Mr. Wyman, who holds degrees from Rutgers University and the University of Wisconsin, is on the faculty of the University of Wisconsin Center System, teaching at the Racine and Kenosha campuses.

Insurgency in The Defeat of James A. Tawney in 1910

ROGER E. WYMAN

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY was in seri­ phase of the widespread progressive move­ ous trouble in the summer of 1910.^ The ment which permeated many aspects of eruption of bitter internal warfare threat­ American life in the early 1900s. ened an end to the control of both branches The defection of progressive Republican of the federal government and most state congressmen centered around the autocra­ governments which the Republicans had tic domination of the House by its colorful enjoyed for a decade and a half. A Demo­ and irascible speaker, Joseph G. Cannon. cratic victory in the 1910 congressional elec­ The insurgents attacked Cannon's arbitrary tions seemed imminent, and party leaders exercise of his powers to block, delay, and worried about Republican chances in the water down progressive legislation. By the 1912 presidential contest. spring of 1910, the strength of the rebel­ The internecine strife which split the party lious group, composed mostly of Midwest- into two warring factions was essentially erners, had grown considerably. They a power struggle between the Old Guard attacked the legislative program which Pres­ conservatives, or "standpatters," who domi­ ident William Howard Taft presented in nated Republican congressional leadership, January; after bitter and protracted strug­ and the progressive "insurgents" who chal­ gles, they forced the regulars to accept lenged that leadership. The progressives their amendments to several administra­ charged that the Old Guard ruled the party tion bills. Their most notable achievement, and the nation for the welfare of vested however, was their victory in an epochal interests rather than for the people as a three-day battle to amend the House rules whole. The insurgent revolt in the Sixty- and strip the speaker of some of his powers.^ first Congress of 1909-10 was an integral As summer approached, both factions marshalled forces for the coming primary ^ The author is extremely grateful to Miss Vicki elections. With Taft's quiet but active sup­ D. Sherwin for technical assistance and for help in preparing the manuscript of this article. port, the regulars engaged in a massive ef­ '•' By combining with the Democrats, the insur­ fort to purge the insurgent congressmen, gents passed an amendment making the rules com­ while local progressive groups prepared to mittee subject to election by the whole House and prohibiting the speaker from serving on it. A good replace prominent standpatters. The insur­ account of the insurgent movement and the legisla­ gents' patronage was curtailed and support tive battles of 1910 may be found in Kenneth W. from the national campaign committee was Hechler, Insurgency: Personalities and Politics of the Taft Era (New York, 1940). denied them; indeed, the administration

Fall 1967 317 most influential standpatter to be unseated in 1910, and progressives around the nation rejoiced at this devastating blow to the Can­ non organization. Tawney's defeat for re- nomination by a young political novice was regarded as proof of the nation's progres­ sive temper and the rejection by Republican voters of "Cannonism" and rule by special interests. The victory over Tawney registered the high-water mark of the insurgent revolt. But when progressives described his defeat as a vindication of their principles and a re­ turn to true representative government, they allowed political rhetoric to cloud the realities of the situation. Although the ideological factor was probably the most important one, Tawney's defeat might not have been accomplished except for a com­ bination of fortuitous local circumstances: quirks in the Minnesota primary law, wide­ spread participation by Democrats, and the ethnic attraction of his opponent. James A. Tawney backed standpat elements in the insurgents' TAWNEY HAD BEEN a regular Repubfi- own home districts. Party regularity and al­ can since his entry into Congress in 1893. legiance to President Taft was the basis Throughout the insurgent revolt he reso­ of the conservatives' campaign.^ Insurgent lutely stuck by Cannon and the House congressmen relied on progressive elements leadership except for a brief and unsuc­ in their home states and a growing pro­ cessful fight for free lumber in the 1909 gressive temper across the nation. tariff debates. Extremely able and indus­ trious, Tawney had risen quickly within the A series of primary battles took place ranks of the party, reaching the chairman­ throughout the spring and summer, begin­ ship of the committee on appropriations in ning in Ohio during May and ending in 1905. This post made him a key figure in Minnesota on September 20. After a few the federal government; he was regarded minor victories by each faction, national as second only to Cannon in the power he progressive sentiment surged in late sum­ wielded in the House. Since Cannon had mer. One by one, the progressives scored aided Tawney's career, the Minnesotan impressive gains in August and September. stood by him faithfully. Altogether, insurgent challengers unseated twenty regulars, many of them committee chairmen, while only one progressive in­ ' George E. Mowry, and the Progressive Movement, 98, 107, 113 (Madison, Wis­ cumbent met defeat. In the Midwest, ten consin, 1946); William P. Hepburn to George D. standpatters were retired from Congress.* Perkins, February 21, March 2, 1910, George D. By far the greatest progressive triumph Perkins Papers, in the State Department of History and Archives, Des Moines, Iowa. was the final one—the defeat of James A. ''For a detailed account of the events of the Tawney, representative from Minnesota's summer and the midwestern primaries, see Roger E. first district and chairman of the powerful Wyman, "Insurgency and the Elections of 1910 in the Middle West," unpublished master's thesis. Uni­ appropriations committee. Tawney was the versity of Wisconsin, 1964.

