Many conjectured that his silence could only be construed as evidence of the President's intention to run, unless by his tactics he aimed to dictate the party's presidential nominee at the last moment, since the other candidates could not very well get their campaigns organized and started until the President declared himself. It was generally recognized that Roosevelt could get the nomination if he wanted it.

Of course, the anti-New Dealers among the Democrats were particularly loud in their protests against the President's conduct, but among those who were less outspoken, but apparently no less opposed to a third term, were several of Roosevelt's hitherto most devoted followers, including Postmaster General James A. Farley. Other prominent Democrats who demanded that the President declare his intentions had no objections to a third term, but they wanted to end the strained relations and the ill-will which, according to them, his silence was engendering in the party.

Meanwhile a 'draft movement' was started by the President's admirers and followers. As early as January, Attorney General Robert H. Jackson pleaded with him to reserve his decision on the matter of a third term; Sidney Hillman announced that Roosevelt had the backing of the United Clothing Workers and deserved the support of labor; and Joseph F. Guffey, a Senator from Pennsylvania and a powerful figure in the Democratic party in that state, urged labor to draft Roosevelt. Senator Guffey's recommendation that Roosevelt be drafted was endorsed at the beginning of February by the Pennsylvania Democratic State Convention. Among numerous prominent Democrats, who openly supported President Roosevelt for a third term were Mayor Edward J. Kelly of Chicago, Mayor Frank Hague of Jersey City, and Edward J. Flynn of the Bronx, New York City, all three being the overlords of political domains which were bulwarks of Democratic strength.

Other Candidates.

In the face of Roosevelt's silence and the agitation for a third term, the candidacies, actual or potential, of Vice-President John N. Garner, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Senator Burton G. Wheeler, Federal Security Administrator Paul V. McNutt and the others all faded away. Only that of James A. Farley, Postmaster General and Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, remained. It was evident that Farley's candidacy, no matter how genuine in its origin, was in its final stages more a formal gesture of protest against a third term than a serious effort to get the nomination. Even after nearly everyone assumed that President Roosevelt would receive the nomination, and after Farley had undoubtedly been told of the President's intention of permitting his own name to go before the Convention, Farley doggedly adhered to his candidacy. His protest was made all the more dramatic by his name being placed in nomination at the Convention by the venerable and beloved Senator Carter Glass of Virginia, who, at the advanced age of 82, rose from a sick-bed and made the long trip to Chicago for the purpose of nominating Farley. The nominating speech of Senator Glass was as much a rebuke to the third-term candidacy as it was a tribute to 'Jim' Farley.

A few days before the Democratic Convention opened, Administration spokesmen proceeded to Chicago, presumably to lay the groundwork for the President's nomination. No official pronouncement of his intentions had yet come from President Roosevelt, but practically everybody by this time took it for granted that he would 'consent to be drafted.' There was also no question of the control of the Convention by the President's followers, although political experts reported that there was a noticeable lack of enthusiasm for and fear of a third term among a substantial portion of the delegates themselves.

Democratic National Convention.

The Democratic Convention officially opened in the Chicago Stadium on Monday evening, July 15, with 'God Bless America' as the theme song of the Convention, and with the delivery of the keynote speech by the Convention's temporary Chairman, William B. Bankhead, Speaker of the House of Representatives. The keynoter vigorously denied that the Democrats were a 'war party,' as claimed by the Republicans. The following night, July 16, another address, flaying the Republicans and extolling the Democrats, was delivered by Senator Alben W. Barkley of Kentucky, permanent Chairman of the Convention.

When Senator Barkley had finished his address, he announced that he had 'an additional statement to make on behalf of the President.' Barkley wanted to make the fact clear to the Convention that the president had no desire to be a candidate, or to be nominated by the Convention. 'All delegates to the Convention,' the President wanted them to know, were 'free to vote for any candidate.'

