Roberts, George C.

English

UARK (University of Arkansas )

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 14 Article 11 1960 Political Trends in the 1959 Off-Year Elections: The Case of Kentuckiana George C. Roberts University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas  Part of the American Politics Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Roberts, George C. (1960) "Political Trends in the 1959 Off-Year Elections: The Case of Kentuckiana," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 14 , Article 11. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol14/iss1/11 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu. POLITICAL TRENDS IN THE 1959 OFF-YEAR ELECTIONS:THE CASE OF KENTUCKIANAGeorge C. RobertsUniversity of ArkansasThe political pulse of the Nation willcontinue to be revealedby the results of poll-taking and the interpretation of political ob-servers until the election of a President is upon us. Mr. GeorgeGallup has again told us that the Democratic Party enjoys the ad-vantage of electoral support from a majority of potential voters.However, for those skeptical of political observers and for thoseholding that opinion polls are no substitute for a genuine election,the scattered off-year elections of 1959 offer the best means ofchecking political trends revealed at the polls midway between theCongressional Elections of 1958 and the 1960 Presidential Election.These 1959 elections were not of a national type since only stateor local officials were chosen by the voters involved. But the Amer-ican Party System includes both national and state parties, and bas-ically the same electorate that voted in the several states holdingelections in November, 1959 willcast the vote in these states in thePresidential Election of 1960.The November, 1959 elections, while scattered geographically,were concentrated in that part of the United States east of the Mis-sissippi River. Voters in several states participated in the electionof local officials; while inNew Jersey, Kentucky, Virginia, Missis-sippi, and Pennsylvania state or legislative officers were chosen.InPennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Ohio, and Indiana mayoraltyraces were widespread. The nature of the election prizes consideredalong with the state's place in the national party system provides aframework for examining political trends.IWhat then do the 1959 elections tell us, especially in terms of0? There are the customary interpretations offered by the national:ychairmen. Democratic Chairman Paul Butler said the electionsmonstrate the vigorous good health of the Democratic Party as itsares for the momentous campaign of 1960." At the same timeublican Chairman Thruston Morton felt that "Republicans haveI.Louis Post-Dispatch. November 14, 1959. Gallup reports inthis poll that the nation's estimated 102,300,000 voters wouldprobably line up in this manner ifregistered:Democrats 56,200,000Republicans 37,600,000Undecided 8,500,00055Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 14 [1960], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 196056ARKANSAS ACADEMYOF SCIENCEIery reason tolook forwardconfidently toward I960."2 Party leaders5 not expected to give answers other than these; it remains for usexamine the various campaigns, local political environments, andaction data to answer our question.tRepublican candidate Harold Stassen was defeated for Mayor olladelphia by over 200,000 while Democrats won the twoPennsyl-lia state-wide races for court judges. Republicans claimed gainsColumbus and smaller Ohio cities, while the vote for partisan[ges in Cook County ( Chicago ),Illinois heavily favored locamocrats. Democratic efforts in Connecticut, a state watched fonds,might be described in terms of keeping control of the largecities by reduced margins inmunicipal elections . Municipal elec-tions inupstate New York caused little change from the status quo,but caused Republicans to claim support for Governor Nelson Rock-efeller's program. Democrats cited advances for their party in NewYork City. The Democratic-Liberal vote totals in Queens, Bronx,and Richmond counties forlocal candidates surpassed in many casesthe Democratic totals in the 1954 gubernatorial contest wonby aDemocrat, while 1959 Republican totals here were greatly reducecfrom 1954. A halting of the state-wide Democratic trend, evidentsince 1953, was noted inNew Jersey legislative races. DemocraticAssembly strength dropped eight seats, still leaving the Democratsin control, while a Democratic gain of two Senate seats failed todeliver that body to Democratic control.3In analyzing the vote of these states one must remember thaonly Pennsylvania had state-wide races ,and then only two. Whenparty gains and losses are balanced out it appears that