A Century of Voting
In Three Ohio Counties
By I. RIDGWAY DAVIS*
BECAUSE VOTING IS OF KEY IMPORTANCE in a democracy,
analyses of voting behavior on the
national and state levels in
the United States have been of major
interest to students of
history and government. Comparatively
little research, how-
ever, has been forthcoming on the local
level. In this study
the voting records of three Ohio
counties, Ross, Pike, and
Scioto, have been examined for the
period 1859-1959, a cen-
tury of political turbulence and
growth.
Located in a state noted for its
vigorous two-party system,
where competition between the two major
parties is keen,
Ross, Pike, and Scioto counties provide
significant areas for
research. Additionally, these three
counties were selected
for study because of the rapid growth
in recent years of the
population of the area, which resulted
from the construction
of an atomic energy plant in Pike County. The first
an-
nouncement was made in 1952, and during
the next two years
approximately 22,000 persons moved into Ross, Pike,
and
Scioto counties. It was of considerable
interest to determine
if the intrusion of a large number of
potential voters would
affect the established patterns of voting
behavior.
Four characteristics of the counties
contribute to an under-
standing of the setting: the geographic
location, background
of the early residents, population trends, and the
prevailing
economic situation. Geographically, the
counties form a tier
in the southern part of Ohio, Ross
County being the most
* I. Ridgway Davis is an instructor in
government at the University of Con-
necticut.
122 THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
northern of the three and Scioto County
the southernmost.
Scioto County's southern border is the
Ohio River, which
also serves as a boundary between Ohio
and Kentucky. Early
residents migrated to the three
counties from Virginia, Penn-
sylvania, and Kentucky.1 Immigrants
settling in the area can
be divided into four principal groups
on the basis of national
origin: English and Welsh, Irish,
German, and French.
However, the foreign-born population
has been small com-
pared with native-born residents.
Population trends may be one key to the
vitality of an area.
The population of Ross County was a
steady one through
most of the century until it began to
rise in the 1920's. Ross
County's population in the 1950 census
stood at 54,424. Pike
County reached its peak in 1900 with a
population of 18,172.
Then it experienced a downward trend,
so that by 1950 its
total population was only 14,607.
Scioto County's peak popu-
lation was reached in 1940, when it
recorded 86,565. Even
though it declined to 82,910 in 1950,
it is the most thickly
populated county in the three-county
area.
Economically, Pike County is
predominantly agricultural,
while Ross and Scioto counties are industrial
as well as agri-
cultural. The economic situation of
Pike County in 1950 had
altered very little since the 1880's.
Two-thirds of the area
consisted of farms, and approximately
two-fifths of the em-
ployed residents were engaged in
agriculture.2 Manufactur-
ing was Ross County's chief means of
support, followed by
the service trades and agriculture. In
1950 manufacturing
was also the leading occupation in
Scioto County. Approxi-
mately one-third of the employed
workers were engaged in
trade and service industries, with
eight percent of the workers
in agriculture.3 At the
threshold of the atomic announce-
ment in 1952 the future of these
counties was uncertain. The
atomic period revived hopes in the
area.
1 Compendium of the Tenth Census (Washington, 1883), Part I, Table
XXXI,
525-526.
2 "Ohio's
New Atomic Plant," Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Ohio,
Monthly Business Review, XXXV (1953), No. 3, p. 8.
Ibid., 6.
A CENTURY OF VOTING 123
Certain questions arise in connection
with this three-county
study. What is the overall voting
record of each county
during the century and what comparisons
may be made among
these counties? If deviations occurred
from what seems to
be a pattern, why have they occurred?
Ross, Pike, and Scioto
counties have been compared on the
basis of their voting
records for the offices of president,
governor, United States
Representative, and United States
Senator. Voting statistics
for these offices have been compiled
for all pertinent general
elections from 1859 to 1959.
Ross County
The Ross County electorate over the
century 1859-1959
has provided Republican candidates with
victories in 61.5%
of the one hundred and forty-three
contests studied, while
Democratic candidates have won 38.4%.
During the latter
half of the nineteenth century Ross
County vacillated between
Democratic and Republican candidates,
and it was not until
the twentieth century that a definite
Republican trend ap-
peared. Table I illustrates the
Republican percentages of the
total vote cast for president,
governor, United States Repre-
sentative, and United States Senator
from 1859 to 1959.
Of the twenty-five presidential
contests, Republican candi-
dates have won seventeen, their
Democratic opponents eight.
Democratic candidates won in 1868,
1872, and 1876, when
the county favored Horatio Seymour,
Horace Greeley, and
Samuel J. Tilden. In all three
instances Ross County's se-
lection did not coincide with the
national choice for president.
In the twentieth century Democratic
presidential nominees
were supported in 1912, 1916, 1932,
1936, and 1940. Wood-
row Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt also
received the appro-
bation of the national electorate.
These years were character-
ized by party dissension, global crises
of World Wars I and
II, and the depression of the 1930's.
Ross County voters
have been consistent in their support
of Republican candidates
since 1944, favoring Governor Dewey in
his two unsuccessful,
TABLE I--ROSS COUNTY: REPUBLICAN PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL
VOTES CAST FOR PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR, U. S. REPRE-
SENTATIVE, AND U. S. SENATOR, 1859-1959
U.S. U.S.
Year President Governor Representative Senator
1859 .... 49.0 ....
1860 47.3 .... 49.4
1861 .... 56.9 ....
1862 .... .... 42.6
1863 .... 56.5 ....
1864 51.3 .... 51.4
1865 .... 49.1 ....
1866 .... .... 49.2
1867 .... 42.9 ....
1868 46.9 .... 45.2
1869 .... 42.8 ....
1870 .... .... 48.0
1871 .... 48.0 ....
1872 49.5 .... 48.4
1873 .... 44.5 ....
1874 .... .... 46.0
1875 .... 48.6 ....
1876 48.4 .... 49.6
1877 .... 45.1 ....
1878 .... .... 50.5
1879 .... 49.3 ....
1880 50.8 .... 50.3
1881 .... 50.3 ....
1882 .... .... 47.2
1883 .... 48.1 ....
1884 50.2 .... 50.1
1885 .... 50.8 ....
1886 .... .... 51.1
1887 .... 50.0 ....
1888 50.7 .... 49.2
1889 .... 50.1 ....
1890 .... .... 47.6
1891 .... 49.5 ....
1892 49.1 .... 49.3
1893 .... 52.4 ....
1894 .... .... 55.9
1895 .... 52.5 ....
1896 52.3 .... 52.3
1897 .... 53.2 ....
1898 .... .... 51.3
TABLE I--ROSS COUNTY: REPUBLICAN PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL
VOTES CAST FOR PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR, U. S. REPRE-
SENTATIVE, AND U.
S. SENATOR, 1859-1959--Continued
U.S. U.S.
Year President Governor Representative Senator
1899 .... 50.3 ....
1900 51.6 .... 51.8
1901 .... 51.7 ....
1902 .... .... 52.3
1903 .... 53.5 ....
1904 54.5 .... 54.4
1905 .... 49.5 ....
1906 .... .... 51.2
1908 49.6 47.0 46.7
1910 .... 43.4 40.1
1912
36.7 36.6 43.5
1914 .... 49.8 45.2 52.5
1916 47.7 50.0 49.0 48.7
1918 .... 53.7 54.5 ....
1920 56.4 54.5 56.2 55.9
1922 .... 51.3 52.4 52.3
1924 53.8 47.2 48.6 ....
1926 .... 52.6 51.8 53.6
1928 64.5 55.8 55.1 58.0
1930 .... 46.9 43.9 47.8
1932 47.3 48.7 42.6 46.1
1934 .... 51.9 46.9 44.0
1936 43.7 49.1 44.1
....
1938 .... 52.2 46.4 53.7
1940 48.6 52.5 44.1 51.1
1942 .... 60.2 56.1 ....
1944 53.5 54.3 51.1 53.4
1946 .... 54.2 57.9 59.3
1948 52.1 49.3 53.1
....
1950 .... 49.4 52.4 57.6
1952 61.0 46.3 54.2 59.9
1954 .... 50.9 54.7 57.2
1956 63.7 59.4 52.6 48.6
1958 .... 51.9 50.6 55.0
SOURCE: Statistics on which percentages are based were
found in
the
following sources: Secretary of State of Ohio, Report of the Secre-
tary of State, 1870-1900;
New York Tribune Almanac, 1861, 1863,
1865, 1867; Secretary of State of Ohio, Ohio
Election Statistics, 1900-
1959; Chillicothe Scioto Gazette, November 8,
1922.
126
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
and Dwight D. Eisenhower in his two
successful, bids for
the high office. Ross County's percentages for
Republican
presidential candidates have hovered
around the 50% mark.
Abraham Lincoln polled the lowest
winning percentage given
a Republican in 1860, when he received
47.3% of the vote.