318 MINNESOTA History Tawney was supreme in the realm of gov­ field of conservation was regarded by con­ ernmental expenditures. A diligent guardian servatives like Tawney as another example of the public treasury, he never ceased to of executive usurpation. One of the presi­ scrutinize appropriation bills to eliminate dent's more important contributions in this waste and to keep expenditures minimal; area was the creation by executive order at the same time he was willing to vote of the Conservation, Inland Waterways, considerable amounts for purposes he felt and Country Life commissions. Just before necessary, as, for example, a scientific tariff Roosevelt left office, Tawney secured an commission. amendment to an appropriations bill pro­ Tawney was also a steadfast believer in hibiting the use of money by any agency the supremacy of the legislative branch. The not created by Congress, thus effectively combination of his talent, strong beliefs, and halting the operations of these valuable but powerful position made him a formidable extralegal commissions.^ opponent, as President Theodore Roosevelt Tawney's diligence was apparent in elec­ discovered during his final years in the White toral politics as well as in congressional House when Congress jealously sought to matters. He seemed secure from defeat, maintain its ascendancy over the executive. if not invincible, in the ten counties of In 1908-09 Tawney became a chief source southeastern Minnesota which made up the of the president's bitterness. A large and first congressional district. Over the years powerful navy had always been one of Tawney had created an extensive and loyal Roosevelt's fondest hopes, and he persist­ political organization that provided him ently wrangled with Congress over naval with huge victory margins. He never faced appropriations. In 1908 Congress withheld primary opposition until 1908. In that year two of the four battleships he requested, he lost two counties but polled 57.4 per cent and Tawney sought to have the number cut of the district's vote; in November his usual to one. After Roosevelt used the secret margin slipped somewhat but remained a service to investigate land frauds, some of comfortable 2,756 votes.** which involved congressmen, Tawney had Tav^mey's formidable machine ran on the agency's appropriations cut in 1908 federal patronage. He used the ingenious and limited its functions to deterring device of appointing publishers as post­ counterfeiting and protecting the presi­ masters, which gave him virtual control over dent; the Rough Rider fulminated against the district's press and assured him of its this more than any other action of Con­ loyalty at election time. This was perhaps gress. Roosevelt's pioneering work in the his greatest political asset and was so rec­ ognized by the opposition; the few dis­ ^ Congressional Record, 60 Congress, 1 session, senting newspapers repeatedly denounced 4806, 4614-4616, 5554-5559; 2 session, 3118-3120. the Tawney "postoffice press." ^ Postmasters Cannon later told Taft he believed tire source of dis­ affection between Tawney and Roosevelt lay in and other appointees also formed vital links Tawney's opposition to naval construction. Archie in Tawney's campaign organization. In­ Butt, Taft and Roosevelt: The Intimate Letters of deed, it proved so efficient that Tawney Archie Butt, Military Aide, 1:304 (Garden City, New York, 1930). rarely campaigned actively himself; he "Tawney won 53.6 per cent of the 38,172 votes made only one major speech in the 1908 cast. See tables, p. 326, 327. Except where otherwise primary. noted, all Minnesota election returns cited in this paper are from the Legislative Manual for the year Patronage distribution was not Tawney's following the election. only strategy for continuing electoral suc­ ' La Crosse (Wisconsin) Tribune, August 24, 1910; Minnesota, Legislative Manual, 1911, p. 584, cess. He worked arduously to insure that 585, 588, 592, 596. One anti-Tawney paper dubbed his district received more than its share of his loyal press corps the "cuckoo chorus." Caledonia federal buildings and other benefits from Journal, quoted in the Evening Tribune (Albert Lea), September 18, 1909. the pork barrel. He was instrumental in