the statusquo was generally maintained. Itseems advisable to look elsewherefor more definite signs of a political trend. Kentucky and Indiana,the respective homes of Republican National Chairman Thruston Mor-ton (also a United States Senator) and Democratic National ChairmanPaul Butler offer this opportunity. The Kentucky election was state-wide with the electorate being offered several ballot choices. Therewere races for governor, lieutenant governor, other state adminis-trative officers,and state legislators . The Indiana elections wereof a different nature as no state officers were elected, but everyIndiana city elected a mayor. Local factors influence such munici-pal elections ,but the state party organizations conduct campaignsin such a manner that these municipal elections take on the flavorof an ordinary state-wide campaign. Inboth Kentucky and Indianathe elections had substance insomuch as the prizes were considerecLouisville Courier- Journal ,November 5, 1959.Iis election information was taken from the New York Times , theLouisville Courier-Journal ,and Richard M. Scammon, AmericaVotes (New York, 1956 and 1958), Iand II.56Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 14 [1960], Art. 11https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol14/iss1/11I57POLITICAL TRENDS IN THE 1959 OFF-YEAR ELECTIONSi)ortantto the politicians of both states. The Kentucky election,dlar to some of the 1958 state elections, saw both parties seek-control of state government and its patronage in anticipation o1960 Presidential Election and the local election of a Unitedtes Senator. Indiana political leaders were anxious to contro/ halls and their patronage in anticipation of the 1960 Presiden-L Election and the election of an entire state ticket headed by av governor.IIndiana is often regarded as a trend state. President Eisenhowe;ived 57.7 per cent of the national two-party vote in1956 anc1 per cent of the two-party vote of Indiana. The Democraticse candidates secured 56.6 per cent of the national two-partyiin1958 congressional races while Indiana Democratic candi-is for the House secured 53.6 percent of the state two-party;. Political shifts inIndiana are swift and devastating. Presi-t Eisenhower's 60.1 per centof Indiana's two-party vote in 1956approached when the Democratic candidate for the United Statesite captured 57.0 percent of the Indiana two-party vote in1958.Democratic Party gained forty-seven House seats as a result ofthe 1958 Congressional Elections. Six seats, or12. 8 percent of thisgain came from Indiana. 4Both Indiana and Kentucky exhibit characteristics of two-partyor modified two-party states. In the past, Kentucky has been moreinclined to vote for Democratic presidential candidates, Indiana forRepublicans. However, Kentucky does have centers and years ofRepublican strength, and Indiana Democrats do win elections: al-though in the case of the latter, electoral success usually dependson a strong national Democratic trend such as inthe early 1930's orin 1958. 5The states of Kentucky and Indiana with their 1959 electionsseem important to a trend analysis for reasons given above. Itwillbe fruitfulto see ifpolitical trends established in Kentuckiana dur-ing the Eisenhower Era were continued or discontinued in 1959.IIndiana municipal elections, while held in non-presidential and-congressional years, get involved with national issues. Theublican municipal victories of1951 were viewed locally as a "setIc for Trumanism." Chairman Butler and national Republican fig-;such as House Minority Leader Charles A. Halleck could not2 avoided concern with localelections in their home state . Dur-the course of the Indiana municipal campaign city tax rates wereThis information was secured from the General Election Report ofIIndiana and Scammon, O£. cit.the 15 presidential elections since 1900 Kentucky has gone Re-publican only three times and Indiana has gone Democratic onlythree times.57Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 14 [1960], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 196058ARKANSAS ACADEMYOF SCIENCEcited by Republicans to show that Hoosier Democrats, like nationaDemocrats , were "spenders." The Republican Party in Indiana hatthepast ten years campaigned against high governmental spend-, socialism, and Walter Reuther. In spite of a landslide defeathe Republicans in 1958 this theme was generally continued in9. Republican State Chairman Robert Matthews spoke in Minne-lis,Minnesota inOctober and described Social Security in termsof "socialism." Later in the same speech he stated that the Repub-lican Party should strive for the "utter destruction of all socialisschemes. "6 Democratic campaign ads then warned voters , "Don1Let Them Take It Away! . . . Top Republican leaders threaten tot Social