The largest majority polled by a
Republican presidential
candidate was in 1928, when Herbert
Hoover received 64.5%
of the total vote cast.4 Other
high Republican percentages
were received by Dwight D. Eisenhower
in 1952 and 1956,
when he obtained 61% and 63.7% of the
total vote.
Republican gubernatorial candidates
have also fared better
than their Democratic opponents by
winning thirty of the
fifty gubernatorial contests between
1859 and 1959. Devia-
tions to the Democratic column occurred
principally in the
post-Civil War period. As Table I
illustrates, Republican
candidates lost from 1865 through 1879
and again in 1883.
Democratic victories in the early part
of the twentieth cen-
tury occurred from 1908 through 1912,
and again in 1924,
1930-32, and 1936. The next deviations
did not occur until
1948-52, when the popular Governor
Lausche was able to
carry the county. However, even he did
not swing Ross
County in 1954. Actually, as Table I
reveals, contests for
governor have been fairly close in the
county. The highest
percentage was polled in 1942 by John
W. Bricker, Repub-
lican, who received 60.2% of the total
vote.5 C. William
O'Neill, Republican, came close to this
in 1956, when he
obtained 59.4% of the vote.6 These
high percentages were
the exception over the one hundred year
period.
Congressional races indicate, even more
clearly than the
gubernatorial elections, the intense
party competition existing
in Ross County. From 1859 to 1959 there
were fifty con-
gressional contests, twenty-eight of
which were won by
4 The
remainder went to Al Smith, Democrat, 35%; Norman Thomas, Socialist,
.17%; Verne L. Reynolds, Socialist
Labor, .04%; William Varney, Prohibition,
.16%; and William Z. Foster, Workers
Communist, .005%.
5 The remainder, 39.7%, went to John
McSweeney, Democrat.
6 His opponent, Michael V. DiSalle, Democrat, received 40.5%.
A CENTURY OF VOTING 127
Republican candidates and twenty-two by
Democratic candi-
dates. There was an even division
between 1859 and 1900,
ten contests being won by each party.
In the twentieth cen-
tury Republican candidates captured
eighteen of the contests,
Democratic candidates twelve. As Table
I demonstrates,
there have been periods of Democratic
victories: from 1860
to 1878 (with the exception of 1864),
1908 to 1918, and then
from 1930 to 1942. The highest winning
percentage received
by a Republican congressional candidate
was polled in 1946,
when Walter E. Brehm received 57.9% of
the vote.7 The
lowest winning percentage received by a
Republican candidate
was in 1888, when Jacob J. Pugsley
obtained 49.2% of the
vote.8 The longest period of
consecutive Republican victories
has been from 1942 to 1959. During this
same period Demo-
cratic gubernatorial candidates have
won three elections in
Ross County.
Results of United States senatorial
elections have been more
favorable to Republican candidates than
to their Democratic
counterparts, since Republican
candidates have won thirteen,
Democratic candidates only five, of the
eighteen contests.
Democratic victories occurred in 1916,
1930, 1932, 1934,
and 1956. The lowest winning percentage
received by a
Republican senatorial candidate was the
51.1% polled by
Harold H. Burton in 1940.9
The highest percentage was
obtained in 1952 by John W. Bricker,
who received 59.9%
of the vote.10
Six elections have been selected as
illustrations of devia-
tions from support of the Republican
party's candidates. The
elections of 1882, 1883, and 1890 were
chosen, primarily,
because they represent the last three
Democratic victories in
the nineteenth century. The election of
1908 is considered
because it marked the first victory for
Democratic guber-
7 Lester
S. Reid, Democrat, received 42% of the vote.
8 The
remainder went to Laurence T. Neal, Democrat, 48.8%, and Almon E.
Clevenger, Prohibition, 1.8%.
9 John McSweeney, Democrat, received
48.8%.
10 Michael V. DiSalle, Democrat, polled
40% of the vote.
128
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
natorial and congressional candidates
in the twentieth century.
The election of 1938 was selected
because it was an off-year
election which tested the strength of
the Roosevelt administra-
tion in peacetime. Finally, the 1956 election is
discussed
because it represents the most recent
Democratic victory in
Ross County.
In the congressional election of 1882
Laurence T. Neal was
the Democratic candidate and Alphonso
Hart the Republican
nominee. The district had been reorganized prior to
the
election and, in 1882, was purported to
have a Republican
majority of about 1,200.11 Neal was
expected to carry the
county by a majority of four hundred
votes. This specula-
tion was based upon the report that
Republican leaders in
the county had failed to give Hart
adequate support.12 Elec-
tion results substantiated this
prediction. Neal received
52.6% of the vote in the county,
although he lost the district
to his opponent by a margin of ten
votes. The Democratic
newspaper suggested that one of the
reasons why their candi-
date had made such large gains in the
county was that many
German Republicans had joined the ranks
of the Democratic
party.13 Ross County voters
reflected the national consensus,
since the national house of
representatives came under Demo-
cratic control in 1882.
Gubernatorial aspirants in 1883 were
Joseph B. Foraker,
Republican, and George Hoadly,
Democrat. Foraker favored
the taxation and regulation of liquor
traffic. Many Republi-
cans opposed the liquor tax and bolted
party ranks.14 Hoadly,
in his youth, had been a Democrat, but
then shifted to Republi-
can ranks. He reentered the Democratic
party upon being
dissatisfied with the Republican
party's reconstruction and
tariff policies. Although he was ill
during most of the 1883
campaign, and delivered only a few
speeches, he carried Ross
County with 51.6% of the vote and was
elected on the state-
11 Chillicothe Advertiser, August 11, 1882.
12 Ibid., September 22, 1882.
13 Ibid., October 113, 1882.
14 "Joseph Benson Foraker," Dictionary of
American Biography.
A CENTURY OF VOTING 129
wide level by a majority of 13,000.15
Foraker polled 48.1%
of the vote. The county reflected the
state-wide trend in
this election.
Principal candidates in the tenth
congressional district
election of 1890 were J. Q. Smith,
Democrat, and R. E. Doan,
Republican. R. E. Doan was nominated at
the second Re-
publican convention, after the first
convention had failed to
agree on a candidate. A Ross County
Republican was the
favorite of the first convention, but
failed to receive the
support of leaders in his own county.16
J. Q. Smith, the
Democratic candidate, had formerly been
a Republican, but
left the party due to his
dissatisfaction over its support of
a high tariff.17 Smith won in Ross County with 49.1% of
the vote, but he lost the congressional
district. Doan received
47.6% of the total vote in the county.
The crucial remaining
3.1% went to R. Rathburn, the
Prohibition party candidate.
The Republican vote in Ross County may
have been im-
paired by the failure of the Ross
County man to obtain the
nomination.
The 1908 election was a victory for
Democratic guber-
natorial and congressional candidates,
even though William
Howard Taft, the Republican
presidential candidate, carried
the county. Gubernatorial candidates
were Andrew Harris,
Republican, and Judson Harmon,
Democrat. Candidates in
the eleventh congressional district
were Albert Douglas, Re-
publican, and L. A. Sears, Democrat.
Andrew Harris had
succeeeded to the governor's office in
1906 upon the death of
Governor Pattison. Judson Harmon had
been appointed
attorney general by President Cleveland in 1895.
During
the campaign Harmon denied rumors that
he was supported
by liquor interests, declaring that he
would not take orders
from liquor interests, nor from the
Anti-Saloon League. He
countered that Republicans were only
attempting to use the
issue of temperance as a smoke screen
to cover their neglect
15 "George Hoadly," Dictionary
of American Biography.
16 Chillicothe Advertiser, August 1, 1890.
17 Ibid., August 29, 1890.
130
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
and misconduct in office.18 The
election resulted in Harmon's
carrying the county with 51.5% of the
total vote cast, while
Harris received 47%.19 On the
state-wide level Harmon was
elected governor by a majority of
19,000 votes. In the con-
gressional contest L. A. Sears, the Democratic
candidate,
carried the county with 52% of the
total vote, while his
opponent, Albert Douglas, polled 46.7%
of the vote.20 How-
ever, Douglas, the incumbent, defeated
Sears in the eleventh
congressional district.
In 1938 the Republican congressional
candidate, Tom P.
White, opposed the incumbent Democrat,
Harold K. Clay-
pool. Claypool, a native of Ross
County, had been active in
the flood control program in the
eleventh district, which called
for an expenditure of more than eight
million dollars, part
of which would be spent for flood
prevention in the Hocking
Valley.21 The congressional
race resulted, not surprisingly,
in the election of Claypool, who
received 53.5% of the vote.
Tom P. White polled 46.4% of the vote.
In the gubernatorial
and senatorial contests, however, the
Republican candidates
won. In the gubernatorial race John W.
Bricker, Republican,
defeated Charles Sawyer, to become the
first Republican
governor elected in the state since
1928.22 In Ross County
Bricker received 52.2% of the total
vote cast.23 Robert A.