Fall 1967 319 A postelection view in the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch protecting the district's dairymen from dress which the harried Taft delivered oleomargarine, and his fight for free lum­ there was a colossal political blunder. ber was popular in Minnesota. His influ­ Speaking in the state where antitariff sen­ ence in Washington made him a valuable timent was probably the most pronounced, asset to the whole state, a fact readily ad­ Taft stoutly defended the law, criticized mitted even by progressives who opposed those who voted against it, and lavished his conservative economic philosophy. praise on Tawney for his support of it. After a long recitation of several schedules, DESPITE TAWNEY'S apparent security, Taft stated "without hesitation" that the law serious concern for his political future was was "the best tariff bill that the Republican voiced as much as a year before his de­ party has ever passed, and therefore the feat. In the early fall of 1909 Taft em­ best tariff bill that has been passed at all." barked on a nationwide speaking tour to The president implied that it had been the increase support for his young administra­ duty of all Republicans to vote for it and tion, particularly to allay nascent discon­ praised Tawney's course: "I am glad to tent within the party and the nation over speak in behalf of what he did, not in de­ the recently enacted Payne-Aldrich tar­ fense of it, but in support of it."^ iff. Midwesterners vociferously complained Reaction to Taft's intemperate remarks that the tariff had sacrificed the region's was immediate throughout the Midwest. agricultural interests for the benefit of For the first time the progressive Republi­ influential eastern corporations and manu­ can press criticized the president publicly facturers. Tawney had been the only Min­ and took a more antagonistic tone toward nesotan to vote for the final bill. On September 17 the president's train " Presidential Addresses and State Papers of Wil­ liam Howard Taft From March 4, 1909 to March 4, reached Winona, Tawney's home. The ad­ 1910, 225 (New York, 1910).

320 MINNESOTA History his whole administration. Minnesota insur­ Anderson, a young lawyer and political neo­ gent Congressman Charles R. Davis con­ phyte. A native of Minnesota, Anderson tended that Taft's "most unfortunate" visit was a Spanish-American War veteran who only served to widen the intraparty breach. had settled in rural Lanesboro after prac­ The St. Paul Pioneer Press believed the ticing law for a short time in speech had arrayed the bulk of the local and Kansas City. His half Swedish, half population against the president and con­ Norwegian ancestry was a political asset tinued: "Mr. Tawney was safe of his re­ in the heavily Scandinavian district.^" election until Mr. Taft reached Winona. Now, if he squeaks through it will be by ANDERSON immediately announced that the paint on his planks." Strangely, Tawney his campaign would be waged on progres­ believed that Taft's speech was "well re­ sive principles rather than personalities. A ceived" in Minnesota and advised that the week later he outlined the basis of his cam­ Republicans print half a million copies for paign in a platform statement. After assert­ distribution.® ing that the major issue was "whether the Preparations to defeat Tawney were people or the 'interests' shall rule this na­ made early in 1910. In March the Demo­ tion," Anderson attacked "Cannonism" and crats chose Judge Harry L. Buck of Wi­ the Payne-Aldrich tariff. He portrayed Can­ nona as their candidate, with the hope that nonism as a "menace to a government by the he might win progressive Republican sup­ people" and a source of discrimination in port. Soon afterward the progressive Re­ favor of big business in taxation and na­ publicans of the district quietly began tional legislation.1^ sounding out anti-Tawney sentiment and On August 12 the First District Progres­ searching for a strong candidate to oppose sive League issued its own platform, the congressman in the primary. Several which went beyond Anderson's statement of possible contenders were considered and principles. It echoed the ever-present pro­ then withdrawn, while Tawney and his gressive concern with rule of "the people" newspapers ridiculed their "Gaston-Al- as opposed to rule by "the interests," quick­ phonse act." By midsummer it seemed that ly linking Congressman Tawney to the Tawney might receive the nomination un­ latter. It lumped "Tawneyism" with "Can­ opposed. On July 26, however, the pro­ nonism" and "Aldrichism" as detrimental to gressive leaders met at Rochester and un­ good government and an obstacle to pro­ veiled their candidate. He was Sydney gressive legislation. The league assailed Tawney's use of money and appointments ° George E. Mowry, The Era of Theodore Roose­ to control the press, charging "misrule and velt, 1900-1912, 249 (New York, 1958); St. Paul gag-machine domination" of the district's Pioneer Press, September 19, 20, 1909; Tawney to John J. Esch, September 22, 1909, John J Esch politics. The platform endorsed the insur­ Papers, in the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, gency of most of Minnesota's congressmen Madison. and advocated downward tariff revision, ^ Charles I. Reigard to Tawney, April 6, 1910; Tawney to Dunn and Carlson, May 4, 1910, stricter railroad legislation, and implemen­ (copy) Tawney Papers, in the Minnesota Historical tation of the Roosevelt conservation pol­ Society; The Public, 13:290 (April 1, 1910); Joseph icies.^^ E. Chamberlin, in the Boston Evening Transcript, June 18, 1910; Lanesboro Leader, July 16, 1910; St. Anderson's keynote address, delivered a Paul Pioneer Press, July 27, 1910; Mower County week later, was typical of many he would Transcript (Austin), August 3, 1910. give during the campaign. He dealt prima­ '^^La Crosse Tribune, August 4, 1910. ^Evening Tribune, August 13, 1910; Si. Paul rily with Tawney's record in Congress, pre­ Pioneer Press, August 12, 1910. Senator Nelson W. senting him as Cannon's chief henchman in Aldrich of Rhode Island was tlie standpat leader in opposing progressive legislation. In partic­ the Senate; his name was often linked with Cannon's as a representative of the privileged interests. ular, Anderson assailed Tawney's support of