The next day after the adoption of a platform the Convention proceeded 'to draft' Roosevelt for the nomination. Technically nominated 'by acclamation,' upon the motion of James A. Farley, in a belated abandonment of his own candidacy, President Roosevelt was not, in the balloting, the unanimous choice of the Convention. The total vote on the first and only ballot was Roosevelt, 946; Farley, 72; Garner, 61; Tydings, 9½; Hull, 5.

The overwhelming nature of the vote in favor of Roosevelt's nomination tends to suggest that the newspaper accounts of the extent of the Democratic disapproval of a third term may have been somewhat exaggerated. The opposition to the President's dictation of the vice-presidential nominee, however, was open and rebellious in spirit. There were several prospective nominees for this office, a few of whom presumably had the endorsement of President Roosevelt. But before the time for balloting, word began to circulate' among the delegates that only Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace was acceptable to the President. The latter, it was added, might not accept his own nomination unless Wallace was named as his running mate.

The afternoon of July 18, Senator Barkley, the Chairman of the Convention, adjourned the afternoon session without permitting nominations for Vice-President. It was later said that this was a play for time, in order to give Harry Hopkins, leader of the Administration forces, the opportunity to persuade various candidates to withdraw. When the Convention reassembled that night, the forces opposed to Wallace tried to head off his nomination by rallying around Speaker Bankhead and Paul V. McNutt, Federal Security Administrator. McNutt personally blocked support of himself by appealing to the Convention, despite its efforts to howl him down, to follow the President's wishes and name Wallace. Edward J. Flynn, close personal friend of Roosevelt, and presumably authorized to speak for him, told the delegates that the President wanted Wallace. On the first ballot, with 551 votes necessary for a choice, Wallace received 627 7/10 votes, Bankhead 329, McNutt 66, with other votes scattered.

Roosevelt Accepts.

President Roosevelt, in accepting nomination in a radio address from Washington, July 19, gave his reasons for his prolonged silence on the subject of a third term. When war broke out in Europe in 1939, he said, he had had no intention of again being a candidate. A statement from him at the time, he thought, would be unwise from the point of view of public duty. Then the war in Europe, he explained, had taken such a turn that he felt it was his duty to serve another term as President, if the American people demanded it. Whether or not the latter was the case would be demonstrated in the November election.

Despite President Roosevelt's explanation, political commentators observed considerable dissatisfaction among the delegates with the outcome of the Convention. On the face of the Convention vote, however, it would be hard to get around the fact that Roosevelt enjoyed the full support of the Convention, whatever may have been the reasons for it — affection, party loyalty, or self-interest. As to the resentment stirred up by the dictated choice of Wallace for the vice-presidential nomination, many of the delegates appear to have been more disturbed by the alleged weakness of Wallace as a candidate than by any assumption of autocratic control of the party by Roosevelt. Wallace, these malcontents claimed, could not hold the farm vote of the Middle West against the combined attractions of Willkie and McNary, a prediction which proved to be fairly sound.

Before the Chicago Convention broke up, Farley, on July 19, was re-elected to serve as National Chairman until Aug. 17. A sub-committee of five, with Edward J. Flynn as Chairman, was appointed to select Farley's successor. The resignation of the popular Farley both as National Chairman and Postmaster General had long been expected. In view of his known disapproval of Roosevelt's violation of the third-term tradition, it was surprising that he remained in the offices as long as he did. Observers generally believed that only his devotion to the principle of party harmony, or to put it another way, devotion to a principle of no public discord, could have induced him to do so. On August 8, the announcement was made from Hyde Park, the President's home, that Farley had resigned as Postmaster General, effective Aug. 31. On Aug. 17, he turned over to his successor the direction of Roosevelt's third-term campaign along with the Chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, a post which he had occupied with great success since 1932.

Earlier, on Aug. 1, it had been announced that Edward J. Flynn was to succeed Farley as National Chairman on Aug. 17. Flynn was something of a surprise choice, since earlier speculation had singled out Senator James F. Byrnes of South Carolina and Frank G. Walker of New York as the most likely possibilities. Although Flynn had been chairman of the sub-committee which technically selected him, his choice was commonly attributed to President Roosevelt.