Security. "? On the other hand the Republican candidateMayor of Indianapolis said inhis newspaper ads, "Make SocialSecurity Stronger . . . Vote for Social Security . . . Vote Republi-can. "8The results of the elections showed that the Democrats had oneless mayorand the Republicans fifteen more than after the 1955 elec-tions, the total number of cities having increased and some indepen-dents being defeated. The final tally was 71-36 in favor of theDemocrats who now controlled twenty-five of the twenty-six largestcities in the state, losing one in this class and gaining Fort Wayneand Lafayette over 1955.9 The city of Evansville, located in Van-derburgh County which has voted for the winning Presidential candi-date since 1896, elected a Democratic mayor. Beginning in 1938,the party winning a majority of the cities had lost them in the nextcity election . The Democrats reversed this trend by winning majori-ties inboth 1955 and 1959. Not since 1947 and 1948 had Democratswon two sweeping elections in succession. For the long run itmaybe that the municipal victories following the New Deal type land-slide of 1958 for the Democrats willspellan important change in thestate political picture; the change not being favorable to the Repub-lican Party.The Kentucky gubernatorial election has its roots far back inIeand Democratic factionalism. The first electoral struggle wasthe May, 1959 Democratic Primary. The successful Democraticninee, Judge Bert Combs, smarting from a 1955 primary loss, de-ted Lieutenant Governor Harry Lee Waterfield for the nomination33,001 votes. Waterfield had the support of Governor Albert B.ippy) Chandler who had defeated Combs in the 1955 Primary butild not succeed himself inoffice. InJanuary, 1959, Wilson WyattLouisville withdrew from the gubernatorial race, announced forBuisville Courier-Journal, November 3, 1959.iianapolis News, November 3, 1959.8Ibid., November 2, 1959.Courier-Journal , November 5, 1959.58Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 14 [1960], Art. 11https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol14/iss1/1159POLITICAL TRENDS IN THE 1959 OFF-YEAR ELECTIONSlieutenant governor, and joined the Combs forces. During the primary campaign the Combs -Wyatt ticket was accused of subservienceto the "Louisvillenewspaper monopoly" (Courier- Journal) and to for-mer Senator Earle Clements, then Chairman of the Democratic Sen-atorial Campaign Committee, and his "Texas oilmillionaire pals.Harry Lee Waterfield was given a new name by the Combs people"Happy Lee."After the primary both Chandler and Waterfield promised support for the Combs-Wyatt ticket. However, by general election timboth refused to appear at a rally featuring former President HarryTruman because of Combs 1 presence. Chandler, an announced Presidential candidate, in effect finally said that he would vote thDemocratic ticket but that Combs' election might be the worst thinthat could happen to Kentucky. Combs was called a "bolter," a"poor littledunce," the "biggest liar Ihave encountered in thirtyyears in politics" and a man who would be "a terrible governor ielected" by Governor Chandler. 10 Kentucky Democrats were mindfulof the election of two Republican United States Senators in1956Kthe role that Chandler was supposed to have played by votingbut not supporting the Democratic nominees. Would factional-ism hurt the Democratic Party's chances of victory in 1959?The Republican candidate for governor, John Robsion, had beendefeated for re-election to Congress in 1958 from Kentucky's ThinCongressional District (Louisville). A protege of Thruston MortonRobsion was regarded as a strong candidate inLouisville and in thesouth-central hillarea, his father having once served this sectionas Congressman. Kentuckians had been known toelect a RepublicanGovernor as a sign of independence such as in 1943.Itwould be impossible toassess the efforts that Thruston Mor-Iiand Earle Clements put forth to win the Kentucky election. Na-nal party spokesmen found their way to the state—Vice-Presidentihard Nixon for a National Park dedication in July and former Pres-nt Harry Truman for a political speech inPaducah, Alben Barkley'sne town, towards the close of the campaign. Otherwise the cam-gn in good Kentucky tradition was colorful but not exactly pro-;tive of issue-discussion. Robsion charged that Combs lackec>erience, was tied to certain bosses, had no definite program,Imade irresponsible fiscal commitments, and would be plaguecparty factionalism. Combs replied indirectly by reminding theers that Robsion had opposed the Kentucky farmer while a Con-ssman, would give Kentucky divided party government, and wouldugurate a Herbert Hoover type of government by commission as a•stitute for government by action.The election results gave Combs a