Taft, Republican, defeated Robert J.
Bulkley, Democrat, in
the senatorial race. Taft received 53.7%
of the total vote.24
The 1956 senatorial contest resulted in
a Democratic vic-
tory in Ross County. Candidates were
Frank J. Lausche,
Democrat, and George H. Bender,
Republican. Lausche was
the incumbent governor of the state and
Bender the incumbent
18 Ross County Register (Chillicothe), September 1, 1908.
19 The remainder went to Robert Bandlow,
Socialist, .73%; John B. Martin,
Prohibition, .57%; Andrew F. Otte,
Independence, .04%; and John Kircher, Social-
ist Labor, .06%.
20 The rest went to Leroy Elswich,
Socialist, .64%, and Hiram L. Baker, Pro-
hibition, .54%.
21 Chillicothe News Advertiser, October
7, 1938.
22 Ibid., November
9, 1938.
23 The
remainder, 47.7%, went to Charles Sawyer, Democrat.
24 Robert
J. Bulkley polled 46.2%.
A CENTURY OF VOTING
131
senator, who had won the senate race in
1954 to fill the un-
expired term of the late Senator Robert
A. Taft. Bender,
a former Taft supporter, became an
Eisenhower booster dur-
ing the 1952 presidential campaign. In
1956 his campaign
theme was staunch support of the
Republican administration.
President Eisenhower personally visited
Ohio to aid Bender's
campaign, and cited his record of
administration support.25
Although Bender received presidential backing, the
five-term
Governor Lausche was usually predicted
the winner. Lausche
undoubtedly aided his cause by hinting
he might vote with
the Republicans in the reorganization
of the senate if he
were elected. Bender refuted this idea,
since Lausche was
supporting Stevenson.26 At
the Ohio Democratic convention
Governor Lausche declared that he was a
Democrat but he
was an American first.27 Evidently,
comments like this
appealed to the voters.
Lausche won the senatorial contest in
Ross County, re-
ceiving 51.3% of the total vote. George
Bender received
48.6% of the total vote cast. This was
a personal victory
for Lausche, since the presidential,
gubernatorial, and con-
gressional contests went to the
Republican candidates in Ross
County by substantial margins. Dwight
D. Eisenhower,
Republican presidential candidate,
received 63.7% of the vote.
C. William O'Neill, Republican
gubernatorial candidate, ob-
tained 59.4% of the vote. Albert L.
Daniels, Republican
congressional candidate in the sixth
district, received 52.6%
of the vote.28 Daniels
failed to be elected because of a large
vote for Polk elsewhere in the
district.
Pike County
Pike County, in sharp contrast to Ross
County, may be
termed a Democratic stronghold. In the
century 1859 to
25 New York Times, October 2, 1956.
26 Portsmouth Times, September 14, 1956.
27 Columbus Citizen, September 9,
1956.
28 The remainder went to Adlai E. Stevenson, Democratic
presidential candidate,
36.2%; Michael V. DiSalle, Democratic
gubernatorial candidate, 40.5%; and James
G. Polk, Democratic congressional
candidate, 47.3%.
TABLE II--PIKE COUNTY: DEMOCRATIC PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL
VOTES CAST FOR PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR, U. S. REPRE-
SENTATIVE, AND U.
S. SENATOR, 1859-1959
U.S. U. S.
Year President Governor Representative Senator
1859 .... 61.8 ....
1860 56.0 .... 58.6
1861 .... 56.5 ....
1862 .... .... 69.5
1863 .... 51.5 ....
1864 58.7 .... 60.4
1865 .... 59.5 ....
1866 .... .... 59.2
1867 .... 64.5 ....
1868 59.9 .... 62.6
1869 .... 60.1 ....
1870 .... .... 55.3
1871 .... 57.2 ....
1872 54.9 .... 55.1
1873 .... 56.8 ....
1874 .... .... 58.2
1875 .... 59.3 ....
1876 58.8 .... 58.0
1877 .... 58.7 ....
1878 .... .... 55.8
1879 .... 56.0 ....
1880 55.1 .... 56.5
1881 .... 54.5 ....
1882 .... .... 55.0
1883 .... 55.8 ....
1884 54.6 .... 56.5
1885 .... 52.8 ....
1886 .... .... 52.9
1887 .... 52.0 ....
1888 53.6 .... 56.2
1889 .... 55.2 ....
1890 .... .... 56.5
1891 .... 47.4 ....
1892 50.8 .... 52.1
1893 .... 52.8 ....
1894 .... .... 43.2
1895 .... 44.6 ....
1896 48.7 .... 48.5
1897 .... 45.3 ....
1898 .... .... 42.9
TABLE II--PIKE COUNTY: DEMOCRATIC PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL
VOTES CAST FOR PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR, U. S. REPRE-
SENTATIVE, AND U. S. SENATOR, 1859-1959--Continued
U.S. U.
S.
Year President Governor Representative Senator
1899 .... 45.0 ....
1900 45.1 .... 45.6
1901 .... 50.1 ....
1902 .... .... 48.8
1903 .... 52.4 ....
1904 52.5 .... 53.6
1905 .... 53.6 ....
1906 .... .... 53.8
1908 52.8 52.2 52.8
1910 .... 57.1 56.9
1912 49.1 50.3 51.2
1914 .... 49.9 53.2 48.7
1916 55.7 53.5 54.7 54.4
1918 .... 55.1 55.2 ....
1920 47.4 48.7 46.9 47.2
1922 .... 54.5 53.2 53.5
1924 54.3 58.1 54.7 ....
1926 .... 56.9 56.5 56.3
1928 45.4 54.5 56.1 53.6
1930 .... 61.6 60.3 59.1
1932 64.5 63.8 65.2 64.3
1934 .... 65.3 66.4 67.3
1936 64.1 63.2 64.4 ....
1938 .... 65.9 67.0 65.6
1940 61.0 61.0 65.9 62.9
1942 .... 61.1 65.9 ....
1944 56.0 58.7 59.2 59.1
1946 .... 61.8 60.4 59.5
1948 63.1 64.4 64.0 ....
1950 .... 64.8 64.3 60.8
1952 56.6 65.8 64.8 58.1
1954 .... 66.3 66.8 66.6
1956 52.8 57.9 62.4 60.7
1958 .... 64.4 69.9 62.1
SOURCE: Statistics
on which percentages are based were found in
the following sources: Secretary of State of Ohio, Report
of the Secre-
tary of State, 1870-1900;
New York Tribune Almanac, 1861, 1863,
1865, 1867; Secretary of State of Ohio, Ohio
Election Statistics,
1900-1959; Portsmouth Times, November 15, 1922.
134
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
1959, Pike County has supported
Democratic candidates in an
overwhelming percentage of the one hundred and
forty-three
election contests for president,
governor, representative, and
senator. Pike County voters have supported Democratic
candidates in 89.5% of the contests,
while 10.4% of the elec-
tions have gone to the Republican
candidates. Table II sets
forth the Democratic percentages of the
total vote cast for
these candidates.
In the presidential contests Democratic
candidates have
won all elections except in 1896, 1900,
1920, and 1928, when
the Republican candidates were
victorious. The highest per-
centage polled by a Democratic
presidential candidate was the
64.5%
given Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932.29
The lowest
winning percentage received by a
Democratic candidate was
Woodrow Wilson's 49.1%, which he
obtained in 1912. His
principal opponents, William Howard
Taft, Republican, and
Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive,
received 34.4% and 12.8%
respectively.30 Only two
presidential candidates have polled
over 60% of the vote in Pike County,
Franklin D. Roosevelt
in 1932, 1936, and 1940 and Harry S.
Truman in 1948.
Results of the gubernatorial contests
have been similar
to those of the presidential contests,
Democratic candidates
winning forty-six of the fifty contests
held during the cen-
tury. Republican candidates carried the
county in 1895, 1897,
1899, and 1920. The lowest winning
percentage given a
Democratic candidate was polled by
James E. Campbell in
1891, when he received 47.4% of the
vote.31 The highest
Democratic percentage was polled in
1954 by Frank J.
Lausche, who received 66.3%.32
Successful Democratic congressional
candidates have cap-
tured forty-four of the fifty contests
from 1859 to 1959.
29 The
remainder went to Herbert Hoover, Republican, 34.6%; Norman Thomas,
Socialist, .39%; and William Upshaw,
Prohibition, .34%.
30 The rest of the vote went to Eugene
V. Debs, Socialist, 2.3%; Eugene W.
Chafin, Prohibition, .9%; and Arthur
Reimer, Socialist Labor, .1%.
31 The remainder went to William
McKinley, Jr., Republican, 42.5%; John J.
Ashenhurst, Prohibition, 1.7%; and John
Seitz, Peoples, 8.2%.
32 His opponent, James A. Rhodes,
Republican, polled 33.6% of the vote.