During the months before Election, rumors continued to circulate of discord within the Democratic party owing to Roosevelt's third-term candidacy. It was noticeable, though, that the most vociferous Democratic critics of the President were far from being new recruits to the ranks of his enemies. Farley's obvious disapproval of the course of events probably did the party no good, but his policy of abstaining from open criticism could not do it much harm. Farley, continuing as Chairman of the Democratic State Committee of New York, tersely announced in October that he would vote the straight Democratic ticket. Even Carter Glass, notwithstanding his vehement denunciation of a third-term candidacy, refused to bolt the party. In an effort perhaps to heal any lingering wounds from the Convention, Speaker Bankhead was invited to preside at the ceremonies notifying Wallace of his nomination, scheduled for Aug. 29, at Des Moines, Iowa. Bankhead asked to be excused because of pressure of business in Washington. Shortly afterward, on Sept. 15, he died in Washington at the age of 66.

Effects of Victory.

It would seem that in the long run the events of the year should be conducive to harmony within the party. The victory at the polls with all that it entails should be a powerful factor in binding the party together. Moreover, Roosevelt's leadership of the party, aside from the Southern conservatives, is probably going to be challenged less than ever before, since the anti-New Dealers in the Democratic party, again excepting the Southern wing, have mostly either left the party or resigned themselves to the situation.

1939: Democratic Party

The Democratic party in 1939 continued its control of the Federal Government and of most state governments. When the 76th Congress convened on Jan. 3, 1939, there were 262 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives who were Democrats; 169 were Republicans; and 4 were classified as Independents. In the Senate, the relative strength of the Democrats was even greater; of the 96 Senators, 69 were Democrats, 23 Republicans, and 4 Independents. With a Democratic President in the White House the party's dominance of the national government was complete.

The dissension within the Democratic party which had been so conspicuous during the previous year was much less noticeable in 1939. Of course, this comparative harmony within the party may be largely attributable to the simple fact that, quite by chance, nothing occurred to bring the factions into conflict with each other. Seasoned observers, though, believe that a much more logical explanation of the apparent unity among the Democrats is to be found in the eagerness of their party leaders to avoid disruptive party disputes just before a presidential-election year.

The results of the elections in 1939 may have been an important factor in bringing about a willingness on the part of the Democrats, who had been fighting among themselves, to bury their differences, at least temporarily. Although the Democrats elected 262 Representatives to 169 for the Republicans, the difference in the total number of votes cast for two parties for members of the House was not nearly so great. Moreover, the gain of the Republican party in the numerical vote from the 1936 to the 1938 election was so marked as to suggest an important shift of public support away from the Democratic party. In 1936, for instance, the Democrats, in the vote for Representatives in Congress, had received 24,906,389 votes to 18,104,649 for the Republicans; whereas, in 1938, the Democrats received 27,989,751 votes to the Republicans' 26,837,245. It can be seen that the lead of well over 6,000,000 votes in 1936 was reduced to little more than 1,000,000 in 1938.

There was widespread speculation as to whether the drastically reduced numerical lead of the Democrats was the result of purely local conditions and Democratic factional quarrels, or whether it represented a growing unpopularity of the New Deal. This latter conclusion, it was widely rumored, was the opinion of several Democratic leaders who hitherto had not been wholly unsympathetic to the Roosevelt program.

Shortly after the beginning of 1939, on Jan. 7, in speaking at the Jackson Day Dinner in Washington, President Roosevelt referred to the struggle going on within his party between liberals and conservatives and virtually invited the latter to leave the ranks of the Democrats and join the Republicans. In retrospect, this fighting speech of the President seems to belong more to the history of the Democratic party in the discordant year of 1938 than to the relatively harmonious year of 1939. Thereafter, nothing seriously disturbed the outward calm and solidarity of the party.

The Democratic National Committee, at the close of 1939, showed signs of trying to outmaneuver the Republicans in fixing a date for the National Convention which will select the party's presidential nominee for 1940. It has been customary for the Democrats to meet after the convention of the rival party, but the Republicans indicated that for strategic reasons they would like to reverse the procedure in 1940. Plainly the change was unacceptable to the Democrats, who were evidently prepared to await the announcement of the Republican Convention date before naming their own.