plurality of 180,093 out of10Louisville Courier- Journal ,October 23, 1959.59Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 14 [1960], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 196060ARKANSAS ACADEMYOF SCIENCE13,005votes cast, the plurality setting a Kentucky record in gub-latorial contests. Wilson Wyatt, former Mayor of Louisville, ainder of Americans for Democratic Action, and a campaign mana-r forAdlai Stevenson, overcame the prejudices of Kentucky's Bour-iDemocracy to secure the biggest plurality ever given a candidateKentucky, including Franklin Roosevelt. The Democrats carriedof the other state races and increased their legislative majori-Republican National Chairman Morton inhis post-election an-alysis said that in Kentucky "an expected Democratic split did nomaterialize and the Democrats wonthe election according to form."11However, in 1952 Adlai Stevenson carried Kentucky by only threehundred votes . Then in 1956 Stevenson's percentage of the two-party vote fell to 45.4 and two Republican United States Senatorswere elected. In the 1959 race for Governor, the next importanstate- wide election after the 1956 Eisenhower landslide, Combs wasable to secure 60.6 per cent of the two-party vote. As a candidatehe fared extremely wellintraditionally Democratic Western Kentucky(securing 77.9 per cent of the vote inMcCracken County for example)and raised the Democratic percentage iriHarlan County, a coal-pro-ducing area ,to an all-time high of 64. 6. Combs ran well intheBluegrass Region, home of Kentucky's Dixiecrats. President Eisen-hower captured 61.8 per cent of Fayette County's two-party vote in1956 while Combs received 57.4 per cent of the vote here in 1959.The larger urban areas of the state, partial to Eisenhower in 1956,were all carried by Combs excepting Jefferson County (Louisville),home of the Republican candidate. The vote shift in these urbancounties from 1956 to 1959 was startling. Robsion, the Republicancandidate, carried only twenty-seven of one hundred and twentycounties, just holding his own in the Republican Eighth Congres-sional District. The 1959 state election in Kentucky offered littleencouragement to those witnessing a trend inKentucky politics thawas supposed to give the state a "marginal political complexion 1with Republicans probably having an advantage in the long run.12IApart from parties and candidates the 1959 elections offer anight into a national political issue, that of spending. Presidentenhower seized the initiative in1959 and warned that the Demo-tic victory of 1958 was not an indication that the people favored"spenders." Many Democrats in Congress took the President'snouncement as a true reflection of public opinion. The "spenders"Louisville Courier- Joumal, November 5,1959.l^These election figures have been taken from Scammon, eg), cit.,and the LouisvilleCourier-Journal . For a discussion of the di-rection of Kentucky politics after the Eisenhower Era see JohnH. Fenton, Politics In the Border States (New Orleans, 1957).60Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 14 [1960], Art. 11https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol14/iss1/1161POLITICAL TRENDS INTHE 1959 OFF-YEAR ELECTIONSlabel did not hurt Indiana Democrats in 1959 in spite of the tradi-tional attachment of the Hoosier to economy. Also, elsewhere in thecountry there was widespread support of the electorate for newtaxes ,the retention of school taxes, and bond issues for the amount ol$1,400, 000, OOO. 1^ Kentucky voters approved the financing of a vet-eran's bonus after being forewarned that a three per cent sales taxwould likely follow.It is difficult to isolate a national political trend in a nationIshhas a true national vote only when a President is elected,gressional elections can hardly be described as being national:tions since no election district reaches beyond a state's bor-;. Our party system likeour governmental system is federal inire. Nevertheless, state and national party systems, state andonal party organizations, and state and Presidential electionsinvariably intertwined. Inthe seeds of the 1958 and 1959 elec-s are the victories and defeats of 1960. A look at the total pic-,with emphasis placed on Kentucky and Indiana for reasonstioned, should not discourage Democratic optimism for 1960 norDurage Republican hopes .Louisville Courier-Journal ,November 6, 1959.61Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 14 [1960], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1960

Political Trends in the 1959 Off-Year Elections: The Case of Kentuckiana