A CENTURY OF VOTING 135
Pike County voters have deviated to
Republican candidates
only six times, from 1894 through 1902,
and in 1920. The
lowest winning percentage received by a
Democratic congres-
sional candidate was 51.2%, polled by
Charles M. Caldwell
in 1912.33 The highest percentage was
69.9%, received by
James G. Polk in 1958.
In 1914 the first popular election of
senators was held.
Timothy S. Hogan polled the lowest
winning Democratic
percentage of 48.7% at that time, while his political adver-
sary, Warren G. Harding, Republican,
received 47.5%.34 The
Democratic percentage began to increase
noticeably in 1930,
and by 1932 was above the 60% mark,
where, with three
minor exceptions, it has remained. The highest
Democratic
senatorial percentage was polled by Vic
Donahey, who re-
ceived 67.3% of the total vote in
1934.35 Of the eighteen
senatorial contests, Democratic
candidates have lost only one,
1920, a Republican year in other races
as well.
Crucial years for Democratic candidates
in Pike County
were 1894 through 1902, when Republican
candidates car-
ried all contests except the
gubernatorial election of 1901. An
examination of several of these
elections provides an insight
into the difficulty facing the
Democrats.
First signs of weakening Democratic
strength were visible
in the 1891 gubernatorial contest, when
James E. Campbell
polled less than 50% of the vote, but
did carry the county.
The initial defeat came in the 1894
congressional election. Lu-
cien J. Fenton, Republican, won with
53.3% of the vote. John
O. Yates, Democrat, received 43.2%.36
Candidates in the 1895 gubernatorial
election were Asa S.
Bushnell, Republican, and James E.
Campbell, Democrat.
Bushnell had acted as Joseph B. Foraker's
campaign manager
33 The remainder went to Robert M. Switzer, Republican,
38.5%; William
Miller, Socialist, 2.1%; and William E.
Pricer, Progressive, 8.0%.
34 Arthur L. Garford, Progressive, received 2.5%, and E. L. Hitchens,
Socialist,
received 1.2%.
35 The rest went to Simeon D. Fess, Republican, 32.5%, and W. C. Sandberg,
Communist, .08%.
36 The remainder went to Alex R.
McIntosh, Prohibition, 1.8%, and John C.
H. Cobb, Peoples, 1.5%.
136
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
in Foraker's successful bid for the
governor's office in 1885,
and his nomination in 1895 has been
attributed to the strength
of the Foraker forces, who gained
control of the state con-
vention.37 Campbell delivered the opening
speech of his cam-
paign in Pike County in October 1895.
His remarks included
an expose of alleged corruption in
Governor McKinley's ad-
ministration and the disgraceful
conduct of some of the em-
ployees of state institutions.38 This type
of attack failed to
influence the voters, since Campbell
received only 44.6% of
the county's vote. Bushnell polled
49.7% of the vote.39 Bush-
nell carried the state by the largest
plurality received by an
Ohio governor since John Brough's defeat
of Vallandigham
in 1863.40 After the election it was
contended in Pike County
that the electorate had lost confidence
in the Democratic party,
and that scandalous conduct of the
leaders had removed loy-
alty and patriotism from
the party.41 Whatever the exact
cause of the Democratic defeat, the
electorate did register a
5.6% vote for minor party candidates.
Had this vote gone to
the Democratic candidate, he would have
carried Pike County.
The vote received by minor party candidates may be
regarded
as a protest vote.
The presidential election of 1896 found
William McKinley,
Republican, opposing William Jennings
Bryan, Democrat.
McKinley, an Ohio lawyer and
ex-congressman, had been ac-
tive in politics for many years. From
1891 to 1895 McKinley
had served as governor of Ohio. Largely
through the efforts
of Mark Hanna, McKinley was nominated for the
presidency
in 1896.42 William Jennings Bryan had served in
congress in
1890, identified himself with the
silver interests, and electri-
fied the Democratic convention
delegates with his famous
"cross of gold" speech.43
Bryan toured the country making
37 "Asa Smith Bushnell," Dictionary
of American Biography.
38 Waverly Watchman, October 3, 1895.
39 The rest went to Jacob S. Coxey, Peoples, 4.3%, and Seth H. Ellis, Pro-
hibition, 1.3%.
40 D. A. B.
41 Waverly Watchman, November 7,
1895.
42 "William McKinley," Dictionary
of American Biography.
43 "William Jennings Bryan," Dictionary
of American Biography.
A CENTURY OF VOTING 137
speeches, while McKinley resorted to a
front porch campaign
from his home in Ohio. The local
Democratic newspaper
thought the chances of Bryan's victory
were bright despite
the split over the gold and silver
question within the Demo-
cratic party.44 Candidates
in the tenth congressional district
were Lucien Fenton, Republican, and
Timothy S. Hogan,
Democrat. Prior to the election, it was
reported that Hogan,
an advocate of free silver, was making
a gallant fight against
fearful odds, but expected to emerge
victorious.45
Republican presidential and
congressional candidates car-
ried the county. In the congressional
race Fenton polled 51.4%
of the vote, while Hogan polled 48.5% of
the total vote. In
the presidential contest McKinley
received 50.6% and Bryan
48.7% of the total vote cast.46 McKinley
received only a
ninety-three vote margin. In this
instance Pike County sup-
ported an Ohioan for president, and its
choice coincided with
the rest of the nation.
In the 1897 gubernatorial race Asa S.
Bushnell, Republican,
ran for reelection against Horace L.
Chapman, Democrat.
The Democratic platform supported free
silver and denounced
the national banks. The Democratic
state convention refused
to give the Populists and Free Silver
Republicans a place on
the ticket. Governor Bushnell was
returned to office, carrying
with him the approbation of Pike County
voters a second time.
He polled 53.5% of the vote, while
Chapman received 45.3%.47
Governor Bushnell increased his vote in
Pike County over the
1895 election. In that year he carried
the county by two hun-
dred and fifteen votes, while in 1897
he received a three hun-
dred and fifty-one vote plurality.
Stephen Morgan, Republican, and Alva
Crabtree, Demo-
crat, were the major candidates in the
tenth district congres-
44 Waverly Courier Watchman, August
13, 1896.
45 Ibid., October 29, 1896.
46 The
remainder of the vote went to Joshua Levering, Prohibition, .25%;
Charles E. Bentley, National Party, .25%;
and John M. Palmer, National Demo-
crat, .11%.
47 The remainder of the vote went
to John C. Holliday, Prohibition, .27%;
Jacob S. Coxey, Peoples, .34%;
Julius Dexter, National Democrat, .06%; Samuel
J. Lewis. Negro Protection, .04%; and John
Richardson, Liberty, .30%.
138
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
sional race of 1898. Even though the
Pike County candidate
lost the nomination at the Republican
convention, Republicans
pledged themselves to give Morgan a substantial
majority in
the November election.48 A
month prior to the election Morgan
predicted a Republican victory. His
optimism was based in
part upon the benefits of the Dingley
tariff act and the suc-
cessful prosecution of the
Spanish-American War.49 The
election tabulation in Pike County
substantiated Morgan's
optimism, since he received 57% of the
total vote cast. Crab-
tree polled only 42.9% of the vote.
This election marked the
peak of Republican control in Pike
County. The vote given
the Democratic candidate was the
smallest received by a
Democrat in Pike County for any of the
offices under consid-
eration during the hundred year period.
Principal candidates in the
gubernatorial election of 1899
were George K. Nash, Republican, and
John R. McLean,
Democrat. Rumors of strife within the
county's Democratic
organization appeared in the Waverly
News prior to the elec-
tion.50 Nash carried the
county and received 53.2% of the
total vote cast. John R. McLean polled
45%.51 These were
approximately the same percentages
received by Republican
and Democratic gubernatorial candidates
in 1897. The parties
maintained their positions without a
noticeable increase or
decrease in strength.
In 1900 the local Democratic
organization was optimistic,
such optimism being heightened by the
report that the "gold
Democrats" would not make a
nomination for president. Also,
it was hoped that the Palmer party of
1896 would support the
regular Democratic candidates at the
fall election.52 However,
the election resulted in the defeat of
the Democratic candidates
for president and congress. William
Jennings Bryan, Demo-
crat, lost to William McKinley in the
presidential race. Mc-
48 Waverly News, April 21, 1898.
49 Ibid., September
22, 1898.
50 Ibid., October 5, 1899.
51 The rest went to Seth H. Ellis, Union Reform, .74%; George M. Hammell,
Prohibition, .24%; and Samuel M. Jones
(no party listed), .63%.