For the Democratic presidential nomination, Vice President John N. Garner and Paul V. McNutt, Administrator of the Federal Security Agency and former Governor of Indiana, were avowed candidates at the close of 1939. Chief among the others, who had not publicly announced their candidacy but who were generally considered as possibilities, were Secretary of State Cordell Hull and Postmaster General James A. Farley, who at the close of 1939 continued to be Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Naturally, until President Roosevelt makes a definite statement as to his attitude toward a possible third term, he, too, must be included among the prospects for the Democratic nomination.

1938: Democratic Party

From 1932 to 1938, the Democratic party completely dominated national and, with very few exceptions, state polities. This domination was almost as abrupt in its inception as it was complete in its exercise. In 1928. Herbert Hoover, the Republican candidate for the presidency, polled 21,392,190 votes as against 15,016,443 votes for Alfred E. Smith, the defeated Democratic candidate. Four years later, the same Republican candidate received 15,761,841 votes as opposed to 22,821,857 votes for Franklin D. Roosevelt, his successful Democratic rival. This transformation from a Republican plurality of roughly six million votes to a Democratic plurality of seven millions marked what was probably the most astounding reversal in the fortunes of a political party in American history. With the loss in 1928 of such important states of the traditionally Solid South as Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, and North Carolina, the Democratic party seemed almost destined to disappear, so that its rebound four years later to a point where it carried all but six of the forty-eight states was truly remarkable.

Of course, the shift in popular sentiment was visible before 1932. In 1928 the Democrats elected only 167 members to the House of Representatives, whereas the Republicans elected 267. In 1930, though, the pendulum began to swing the other way, and the Democrats, having gained control of the House by a very narrow margin, were able to elect John N. Garner as Speaker. In 1932 the return of 313 Democrats to the House virtually made quite pointless any opposition of the minority of 117 Republicans. The same story of Democratic success prevailed in the Senate. In 1928 the Democrats had 39 Senators as opposed to 56 Republican Senators; but after the 1932 election there were 59 Democrats to 36 Republicans.

The overwhelming success of the Democratic party in 1932 was attributable to diverse causes and the influence of each upon the final result can only be estimated. There is little doubt, however, that the Democratic party became the political beneficiary of the severe economic depression which had begun in 1920. The Democratic party in the 1932 campaign laid the blame for the severity of the depression upon the Republicans and promised energetic and constructive action to relieve individual suffering and to promote business recovery. The platform also promised a 25 per cent reduction in national expenditures as an economy measure and advocated the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment prohibiting alcoholic beverages. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Governor of New York, was the Democratic nominee for the Presidency, and John N. Garner, Speaker of the House, was the nominee for the Vice-Presidency.

The Democratic party in the election of 1932 may have benefited from the depression but its subsequent success can only be explained as popular endorsement of the program known as the 'New Deal' which the party introduced behind the leadership of President Roosevelt. Aside from their staggering expense with an inevitable skyrocketing of the National Debt, many of these measures, which had been but lightly foreshadowed, if at all, in either the Democratic platform or campaign speeches, were sharp departures from national tradition. The country, however, was in a crisis and willingly accepted a vigorous constructive policy, no matter what the cost and how sharply it might break with tradition.

The popularity of these measures was demonstrated in the next Congressional election. Ordinarily the successful party in a presidential election meets with reverses, either slight or severe, in the Congressional election two years later. Notwithstanding this almost invariable precedent, the Democratic party, in 1934, instead of losing, actually gained strength, increasing its membership in the House from 313 to 322. And the Democratic star was still rising; after the election of 1936, the Democratic members of the House out-numbered the Republicans by 333 to 80. In the Senate, after the 1936 election, the Democrats had 76 members as against 15 Republicans. In 1936 Roosevelt and Garner were again the party's nominees for President and Vice-President respectively. President Roosevelt polled 27,476,673 votes to 16,670,583 for Alfred M. Landon, his Republican opponent.

