OHJ Archive

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.²Manufactur-

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.³At 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.⁴Other 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.⁵C. William

O'Neill, Republican, came close to this in 1956, when he

obtained 59.4% of the vote.⁶These 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.⁷The

lowest winning percentage received by a Republican candidate

was in 1888, when Jacob J. Pugsley obtained 49.2% of the

vote.⁸The 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.¹²Elec-

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.¹³Ross 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.¹⁶J. 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.17Smith 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.¹⁸The 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.²⁰How-

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.²³Robert 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.

²²Ibid., 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.²⁶At the Ohio Democratic convention

Governor Lausche declared that he was a Democrat but he

was an American first.²⁷Evidently, 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.²⁸Daniels 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.³⁰Only 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.³⁷Campbell 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.³⁸This 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.³⁹Bush-

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.⁴³Bryan 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.⁴⁴Candidates 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.⁴⁶McKinley 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.⁴⁸A 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.⁴⁹The

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.⁵⁰Nash 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.⁵²However,

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.

⁴⁹Ibid., 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.⁵⁶It 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.⁵⁷Senator 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.⁵⁹Governor 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.⁶⁰Cox 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.⁶⁶The 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%.

⁶⁹Joseph 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.⁷⁰The 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.⁷²The 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.⁷⁴Bundy 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.⁷⁵As

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.⁷⁶The 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.⁷⁷Thurman 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.⁷⁸The

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.⁸⁰In 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.⁸²Vance 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.⁸⁴The Republican state platform

favored employers' liability, workmen's compensation, home

rule for municipalities, and publicity of campaign contribu-

tions.⁸⁵Harmon 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.⁸⁸The 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.⁹²Landon 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.⁹³In

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%.

⁹²Portsmouth Times, October 2, 1936.

93 Ibid., November 1, 1936.

150 THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

administration with being corrupt.⁹⁴Governor 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.⁹⁶In 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.⁹⁸Lausche 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.⁹⁹Leo 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.¹⁰⁰James 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.¹⁰⁴Michael 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.¹⁰⁵Senator Bricker supported the right to

work amendment in a television speech, but believed that it

should not be a partisan issue.¹⁰⁶Young 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.¹⁰⁷In 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.¹⁰⁸In 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.

Ohio History Journal