52 Waverly Courier Watchman, August 8, 1900.
A CENTURY OF VOTING 139
Kinley polled 53.9% of the vote, while
Bryan received
45.1%.53 In the congressional contest
Stephen Morgan, Re-
publican, polled 54.3% of the vote, and
his opponent, James
K. McClung, Democrat, received 45.6% of
the vote. The
Pike County Democratic newspaper
attributed the Democratic
defeat to strife within the local
Democratic organization.54
Prior to the election the newspaper had
made a plea for Demo-
crats to stop fighting among themselves
and to join forces
against their Republican opponents.55
In the 1902 congressional election Pike
County supported
Stephen Morgan, Republican, in his bid
for a third term in
congress. This time, however, he
received only 50.3% of the
total vote cast in the county. His
Democratic adversary, C.
E. Belcher, polled 48.8% of the vote.56
It is probable that the
personal popularity of Theodore
Roosevelt affected the out-
come of congressional contests in Pike
County and in the
nation.
The period of Republican dominance came
to an end in
1903, when the Democratic gubernatorial
candidate carried
Pike County. The county's electorate
undoubtedly had been
affected by Mark Hanna and McKinley's
prominence in the
state during the period of the Democratic
defeats. Also, it
was a time of strife within the
Democratic party on the
national level, due to the gold and
silver issue. This resulted
in the formation of minor parties,
whose candidates received
some of the votes which otherwise would
have gone to Demo-
cratic candidates. In addition, there
were frequent newspaper
references to political quarrels within
the local Democratic
organization. All of these factors
contributed to an unprece-
dented era of Republican control in
Pike County. After this
period Pike County became a Democratic
stronghold once
more, with the exception of 1920 and 1928.
53
The remainder went to Seth H. Ellis, Union Reform, .32%; John G. Wooley,
Prohibition, .29%; Wharton Baker,
Peoples, .02%; and Eugene V. Debs, Social
Democrat, .20%.
54 Waverly Courier Watchman, November 7, 1900.
55 Ibid., June 13, 1900.
56 The remainder of the vote
went to George P. Taubman, Prohibition, .71%.
140 THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
In the 1920 election all four
Democratic hopefuls were
defeated. Both presidential candidates, Senator Warren
G.
Harding, Republican, and Governor James
M. Cox, Demo-
crat, were Ohioans. Harding, a
newspaper owner and editor,
had served as lieutenant governor of
Ohio and later as
United States Senator. Cox, another
Ohio newspaperman,
had served in congress for two terms
and was elected gover-
nor of Ohio for three terms. Harding
decried the League of
Nations throughout the campaign and
declared that President
Wilson had scrapped his own league by
refusing to accept
certain reservations.57 Senator
Harding later asserted that
the entire league covenant should be
abandoned, stating that
he favored a world association based on
principles he consid-
ered more in harmony with the United
States Constitution.58
He endorsed farm assistance, a
"return to normalcy," and
the protective tariff.59 Governor
Cox, on the other hand,
supported the league covenant, arguing
that it was a medium
for moral and material betterment for
Americans and the
world.60 Cox interpreted the
Republican slogan, "back to
normalcy," as the long day of
labor and the small amount of
pay.61
In Pike County Warren G. Harding polled
52% of the
vote, while James M. Cox received
47.4%.62 In the guberna-
torial contest Harry L. Davis,
Republican, won with 50.8%
of the vote and Vic Donahey, Democrat,
received 48.7%.63
In the congressional contest Charles
Kearns, Republican, ob-
tained 53% of the vote, while Cleona
Searles, Democrat,
polled 46.9% of the vote. The
Republican senatorial candi-
date also carried the county, with
Frank B. Willis receiving
52.7% of the vote and W. A. Julian,
Democrat, polling
57 Portsmouth Sunday Times, October 3, 1920.
58 Portsmouth
Times, October 7, '1920.
59 Ibid.,
October 21, 1920.
60 Portsmouth Sunday Times, October 3, 1920.
61 Portsmouth Times, October 27, 1920.
62 The remainder went to Eugene V. Debs, Socialist, .5%.
63 The rest went to Frank B. Hamilton, Socialist, .37%, and Earl H. Foote,
Single Tax, .01%.
A CENTURY OF VOTING 141
47.2%.64 In 1920 the
Pike County electorate was swept along
with the national trend, a desire to
return to normalcy and
forget the war.
In the 1928 presidential campaign
Herbert Hoover, Re-
publican, ran against Alfred E. Smith,
Democrat. Hoover
had served as United States Food
Administrator during
World War I and as secretary of
commerce under Presidents
Harding and Coolidge. Alfred E. Smith
had served in the
New York State Assembly, and also as
governor of New
York. A vicious whispering campaign was
carried on against
Governor Smith, which involved his
religion, his alleged ad-
diction to alcohol, and his alleged
tieup with New York City
bosses. Hoover denounced these personal
attacks, but was
chided by a local Democratic newspaper
for waiting so long.65
The Republican party won a sweeping
victory in the nation,
and Herbert Hoover carried Pike County
with 54.5% of the
total vote cast. Al Smith received
45.4% of the vote. The
defeat of the Democratic presidential
candidate was due in
part to the prosperity of the times,
the prohibition question,
and religious bitterness. Although
Smith failed to carry Pike
County, Democratic candidates for
congress, senator, and
governor won by substantial margins. In
the congressional
race George D. Nye, Democrat, received
56.1%, and Charles
C. Kearns, Republican, received 43.8%.
In the senatorial
contest Charles V. Truax, Democrat,
polled 53.6% of the
vote, and Simeon D. Fess, Republican,
obtained 46.3%. The
governor's race found Martin L. Davey,
Democrat, receiving
54.5% of the vote and Myers Y. Cooper,
Republican, 45.4%.
Although these candidates carried Pike
County, none was
elected to office because of large Republican
majorities in
other areas of the state. Governor Smith's defeat in
Pike
County would appear to have been a
personal one. His loss
was the last one sustained to date by a
Democratic candidate
for any of the four offices under
consideration.
64 The
remainder was polled by Henry B. Strong, Single Tax, .01%.
65 Portsmouth Times, October 1, 1928.
142 THE OHIO HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
Scioto County
During the period 1859 to 1959
Republican candidates
carried 77.6% of the elections under
consideration in Scioto
County, and voters deviated to
Democratic columns in 22.3%
of the contests. Table III illustrates the Republican
percent-
ages of the total vote cast for
president, governor, United
States Representative, and United
States Senator during the
century.
Of the twenty-five presidential races,
Republican candidates
won twenty-two. The Republican tide
reached its peak in
1928, when Herbert Hoover received
73.5% of the total vote
cast.66 The lowest winning
percentage received by a Republi-
can presidential candidate was in 1912,
when William Howard
Taft obtained 34.2% of the vote.
Woodrow Wilson, Demo-
crat, received 33.2%, and Theodore
Roosevelt, Progressive,
19%.67
Republican strength has not been as
pronounced in the
gubernatorial contests, since
Republican candidates have won
thirty-eight, but lost twelve, of the
elections studied. The
lowest winning percentage received by a
Republican guber-
natorial candidate was the 49.2% given
Edward F. Noyes in
1873.68 The highest percentage was the 63.4% polled by
Myers Y. Cooper, Republican, in 1928.
His opponent, Martin
L. Davey, Democrat, received 36.2%69
Republican congressional candidates won
thirty-seven of
the fifty contests held from 1859 to
1959. Democratic vic-
tories were achieved in only thirteen
races. The highest win-
ning percentage was polled by Lucien J.
Fenton, Republican,
66 The
remainder went to Al Smith, Democrat, 26%; Norman Thomas, Socialist,
.24%; Verne L. Reynolds, Socialist
Labor, .02%; and William E. Varney, Pro-
hibition, .10%.
67 Eugene V. Debs, Socialist, received
11.5%; Eugene W. Chafin, Prohibition,
1.5%; and Arthur E. Reimer, Socialist
Labor, .26%.
68 William Allen, Democrat, received
44.9%; Gideon T. Stewart, Prohibition,
1.2%; and Isaac C. Collins (no party
listed), 4.5%.
69 Joseph W. Sharts, Socialist, obtained .15%; John D.
Goerke, Socialist Labor,
.02%; Frank W. Stanton, Prohibition,
.04%; and William Patterson, Workers
Communist, .02%.
A CENTURY OF VOTING 143
in 1894, when he received 68.9% of the
vote.70 The lowest
winning percentage, 36.1%, was received
by Robert M. Swit-
zer, Republican congressional candidate
in 1912. Charles M.
Caldwell, Democrat, received 35.5%71
Republican senatorial candidates
defeated their rivals in
fourteen of the eighteen contests.
Simeon D. Fess received
67% of the vote in 1928, the highest
percentage received by
a Republican senatorial candidate.
Charles V. Truax, Demo-
crat, received 32.9% of the vote.72
The lowest winning Re-
publican percentage was received by
Gilbert Bettman, who
polled 50.5% in the depression year of
1932. Robert J.
Bulkley received only 48.8% of the vote
in the county, al-
though he was elected on the state-wide
level.73
Democratic victories in the county were
few during the
early years of the period under
consideration. Two of the
victories were polled by gubernatorial
candidates and three
by representatives.