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 14 Article 111960Political Trends in the 1959 Off-Year Elections: TheCase of KentuckianaGeorge C. RobertsUniversity of Arkansas, FayettevilleFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the American Politics Commons, Political History Commons, and the United StatesHistory CommonsThis article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able toread, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking priorpermission from the publisher or the author.This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academyof Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu, ccmiddle@uark.edu.Recommended CitationRoberts, George C. (1960) "Political Trends in the 1959 Off-Year Elections: The Case of Kentuckiana," Journal of the ArkansasAcademy of Science: Vol. 14 , Article 11.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol14/iss1/11POLITICAL TRENDS IN THE 1959 OFF-YEAR ELECTIONS:THE CASE OF KENTUCKIANAGeorge C. RobertsUniversity of ArkansasThe political pulse of the Nation willcontinue to be revealedby the results of poll-taking and the interpretation of political ob-servers until the election of a President is upon us. Mr. GeorgeGallup has again told us that the Democratic Party enjoys the ad-vantage of electoral support from a majority of potential voters.However, for those skeptical of political observers and for thoseholding that opinion polls are no substitute for a genuine election,the scattered off-year elections of 1959 offer the best means ofchecking political trends revealed at the polls midway between theCongressional Elections of 1958 and the 1960 Presidential Election.These 1959 elections were not of a national type since only stateor local officials were chosen by the voters involved. But the Amer-ican Party System includes both national and state parties, and bas-ically the same electorate that voted in the several states holdingelections in November, 1959 willcast the vote in these states in thePresidential Election of 1960.The November, 1959 elections, while scattered geographically,were concentrated in that part of the United States east of the Mis-sissippi River. Voters in several states participated in the electionof local officials; while inNew Jersey, Kentucky, Virginia, Missis-sippi, and Pennsylvania state or legislative officers were chosen.InPennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Ohio, and Indiana mayoraltyraces were widespread. The nature of the election prizes consideredalong with the state's place in the national party system provides aframework for examining political trends.IWhat then do the 1959 elections tell us, especially in terms of0? There are the customary interpretations offered by the national:ychairmen. Democratic Chairman Paul Butler said the electionsmonstrate the vigorous good health of the Democratic Party as itsares for the momentous campaign of 1960." At the same timeublican Chairman Thruston Morton felt that "Republicans haveI.Louis Post-Dispatch. November 14, 1959. Gallup reports inthis poll that the nation's estimated 102,300,000 voters wouldprobably line up in this manner ifregistered:Democrats 56,200,000Republicans 37,600,000Undecided 8,500,00055Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 14 [1960], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 196056ARKANSAS ACADEMYOF SCIENCEIery reason tolook forward confidently toward I960."2 Party leaders5 not expected to give answers other than these; it remains for usexamine the various campaigns, local political environments, andaction data to answer our question.tRepublican candidate Harold Stassen was defeated for Mayor olladelphia by over 200,000 while Democrats won the twoPennsyl-lia state-wide races for court judges. Republicans claimed gainsColumbus and smaller Ohio cities, while the vote for partisan[ges in Cook County ( Chicago ),Illinois heavily favored locamocrats. Democratic efforts in Connecticut, a state watched fonds,might be described in terms of keeping control of the largecities by reduced margins inmunicipal elections . Municipal elec-tions inupstate New York caused little change from the status quo,but caused Republicans to claim support for Governor Nelson Rock-efeller's program. Democrats cited advances for their party in NewYork City. The Democratic-Liberal vote totals in Queens, Bronx,and Richmond counties forlocal candidates surpassed in many casesthe Democratic totals in the 1954 gubernatorial contest wonby aDemocrat, while 1959 Republican totals here were greatly reducecfrom 1954. A halting of the state-wide Democratic trend, evidentsince 1953, was noted inNew Jersey legislative races. DemocraticAssembly strength dropped eight seats, still leaving the Democratsin control, while a Democratic gain of two Senate seats failed todeliver that body to Democratic control.3In analyzing the vote of these states one must remember thaonly Pennsylvania had state-wide races ,and then only two. Whenparty gains and losses