Fall 1967 321 readers, became an active agent in Ander­ son's campaign and was instrumental in persuading Wisconsin leaders to cross the Mississippi and preach the gospel of pro- gressivism. More than a half dozen Wiscon­ sin politicians answered the call during the final two weeks of the campaign, and Sena­ tor Robert M. LaFoUette sent an open letter of support.^* A meeting of the National Conservation Congress in St. Paul on September 5-8 pro­ vided a wealth of ammunition for the in­ surgents. Because of it they were able to bring to the first district two nationally prominent progressives: , conservation authority and confidant of Roosevelt, and Francis J. Heney, who was noted for his prosecution of graft and of land frauds. Meanwhile in St. Paul the well-known agriculturist Henry Wallace Sydney Anderson criticized Tawney for killing appropriations for the publication of significant findings of the Payne-Aldrich tariff and his thwarting Roosevelt's Country Life Commission.^^ of Roosevelt's conservation policies. The Tawney and his supporters refused to young challenger also denigrated Tawney's take the candidacy of the young and in­ efforts on behalf of the district: he claimed experienced Anderson seriously. The effi­ that most of the credit for antioleomarga- cient campaign organization that had rine legislation belonged to other congress­ disposed of primary opposition in 1908 was men, not Tawney, and implied that still intact. The Tawney press either ignored Tawney's fight for free lumber in 1909 had Anderson or belittled his campaign; other been halfhearted. Throughout the campaign, observers also testified to its futility.^® Anderson hammered endlessly at Tawney's By the end of August, as prominent "standpattism" and his connection with Can­ standpatters fell in other primaries, the con­ non and the "interests." In contrast, he test in southeastern Minnesota began to promised to support the insurgents and to attract national attention. Political commen­ represent the people of the district.^^ tators from around the country visited the Anderson labored under considerable district to assay political conditions there. handicaps. He was little known and his One visitor commended Tawney's "able, supporters could not hope to match the ef­ honest, and useful" work in Congress. "But ficiency and financial resources of the Taw­ ney organization. Anderson's managers, " St. Paul Pioneer Press, August 20, 1910; Min­ however, made the most of what they had. neapolis Journal, August 30, 1910. Their basic strategy was to get as much ^*La Crosse Tribune, September 16, 21, 1910; Minneapolis Jourrud, September 16, 1910. One publicity as possible. Accordingly, Ander­ technique employed was to send telegrams of con­ son undertook an immediate and vigorous gratulations to victors in the Wisconsin primary canvass of the rural areas, and as many coupled with a plea for aid in the form of speeches. Copies are in tlie Esch and Hennan Ekern Papers, speakers as could be found were enlisted in the State Historical of Wisconsin. to cover the district. The La Crosse (Wiscon­ ^ St. Paul Pioneer Press, September 7, 1910. sin) Tribune, which had many Minnesota " See, for example, Charles B. Cheney, in the Minneapolis Journal, August 20, 1910.