In 1862 candidates from the eleventh
congressional district
were H. S. Bundy, Republican, and Wells
A. Hutchins, Demo-
crat. Hutchins was labeled a Peace
Democrat by a Republi-
can newspaper, but Nelson W. Evans, in
his History of Scioto
County, Ohio, states that Hutchins, in the summer of 1862,
favored a more vigorous prosecution of
the war and was
nominated for congress on that platform.74 Bundy
must have
been dubious about the outcome of the
election, since he re-
portedly stated that Lincoln's
emancipation proclamation
might serve the country, but it might
defeat him and every
other Union congressional candidate
along the border.75 As
70 John O. Yates, Democrat, polled
24.7%; Alex R. McIntosh, Prohibition,
2.0%; and John C. H. Cobb, Peoples,
4.2%.
71 William
Miller, Socialist, received 11.7%, and William E. Pricer, Progressive,
16.5%.
72 James Goward, Socialist Labor,
obtained .03%, and J. Wetherell Hutton,
Prohibition, .04%.
73 Frank M. McCartney, Prohibition,
received .53%, and I. O. Ford, Communist,
.02%.
74 Nelson W. Evans, A History of Scioto County, Ohio (Portsmouth,
Ohio,
1903), 182.
75 George H. Porter, Ohio Politics
During the Civil War Period (New York,
1911), 105-106.
TABLE III--SCIOTO COUNTY: REPUBLICAN PERCENTAGES OF
TOTAL VOTES CAST FOR PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR, U. S.
REPRESENTATIVE, AND U. S. SENATOR, 1859-1959
U.S. U.
S.
Year President Governor Representative Senator
1859 .... 53.0 ....
1860 50.5 .... 50.7
1861 .... 55.3 ....
1862 .... .... 36.7
1863 .... 62.4 ....
1864 57.7 .... 55.9
1865 .... 53.2 ....
1866 .... .... 55.2
1867 .... 47.8 ....
1868 56.9 .... 54.4
1869 .... 52.5 ....
1870 .... .... 50.9
1871 .... 52.1 ....
1872 57.5 .... 56.2
1873 .... 49.2 ....
1874 .... .... 43.1
1875 .... 52.0 ....
1876 52.5 .... 50.5
1877 .... 47.2 ....
1878 .... .... 52.8
1879 .... 52.1 ....
1880 55.0 .... 49.0
1881 .... 54.3 ....
1882 .... .... 51.7
1883 .... 52.6 ....
1884 57.4 .... 56.5
1885 .... 56.1 ....
1886 .... .... 56.0
1887 .... 51.4 ....
1888 55.0 .... 56.3
1889 .... 53.5 ....
1890 .... .... 58.1
1891 .... 55.7 ....
1892 55.8 .... 56.5
1893 .... 59.9 ....
1894 .... .... 68.9
1895 .... 62.3 ....
1896 59.4 .... 59.9
1897 .... 56.7 ....
1898 .... .... 59.0
TABLE III--SCIOTO COUNTY: REPUBLICAN PERCENTAGES OF
TOTAL VOTES CAST FOR PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR, U. S.
REPRESENTATIVE, AND U. S. SENATOR, 1859-1959--Con-
tinued
U. S. U. S.
Year President Governor Representative Senator
1899 .... 53.5 ....
1900 60.1 .... 61.3
1901 .... 62.1 ....
1902 .... .... 62.5
1903 .... 59.7 ....
1904 62.5 .... 61.7
1905 .... 49.7 ....
1906 .... .... 53.6
1908 53.5 49.5 49.0
1910 .... 44.1 46.5
1912 34.2 32.6 36.1
1914 .... 50.4 52.7 56.3
1916 53.8 53.8 55.0 54.7
1918 .... 51.5 58.2 ....
1920 58.9 54.2 61.4 60.1
1922 .... 47.5 51.0 53.1
1924 62.8 58.9 59.2 ....
1926 .... 55.8 59.8 56.7
1928 73.5 63.4 63.4 67.0
1930 .... 53.0 53.6 52.7
1932 51.2 49.1 48.8 50.5
1934 .... 49.9 47.7 44.6
1936 44.2 45.7 47.0 ....
1938 .... 54.7 55.2 53.8
1940 47.0 48.8 47.9 48.8
1942 .... 58.9 52.7 ....
1944 50.5 51.2 49.9 49.5
1946 .... 54.2 55.8 56.3
1948 48.3 49.2 46.5 ....
1950 .... 52.7 51.2 53.3
1952 52.9 43.5 49.3 54.7
1954 .... 48.0 46.9 50.3
1956 59.6 53.3 43.3 51.4
1958 .... 41.4 34.6 44.7
SOURCE: Statistics on which percentages are based were
found in
the following sources: Secretary of State of Ohio, Report
of the Secre-
tary of State, 1870-1900;
New York Tribune Almanac, 1861,
1863, 1865, 1867; Secretary of State of Ohio, Ohio
Election Statistics,
1900-1959; Portsmouth Times, November 9, 1922.
146
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
predicted, Hutchins carried the county
with 63.2% of the
vote, while Bundy received 36.7% of the
total vote. One
factor contributing to the Republican
defeat was the course
of the Civil War. As Wood Gray points
out, 1862 was the
only year that the military outlook was
not bright for the
Union armies at election time.76 The
military situation
affected the political scene and was
detrimental to the political
fortune of the Union candidates in
Scioto County and in the
nation.
The next Republican defeat occurred in
the 1867 guber-
natorial election, when Rutherford B.
Hayes, Republican,
lost to Allen G. Thurman, Democrat.
Hayes had been elected
to congress twice from the second Ohio
district and resigned
in 1867 to run for governor. Hayes
favored the proposed
amendment to the Ohio Constitution to
institute universal
manhood suffrage.77 Thurman
had served as chief justice
of the Ohio Supreme Court from 1854 to
1856. In 1860 he
actively supported Stephen A. Douglas
for president and
throughout the Civil War was a Peace
Democrat.78 The
amendment became a principal campaign
issue, opposed by
the Democratic party and the local
Democratic press.79
Thurman carried the county with 52.1%
of the vote. Al-
though Hayes lost the county with 47.8%
of the vote, he
carried the state and was elected
governor by a narrow
margin. The Negro suffrage amendment
was defeated by
approximately 50,000 votes in the
state.80 In Scioto County
the amendment was defeated by 802
votes, which is not sur-
prising, since the county borders on a
southern state.81
The next defeat of a Republican
congressional candidate
occurred in 1874. H. S. Bundy, the
incumbent, who had been
defeated in Scioto County ten years previously,
ran on the
76 Wood
Gray, The Peace Movement in the Old Northwest: 1860-1865 (Chicago,
1935), 17. This is a private edition
published by the University of Chicago
Libraries.
77 "Rutherford Birchard
Hayes," Dictionary of American Biography.
78 "Allen Granberry Thurman," Dictionary
of American Biography.
79 Portsmouth Times, August 31, 1867.
80 Ibid., October 12, 1867.
81 Ibid., November
16, 1867.
A CENTURY OF VOTING 147
Republican ticket. His Democratic
adversary was John
Luther Vance, an ex-Civil War officer.
A central issue was
the civil rights bill, supported by the
Republican candidate
but denounced by his Democratic
opponent.82 Vance carried
the county with 56.1% of the vote.
Bundy's defeat was not
as overwhelming as ten years
previously, since he received
43.1% of the county's vote. However, he
failed to be re-
elected to his seat. The electorate was
affected by reconstruc-
tion excesses, scandals of the Grant
administration, and the
panic of 1873.
In 1877 the Democratic gubernatorial
candidate carried
the county once more. Richard M. Bishop
polled 52.5% of
the vote. His opponent, William H.
West, received 47.2%
of the total vote cast. It is
interesting to note that these
percentages were almost identical with the 1867
gubernatorial
election.
In the 1880 congressional election the
Democratic candidate
received the electorate's approval once
more. Candidates were
Henry A. Neal, Republican, and Wells A.
Hutchins, Demo-
crat. Neal was seeking a third term in
congress. Hutchins
had served as a congressman in the
early 1860's, but had been
defeated in 1864.83 He favored a tariff
to protect the Amer-
ican manufacturer and laborer, aid to
the merchant marine,
improvements along the Ohio River, and
the thirteenth, four-
teenth, and fifteenth amendments to the
federal constitution.
When the votes were counted, Hutchins
carried the county
with 50.3% of the total vote cast. Although
Neal received
only 49% of the vote in the county, he
was endorsed by voters
in the congressional district.
Strength of the Democratic candidates
has been exhibited
primarily in the twentieth century. Six
elections have been
selected for further analysis. Two of
these elections, 1910
and 1912, were significant as the first
Democratic victories in
the county since the 1880 congressional
race. The elections
of 1932 and 1936 indicate the voters'
reaction to the period of
82 Jackson Standard, October 8, 1874.
83 Evans, History of Scioto County, 182.
148
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
the great depression. Finally the
elections of 1954 and 1958
illustrate the contemporary position of
Democratic candidates.