are balanced out it appears that the statusquo was generally maintained. Itseems advisable to look elsewherefor more definite signs of a political trend. Kentucky and Indiana,the respective homes of Republican National Chairman Thruston Mor-ton (also a United States Senator) and Democratic National ChairmanPaul Butler offer this opportunity. The Kentucky election was state-wide with the electorate being offered several ballot choices. Therewere races for governor, lieutenant governor, other state adminis-trative officers,and state legislators . The Indiana elections wereof a different nature as no state officers were elected, but everyIndiana city elected a mayor. Local factors influence such munici-pal elections ,but the state party organizations conduct campaignsin such a manner that these municipal elections take on the flavorof an ordinary state-wide campaign. Inboth Kentucky and Indianathe elections had substance insomuch as the prizes were considerecLouisville Courier- Journal ,November 5, 1959.Iis election information was taken from the New York Times , theLouisville Courier-Journal ,and Richard M. Scammon, AmericaVotes (New York, 1956 and 1958), Iand II.56Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 14 [1960], Art. 11http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol14/iss1/11I57POLITICAL TRENDS IN THE 1959 OFF-YEAR ELECTIONSi)ortant to the politicians of both states. The Kentucky election,dlar to some of the 1958 state elections, saw both parties seek-control of state government and its patronage in anticipation o1960 Presidential Election and the local election of a Unitedtes Senator. Indiana political leaders were anxious to contro/ halls and their patronage in anticipation of the 1960 Presiden-L Election and the election of an entire state ticket headed by av governor.IIndiana is often regarded as a trend state. President Eisenhowe;ived 57.7 per cent of the national two-party vote in1956 anc1 per cent of the two-party vote of Indiana. The Democraticse candidates secured 56.6 per cent of the national two-partyiin1958 congressional races while Indiana Democratic candi-is for the House secured 53.6 percent of the state two-party;. Political shifts inIndiana are swift and devastating. Presi-t Eisenhower's 60.1 per centof Indiana's two-party vote in 1956approached when the Democratic candidate for the United Statesite captured 57.0 percent of the Indiana two-party vote in1958.Democratic Party gained forty-seven House seats as a result ofthe 1958 Congressional Elections. Six seats, or12. 8 percent of thisgain came from Indiana. 4Both Indiana and Kentucky exhibit characteristics of two-partyor modified two-party states. In the past, Kentucky has been moreinclined to vote for Democratic presidential candidates, Indiana forRepublicans. However, Kentucky does have centers and years ofRepublican strength, and Indiana Democrats do win elections: al-though in the case of the latter, electoral success usually dependson a strong national Democratic trend such as inthe early 1930's orin 1958. 5The states of Kentucky and Indiana with their 1959 electionsseem important to a trend analysis for reasons given above. Itwillbe fruitfulto see ifpolitical trends established in Kentuckiana dur-ing the Eisenhower Era were continued or discontinued in 1959.IIndiana municipal elections, while held in non-presidential and-congressional years, get involved with national issues. Theublican municipal victories of1951 were viewed locally as a "setIc for Trumanism." Chairman Butler and national Republican fig-;such as House Minority Leader Charles A. Halleck could not2 avoided concern with localelections in their home state . Dur-the course of the Indiana municipal campaign city tax rates wereThis information was secured from the General Election Report ofIIndiana and Scammon, O£. cit.the 15 presidential elections since 1900 Kentucky has gone Re-publican only three times and Indiana has gone Democratic onlythree times.57Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 14 [1960], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 196058ARKANSAS ACADEMYOF SCIENCEcited by Republicans to show that Hoosier Democrats, like nationaDemocrats , were "spenders." The Republican Party in Indiana hatthe past ten years campaigned against high governmental spend-, socialism, and Walter Reuther. In spite of a landslide defeathe Republicans in 1958 this theme was generally continued in9. Republican State Chairman Robert Matthews spoke in Minne-lis,Minnesota inOctober and described Social Security in termsof "socialism." Later in the same speech he stated that the Repub-lican Party should strive for the "utter destruction of all socialisschemes. "6 Democratic campaign ads then warned voters , "Don1Let Them Take It Away! . . . Top