Although the election was regarded as a sweeping popular endorsement of the Democratic party, there had been for some time open dissension within the party itself. Many Democrats in Congress, particularly from the South, who were eventually dubbed 'the conservative Democrats,' refused on occasion to follow the leadership of President Roosevelt. In many instances, the conservative Democrats denounced as dangerously radical measures which the President characterized as merely progressive. The dissenting Democrats not only opposed certain specific measures but they asserted that the whole Roosevelt program was based upon underlying principles which, if persisted in, would be destructive to the traditional American Government. Despite the vigorous opposition of certain prominent Democrats to the New Deal, the election returns of 1936 would seem to indicate that the defections from the ranks of the Democratic party had thus far been conspicuous rather than numerous.

Conservative Democrats and Republicans alike, though, found no consolation in the election returns of 1936. Shortly after the beginning of the new administration, however, the President energetically pushed two measures which, apparently, displeased the bulk of the American public. One was a bill for reorganizing the Supreme Court and the other, a bill for reorganizing various administrative agencies of the Federal Government. The bill for reorganizing the Court was quietly buried after being talked to death in the Senate, and the Reorganization Bill, to everyone's surprise, was killed in the House which up to that point had been regarded as utterly subservient to the President's wishes. Foes of the administration gleefully acclaimed the defeat of the two bills as stinging rebukes to the President and also hailed their defeat as evidence of the revival of Congress as a separate and independent branch of the Federal Government. The public may not have disliked the bills as much as their opponents claimed, but there is little doubt that their introduction increased the dissension in the Democratic party. Moreover, in the spring and summer of 1937, polls of public opinion, one or two of which had developed remarkable accuracy, revealed that the popularity of the party had fallen off since the previous election.

Its popularity further diminished in the fall of 1937, when business conditions which had improved considerably in 1936 began a precipitous downward spiral. Naturally, the foes of the administration contended that the recession in business conclusively demonstrated the futility of the New Deal as a means of restoring prosperity. Administration spokesmen, of course, denied this, characterized conditions as quite temporary, and embarked upon a fresh and even more elaborate spending program, asserting that the previous 'pump priming' had simply been inadequate and had been abandoned too soon.

Before the elections of November 1938, the friction in the Democratic party was increased by the intercession of President Roosevelt in several Democratic state primary contests. Implying that a number of Senators, all of whom had been in opposition to the Supreme Court Bill, did not have a sufficiently progressive spirit, the President openly indorsed the candidacy of their rivals. 'The purge,' as it was popularly called, was everywhere a failure except in the case of a New York City Democratic Representative, John J. O'Connor, who had played a major part in the defeat of the Reorganization Bill.

The fall elections of 1938 marked the first check to the Democratic party since gaining control of the House eight years before. The party's losses were principally in the populous manufacturing states of the Northeast and Middle West where the Republicans regained control of several state governments as well as additional Federal Congressmen. The Democratic party, however, in spite of its loss to the Republicans of 81 seats in the House and 8 in the Senate, is still strongly in control of Congress, with 262 members as opposed to 170 Republicans, in the House, and 69 to 23, in the Senate. The press of the nation was inclined generally to interpret the results of the 1938 election as a serious reverse for the Democrats. But before concluding that the election returns represent a repudiation of the New Deal, it is well to remember that the Democratic majority is still decisive in both houses of Congress, that this majority in the House is almost as great as that of the Republicans after the 1928 election, and that it is even greater in the Senate.

Experienced observers believe that, strangely enough, the Democratic party began to lose ground immediately after its overwhelming victory in 1936 when a trend towards conservatism set in because of the widespread disapproval of the sit-down strikes of the winter of 1936-37 and the President's proposed reorganization of the Supreme Court at about the same time. Subsequent factors accentuating the swing to the right were the return of the depression and disapproval of the President's meddling in local Democratic polities. Whether the 1938 election marked the beginning of a long-term trend away from the dominance of the nation by the Democratic party or whether it was merely a short and unimportant fluctuation of popular sentiment will be better known after the election of 1940.