Principal gubernatorial contenders in
1910 were Judson
Harmon, Democrat, and Warren G.
Harding, Republican.
Governor Harmon, the incumbent,
endorsed regulation of
public utilities, direct election of
United States Senators, and
a non-partisan judiciary.84 The
Republican state platform
favored employers' liability, workmen's
compensation, home
rule for municipalities, and publicity
of campaign contribu-
tions.85 Harmon won the
election with 48.8% of the vote,
while Warren G. Harding polled 44.1%.86
The Democratic
victory can be attributed in part to a
general desertion of the
Republican party all over the country.87
The 1912 gubernatorial contest was a
tri-party contest.
Principal candidates were James M. Cox,
Democrat, Robert
B. Brown, Republican, and Arthur L.
Garford, Progressive.
Cox, a former congressman, was
nominated by acclamation
at the Ohio Democratic convention. An
atmosphere of
enthusiasm pervaded the convention,
since the rupture had
already occurred in the Republican
party.88 The Republican
candidate, Robert Brown, a Zanesville
newspaper editor, was
nominated after some dissension in the
Republican party.89
James M. Cox carried the county with 35.4% of the
vote,
while Robert Brown received 32.6% and
Arthur L. Garford,
Progressive, obtained 17.9%.90
The formation of the Pro-
gressive party proved costly to the Republican
gubernatorial
candidate. However, the Democratic
presidential and con-
gressional candidates failed to carry the county.
William
Howard Taft, Republican, received the
winning plurality of
34.2% in the presidential contest,
while Robert M. Switzer
84 Portsmouth Blade, June 25, 1910.
85 Ibid., July
30, 1910.
86 Tom Clifford, Socialist,
received 6.1%; Henry A. Thompson, Prohibition,
.61%; and J. R. Malley, Socialist Labor,
.22%.
87 Portsmouth Blade, November 12, 1910.
88 James M. Cox, Journey Through My Years (New
York, 1946), 126-127.
89 Jackson Standard Journal, July 31, 1912.
90 C. E. Ruthenberg, Socialist, polled
11.3%; Daniel A. Poling, Prohibition,
2.3%; and John Kircher, Socialist Labor,
.26%.
A CENTURY OF VOTING 149
carried the county in the congressional
contest with 36.1%
of the total vote.
In the 1930's Democratic candidates
began to strengthen
their position in Scioto County.
Gubernatorial candidates in
1932 were George White, Democratic
incumbent, and David
S. Ingalls, Republican, who served as
assistant secretary of
the navy under President Hoover.
Congressional candidates
were James G. Polk, Democrat, and Mack
Sauer, Republican.
The election resulted in a victory for
Governor White in the
county and in the state. He carried the
county with 49.6%
of the total vote.91 James
G. Polk, Democratic congressional
candidate, carried the county with
51.1% of the total vote.
His opponent, Mack Sauer, a native of Scioto
County, polled
48.8% of the vote. Despite these two
Democratic successes,
voters in Scioto County did not endorse
the Democratic presi-
dential nominee. Herbert Hoover
defeated Franklin Roose-
velt by polling 51.2% of the total
vote.
Democratic presidential, gubernatorial,
and congressional
candidates made a clean sweep of the
county in 1936. Demo-
cratic candidates for the above offices
were Franklin D. Roose-
velt, Martin L. Davey, and James G.
Polk, respectively. Re-
publican candidates were Alfred M.
Landon, John W. Bricker,
and Emory F. Smith. During the course
of the campaign
President Roosevelt emphasized the
winning battle which the
Democrats were waging against the
depression and predicted
that the federal budget would soon balance.92
Landon at-
tacked New Deal policies, pledged
balance of the federal
budget, and stated the United States
could not continually
borrow from its children and remain
united with one-fifth of
the working population dependent upon
the government.93 In
the gubernatorial contest John W.
Bricker was nominated
without opposition. He continually charged Governor
Davey's
91 The rest went to David S. Ingalls, Republican, 49.1%;
Joseph W. Sharts,
Socialist, .86%; William Woodhouse,
Socialist Labor, .01%; and Aaron Watkins,
Prohibition, .37%.
92 Portsmouth Times, October 2, 1936.
93 Ibid., November 1, 1936.
150
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
administration with being corrupt.94
Governor Davey sup-
ported President Roosevelt and his administration.
James G.
Polk endorsed Governor Davey and the
New Deal program.
The Democratic congressional nominee
also stressed the use
of federal funds in Scioto County to build or
modernize
various public buildings.95
In November the Democrats carried the
county. Roose-
velt received 55% of the total vote cast, while Alfred M.
Landon obtained 44.2% of the total
vote.96 In the guber-
natorial contest Martin L. Davey won
with 54.1% of the vote.
The Republican candidate, John W.
Bricker, received 45.7%.97
In the congressional contest James G.
Polk polled 52.9% of
the total vote cast, while his
Republican adversary, Emory F.
Smith, obtained 47%. Scioto County
mirrored the Demo-
cratic landslide throughout the nation.
Democratic candidates polled the
winning margins in sev-
eral contests during the 1940's and
1950's. The 1954 and
1958 general elections illustrate the
current strength of these
candidates. The 1954 election is particularly interesting,
since it includes balloting by new
residents moving into the
area as a result of the atomic energy
establishment.
Gubernatorial candidates in 1954 were
Frank J. Lausche,
incumbent Democrat, and James A.
Rhodes, Republican.
Congressional candidates in the sixth
district were James G.
Polk, incumbent Democrat, and Leo
Blackburn, Republican.
In the gubernatorial contest James A.
Rhodes, who had been
elected state auditor in 1952, attacked
Governor Lausche's
administration and called upon Ohio
voters to reject the un-
precedented fifth term appeal.98 Lausche
proposed a twenty-
five million dollar appropriation for
long range construction
of mental institutions, fair employment
legislation, and legis-
94 Karl
B. Pauly, Bricker of Ohio: The Man and His Record (New York,
1944), 80.
95 Portsmouth Times, October 22, 1936.
96 The remainder went to Earl
Browder, Communist, .05%, and William Lemke,
Union, .63%.
97 Andrew
R. Onda, Communist, polled .02%.
98 Chillicothe Gazette, September 28, 1954.
A CENTURY OF VOTING 151
lation to enable local units to develop
navigation facilities
along Lake Erie and the Ohio River. The
latter was con-
sidered essential because of the
expected increase in commerce
from the St. Lawrence Seaway.99 Leo
Blackburn, Republi-
can congressional hopeful, promised he
would be instrumental
in obtaining for the Pike County atomic
energy area adequate
aid for schools, health, sanitation
facilities, and highways. He
expressed concern over the pending
decrease in employment
at the atomic plant, since construction
of the plant was almost
completed, and pledged himself to make
an effort to help bring
industry into the sixth district.100
James G. Polk, Democrat,
seeking his ninth term in congress,
stressed that he was the
only Ohioan on the house committee on
agriculture and that
his services on this committee were
beneficial to farmers in
his district.101 Polk
defended his voting record in congress,
stating that in most instances he had
cast votes in favor of
President Eisenhower's program.102
Lausche won the gubernatorial election,
receiving 51.9%
of the total vote, while James A.
Rhodes polled 48% of the
vote in Scioto County. Lausche's
plurality of 1,108 was far
less than the 4,740 plurality he had
polled in 1952. James G.
Polk, Democrat, carried the
congressional race with 53.0%
of the vote. Leo Blackburn, Republican
and native of Scioto
County, received 46.9% of the vote.
Polk had a margin of
1,693 votes, a marked gain over his
slim lead of 479 votes
two years before. While the
gubernatorial and congressional
races were captured by the Democratic
candidates, the sena-
torial race was won by George H.
Bender, Republican, who
received 50.3% of the vote. Thomas A. Burke,
Democrat,
obtained 49.6%. Bender's margin of
victory was only 183
votes, which, after a recount, was
narrowed to 156 votes.
The 1958 election resulted in a
completely Democratic
triumph. Gubernatorial candidates were
Michael V. DiSalle,
Democrat and ex-O.P.A. director, and C.
William O'Neill,
99 Ibid., October 6, 1954.
100 Waverly News, May 18, 1954.
101 Chillicothe Gazette, October
30, 1954.
102 Ibid., August 25, 1954.
152
THE OHIO HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
Republican incumbent. Congressional
candidates were James
G. Polk, Democratic incumbent, and
Elmer S. Barrett, Re-
publican. In the senatorial contest
John W. Bricker, Republi-
can, faced Stephen M. Young, Democrat
and ex-congressman.