Republican leaders threaten tot Social Security. "? On the other hand the Republican candidateMayor of Indianapolis said inhis newspaper ads, "Make SocialSecurity Stronger . . . Vote for Social Security . . . Vote Republi-can. "8The results of the elections showed that the Democrats had oneless mayorand the Republicans fifteen more than after the 1955 elec-tions, the total number of cities having increased and some indepen-dents being defeated. The final tally was 71-36 in favor of theDemocrats who now controlled twenty-five of the twenty-six largestcities in the state, losing one in this class and gaining Fort Wayneand Lafayette over 1955.9 The city of Evansville, located in Van-derburgh County which has voted for the winning Presidential candi-date since 1896, elected a Democratic mayor. Beginning in 1938,the party winning a majority of the cities had lost them in the nextcity election . The Democrats reversed this trend by winning majori-ties inboth 1955 and 1959. Not since 1947 and 1948 had Democratswon two sweeping elections in succession. For the long run itmaybe that the municipal victories following the New Deal type land-slide of 1958 for the Democrats willspellan important change in thestate political picture; the change not being favorable to the Repub-lican Party.The Kentucky gubernatorial election has its roots far back inIeand Democratic factionalism. The first electoral struggle wasthe May, 1959 Democratic Primary. The successful Democraticninee, Judge Bert Combs, smarting from a 1955 primary loss, de-ted Lieutenant Governor Harry Lee Waterfield for the nomination33,001 votes. Waterfield had the support of Governor Albert B.ippy) Chandler who had defeated Combs in the 1955 Primary butild not succeed himself inoffice. InJanuary, 1959, Wilson WyattLouisville withdrew from the gubernatorial race, announced forBuisville Courier-Journal, November 3, 1959.iianapolis News, November 3, 1959.8Ibid., November 2, 1959.Courier-Journal , November 5, 1959.58Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 14 [1960], Art. 11http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol14/iss1/1159POLITICAL TRENDS IN THE 1959 OFF-YEAR ELECTIONSlieutenant governor, and joined the Combs forces. During the primary campaign the Combs -Wyatt ticket was accused of subservienceto the "Louisvillenewspaper monopoly" (Courier- Journal) and to for-mer Senator Earle Clements, then Chairman of the Democratic Sen-atorial Campaign Committee, and his "Texas oilmillionaire pals.Harry Lee Waterfield was given a new name by the Combs people"Happy Lee."After the primary both Chandler and Waterfield promised support for the Combs-Wyatt ticket. However, by general election timboth refused to appear at a rally featuring former President HarryTruman because of Combs 1 presence. Chandler, an announced Presidential candidate, in effect finally said that he would vote thDemocratic ticket but that Combs' election might be the worst thinthat could happen to Kentucky. Combs was called a "bolter," a"poor littledunce," the "biggest liar Ihave encountered in thirtyyears in politics" and a man who would be "a terrible governor ielected" by Governor Chandler. 10 Kentucky Democrats were mindfulof the election of two Republican United States Senators in1956Kthe role that Chandler was supposed to have played by votingbut not supporting the Democratic nominees. Would factional-ism hurt the Democratic Party's chances of victory in 1959?The Republican candidate for governor, John Robsion, had beendefeated for re-election to Congress in 1958 from Kentucky's ThinCongressional District (Louisville). A protege of Thruston MortonRobsion was regarded as a strong candidate inLouisville and in thesouth-central hillarea, his father having once served this sectionas Congressman. Kentuckians had been known toelect a RepublicanGovernor as a sign of independence such as in 1943.Itwould be impossible toassess the efforts that Thruston Mor-Ii and Earle Clements put forth to win the Kentucky election. Na-nal party spokesmen found their way to the state — Vice-Presidentihard Nixon for a National Park dedication in July and former Pres-nt Harry Truman for a political speech inPaducah, Alben Barkley'sne town, towards the close of the campaign. Otherwise the cam-gn in good Kentucky tradition was colorful but not exactly pro-;tive of issue-discussion. Robsion charged that Combs lackec>erience, was tied to certain bosses, had no definite program,Imade irresponsible fiscal commitments, and would be plaguecparty factionalism. Combs replied indirectly by reminding theers that Robsion had opposed the Kentucky farmer while a Con-ssman, would give Kentucky divided party government, and wouldugurate a Herbert Hoover type of government by commission as a•stitute for government by action.The