Governor O'Neill campaigned in favor of
the controversial
right to work amendment, aid for the
aged, and better educa-
tional facilities. He cited his record
in coping with recession,
extending unemployment compensation,
and a large public
works program.103 The right
to work amendment became a
key issue for O'Neill. It supposedly
offered some protection
to members in unions, but would have
ended the union shop.
O'Neill fought an uphill battle, since the
issue precipitated
a large Democratic registration. The
amendment was op-
posed by every union in the state, the
general assembly of the
Council of Churches, the six Roman
Catholic bishops, twenty-
three city councils, and numerous
smaller groups. The press,
the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and the
Ohio Manufacturers
Association supported the measure.104
Michael V. DiSalle
did not campaign on the right to work
issue, although he
opposed it. DiSalle called for strong
action against labor
racketeers and alleged that O'Neill was
linked with Ohio
teamster officials.105 Senator
Bricker supported the right to
work amendment in a television speech,
but believed that it
should not be a partisan issue.106
Young opposed the right
to work amendment and chided Bricker on
his conservatism.
DiSalle won the gubernatorial contest
with 58.5% of the
county's vote. O'Neill polled 41.4%.
Stephen M. Young
captured the senatorial race with
55.2% of the vote, while
John W. Bricker, Republican, obtained
44.7% of the vote.
In the congressional contest James G.
Polk defeated his Re-
publican opponent, Elmer S. Barrett. Polk received
65.3%
of the total vote, while Barrett polled
34.6%. The election
was a complete success for Democratic
candidates in the
county as well as on the state-wide
level. O'Neill's defeat
103 Columbus Citizen, September 27, 1958.
104 New York Times, October 29, 1958.
105 Columbus Citizen, September 25, 1958.
106 Ibid., October 15, 1958.
A CENTURY OF VOTING 153
may be attributed in part to his stand
on the highly unpopular
right to work amendment, since this
proposed amendment was
opposed by 63.3% of those who voted on
the issue in the state.
Bricker also may have suffered by
supporting the right to
work amendment.
Migration of the atomic workers to the
three-county area
began in 1952, and the full effect, if
any, would have been
felt in the 1954 general election,
since the bulk of the new
population consisted of construction
workers who were
brought to the area to build the
mammoth atomic plant. The
1954 general election demonstrated the
consistency of voting
patterns. Ross County returned to the
Republican column,
Pike County remained solidly Democratic,
and Scioto County
split its support in the three contests
under consideration.
In Ross County the Republican
organization succeeded in
securing pluralities for its
candidates. In spite of the swollen
population, the number of voters
participating was five to six
thousand below the normal turnout in
1948, 1950, and 1952.
Governor Lausche was defeated in the
county by a slim mar-
gin, but Republican senatorial and
congressional candidates
polled sizeable margins of victory.
The Pike County political scene
remained unchanged by
the newcomers. Voting was light and
pluralities received by
winning Democratic candidates in the
gubernatorial and con-
gressional races were about three hundred below 1952
figures.
On the other hand, in the senatorial
contest, the plurality re-
ceived by the Democratic candidate was
larger than in 1950
and 1952. Newcomers who had registered
and voted had
supported the Democratic party
organization, which had been
active in soliciting their vote.
Democratic candidates for governor and
congress were
victorious in Scioto County in 1954,
but the Democratic sena-
torial candidate was defeated by a
narrow margin. While
the Democratic organization probably
did not send to the polls
all atomic workers favoring their
cause, those construction
workers who did vote very likely
supported the Democratic
candidates. It is interesting to note
that, although the popu-
154
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
lation had increased, the total vote of
28,000 was far below
the 1952 figure of approximately 36,000
and the 1950 figure
of approximately 32,000. The fact that
it was an off-year
election contributed to the small
turnout. Also, many of the
atomic workers undoubtedly thought of
themselves as tempo-
rary residents or were generally
apathetic toward the election.
On the basis of their voting record
during the last hundred
years the three counties may be roughly classified as
one
Democratic and two Republican counties.
Pike County cer-
tainly has maintained strict loyalty to
Democratic candidates
except for the principal deviation from
1894 to 1902. Ross
and Scioto counties have been more
variable in their party
support, although Ross County has
vacillated more often,
throughout the century, than Scioto
County.
There is no evidence that these
counties are veering from
traditional party support. Deviations
in Pike County were
relatively few, with the Hanna-McKinley
influence undoubt-
edly affecting the deviations at the
close of the nineteenth
century. A reaction to World War I and
an animosity toward
A1 Smith contributed to Republican
victories in 1920 and 1928.
Since 1928 the electorate has stood
firmly behind the Demo-
cratic candidates, despite the
popularity of such Republicans
as Robert A. Taft and Dwight D.
Eisenhower.
Deviations in Ross County have been
more frequent during
the century, as a result of a stronger
and more effective oppo-
sition party in the county. Ross County
has reflected national
trends, as its deviations in 1912 and
the 1930's indicate. More
deviations have occurred in
gubernatorial and congressional
races than in presidential and
senatorial contests. During
the 1950's the county has deviated only
to Frank J. Lausche.
Scioto County generally has supported
Republican candi-
dates, and, like Ross County, has cast
its ballot in favor of
the opposition candidates in
gubernatorial and congressional
contests more often than in
presidential and senatorial races.
Scioto County has deviated more often
in the 1950's than its
neighbor, Ross County. During the last
nine years it has
polled pluralities for Democratic
gubernatorial candidates
A CENTURY OF VOTING 155
Lausche and Michael V. DiSalle,
congressional candidate
James G. Polk, and senatorial candidate
Stephen M. Young.
On a countywide basis the influence of
new voters on the
1954 general election was not strong
enough to be distinguish-
able in results for gubernatorial,
congressional, and senatorial
offices, although the political parties
had girded themselves
for a possible change. This population
expansion caused by
the construction of a federal
instrumentality did not bring
about a political upheaval. The small
turnout in 1954, the
peak year for the inflated population,
may be attributed to its
being an off-year election. One may
only speculate what
would have occurred if the peak
population year had coincided
with a presidential election year.
The counties may be classified
according to party com-
petition as set forth in Ranney and
Kendall's system. By
their definition, Pike and Scioto
counties would be classified
as having modified one-party systems,
in which the opposition
party, while losing, is always able to
poll a fair percentage of
the vote.107 In Pike County
the minor party, the Republican,
achieved victory in only 10.4% of the
elections studied. How-
ever, Republican candidates never
polled less than 30% of
the vote in any of the elections and
received over 40% of the
vote in ninety-three of the one hundred
and forty-three elec-
tion contests studied. Scioto County
nearly qualifies for the
two-party classification, since the
second party, the Demo-
cratic, won 22.3% of the contests. This
is 2.7% short of the
two-party category. Democratic
candidates received less than
30% of the vote in only five contests,
and below 40% of the
vote in thirty contests. Ross County
easily meets the two-
party classification since the second
party, the Democratic,
won 38.4% of the total number of
contests.108 In only five
107 According
to Ranney and Kendall, modified one-party systems are those in
which the second party, while winning
less than 25% of all elections, has received
over 30% of the vote in more than 70% of
all elections and over 40% of the
vote in more than 30% of all elections studied. Austin
Ranney and Willmoore
Kendall, "The American Party Systems," American
Political Science Review,
XLVIII (1954), 483-484.
108 Two-party systems are defined as those in which the second party has
won
more than 25% of all elections studied. Ibid.
156 THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
elections did the Democratic candidates
poll less than 40% of
the vote. While Ohio is generally
regarded as a state with
a vigorous two-party system, only one of the three
counties
studied meets the test of having a
really competitive two-party
system.
A Century of Voting
In Three Ohio Counties
By I. RIDGWAY DAVIS*
BECAUSE VOTING IS OF KEY IMPORTANCE in a democracy,
analyses of voting behavior on the
national and state levels in
the United States have been of major
interest to students of
history and government. Comparatively
little research, how-
ever, has been forthcoming on the local
level. In this study
the voting records of three Ohio
counties, Ross, Pike, and
Scioto, have been examined for the
period 1859-1959, a cen-
tury of political turbulence and
growth.
Located in a state noted for its
vigorous two-party system,
where competition between the two major
parties is keen,
Ross, Pike, and Scioto counties provide
significant areas for
research. Additionally, these three
counties were selected
for study because of the rapid growth
in recent years of the
population of the area, which resulted
from the construction
of an atomic energy plant in Pike County. The first
an-
nouncement was made in 1952, and during
the next two years
approximately 22,000 persons moved into Ross, Pike,
and
Scioto counties. It was of considerable
interest to determine
if the intrusion of a large number of
potential voters would
affect the established patterns of voting
behavior.
Four characteristics of the counties
contribute to an under-
standing of the setting: the geographic
location, background
of the early residents, population trends, and the
prevailing
economic situation. Geographically, the
counties form a tier
in the southern part of Ohio, Ross
County being the most
* I. Ridgway Davis is an instructor in
government at the University of Con-
necticut.