election results gave Combs a plurality of 180,093 out of10Louisville Courier- Journal ,October 23, 1959.59Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 14 [1960], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 196060ARKANSAS ACADEMYOF SCIENCE13,005 votes cast, the plurality setting a Kentucky record in gub-latorial contests. Wilson Wyatt, former Mayor of Louisville, ainder of Americans for Democratic Action, and a campaign mana-r forAdlai Stevenson, overcame the prejudices of Kentucky's Bour-iDemocracy to secure the biggest plurality ever given a candidateKentucky, including Franklin Roosevelt. The Democrats carriedof the other state races and increased their legislative majori-Republican National Chairman Morton inhis post-election an-alysis said that in Kentucky "an expected Democratic split did nomaterialize and the Democrats wonthe election according to form."11However, in 1952 Adlai Stevenson carried Kentucky by only threehundred votes . Then in 1956 Stevenson's percentage of the two-party vote fell to 45.4 and two Republican United States Senatorswere elected. In the 1959 race for Governor, the next importanstate- wide election after the 1956 Eisenhower landslide, Combs wasable to secure 60.6 per cent of the two-party vote. As a candidatehe fared extremely wellintraditionally Democratic Western Kentucky(securing 77.9 per cent of the vote inMcCracken County for example)and raised the Democratic percentage iriHarlan County, a coal-pro-ducing area ,to an all-time high of 64. 6. Combs ran well intheBluegrass Region, home of Kentucky's Dixiecrats. President Eisen-hower captured 61.8 per cent of Fayette County's two-party vote in1956 while Combs received 57.4 per cent of the vote here in 1959.The larger urban areas of the state, partial to Eisenhower in 1956,were all carried by Combs excepting Jefferson County (Louisville),home of the Republican candidate. The vote shift in these urbancounties from 1956 to 1959 was startling. Robsion, the Republicancandidate, carried only twenty-seven of one hundred and twentycounties, just holding his own in the Republican Eighth Congres-sional District. The 1959 state election in Kentucky offered littleencouragement to those witnessing a trend inKentucky politics thawas supposed to give the state a "marginal political complexion 1with Republicans probably having an advantage in the long run.12IApart from parties and candidates the 1959 elections offer anight into a national political issue, that of spending. Presidentenhower seized the initiative in1959 and warned that the Demo-tic victory of 1958 was not an indication that the people favored"spenders." Many Democrats in Congress took the President'snouncement as a true reflection of public opinion. The "spenders"Louisville Courier- Joumal, November 5,1959.l^These election figures have been taken from Scammon, eg), cit.,and the LouisvilleCourier-Journal . For a discussion of the di-rection of Kentucky politics after the Eisenhower Era see JohnH. Fenton, Politics In the Border States (New Orleans, 1957).60Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 14 [1960], Art. 11http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol14/iss1/1161POLITICAL TRENDS INTHE 1959 OFF-YEAR ELECTIONSlabel did not hurt Indiana Democrats in 1959 in spite of the tradi-tional attachment of the Hoosier to economy. Also, elsewhere in thecountry there was widespread support of the electorate for newtaxes ,the retention of school taxes, and bond issues for the amount ol$1,400, 000, OOO. 1^ Kentucky voters approved the financing of a vet-eran's bonus after being forewarned that a three per cent sales taxwould likely follow.It is difficult to isolate a national political trend in a nationIshhas a true national vote only when a President is elected,gressional elections can hardly be described as being national:tions since no election district reaches beyond a state's bor-;. Our party system likeour governmental system is federal inire. Nevertheless, state and national party systems, state andonal party organizations, and state and Presidential electionsinvariably intertwined. Inthe seeds of the 1958 and 1959 elec-s are the victories and defeats of 1960. A look at the total pic-,with emphasis placed on Kentucky and Indiana for reasonstioned, should not discourage Democratic optimism for 1960 norDurage Republican hopes .Louisville Courier-Journal ,November 6, 1959.61Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 14 [1960], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1960

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3190&amp;context=jaas

Political Trends in the 1959 Off-Year Elections: The Case of Kentuckiana

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UARK (University of Arkansas )

ScholarWorks@UARK