322 MINNESOTA History he stands for the sort of things that the The Tawney campaign effort which people are trying to get rid of. He is ar­ swung into action in the final weeks of the rogant and tyrannical in the exercise of canvass was conducted along three major power that he has obtained by the long, lines: an assault on Anderson's inexperi­ careful, determined process of insinuating ence, the branding of his platform and basis himself with the inner circles." Other corres­ of support as more Democratic than Re­ pondents made similar observations.^^ publican, and a defense of Tawney's rec­ Despite the growing interest in Ander­ ord based on his influence in Washington son's campaign, the Tawney organization and what he had done for the district. The proceeded in its customary casual fashion. congressman pointed out that Anderson had Tawney greatly underestimated the temper lived in the district for only three years of the district, and his lofty aloofness only and had previously held no public office. gave more substance to the progressive The young attorney had emerged only charge that the congressman was not rep­ after the "so-called insurgents . . . failed to resentative of the voters and their senti­ induce a Republican of standing to become ments. Tawney was finally jolted out of his their candidate." After stoutly reaffirming his complacency in the second week of Septem­ own party loyalty, Tawney declared that ber. The increasingly favorable impression Anderson's platform ignored the principles that Anderson was making in his canvass, and policies of the Republican party. He the entry of Pinchot and other prominent contended that Anderson's managers had progressives into the campaign, and the supported the Democratic congressional specter of widespread Democratic participa­ nominee in 1908 and would do so again if tion in the primary frightened the Tawney Anderson lost. Tawney's press went much forces into a belated frenzy of activity. further, bitterly assailing Anderson as the They charged that Anderson was deliber­ "assistant democratic" candidate.^" ately soliciting Democratic votes as well as The heart of the Tawney campaign was espousing Democratic principles. Judge a recitation of how much he had done for Buck, running unopposed, also recognized the district and how much he could ac­ the possibility that hundreds of Democratic complish in the future through his key posi­ votes might be cast for Anderson and urged tion. Tawney disposed of the insurgent Democrats to abstain from taking Republi­ movement as a revolt by dissident "outs" can ballots. Reportedly Buck felt that Taw­ seeking to overthrow the established party ney would be easier to beat in November leadership. "Tlie District is on the inside, than Anderson; if Tawney were the nomi­ it is getting substantially everything it nee. Buck might get the progressive Re­ wants," stated one campaign article. Taw­ publican vote.^^ ney particularly stressed his diligent work to protect the dairy farmers. One pamphlet " Chamberlin, in the Boston Evening Transcript, June 18, 1910. See also John Callan O'Laughhn, in quoted other congressmen attesting to Taw­ the Tribune, August 26, 27, 1910. ney's effectiveness in preventing repeal of " O'Laughlin, in the Chicago Tribune, August 27, the oleomargarine tax law and denied that 1910; Winona Independent,'September 22, 1910. As late as September 10 Anderson's campaign manager any new congressman could get such re­ wrote that Tawney had sent out little literature. Ole sults. Tawney supporters also implied that Levang to Herman Ekern, September 10, 1910, he might become the next speaker of the Ekern Papers. " Mimeographed campaign letters dated Au­ House, in which case the district would gust 24, September 7, 1910, in the Tawney Papers; reap both prestige and material benefit.^" Preston Times, September 14, 21, 1910. ™ "Leader Or Cipher?" and "Do you Want the Prominent Minnesotans defended Taw­ Oleomargarine Law Repealed?" undated pieces of ney's record in Congress. The support of campaign literature in the Tawney Papers; La popular Scandinavian Senator Crosse Tribune, September 14, 1910; O'Laughlin, in the Chicago Tribune, August 27, 1910. was an important asset. Nelson stated firmly

Fall 1967 323 that Tawney was more responsible for anti- stand to speak from when Tawney support­ oleomargarine legislation than any other ers threatened to withdraw band subscrip­ representative and had even aided the Sen­ tions; reports that the progressives were ate in the matter. He contended that both openly and extensively soliciting Democratic houses of Congress had upheld Tawney's votes also persisted.^* view on Roosevelt's unauthorized commis­ Pinchot vehemently assailed Tawney in a sions, and he refuted the charge that Taw­ speech on September 5, branding him "the ney had vitiated the investigation of land most dangerous opponent of the public wel­ frauds. Nelson added that Tawney was fare in the United States." He charged that "one of the ablest most industrious, and "Tawney takes his orders from Cannon, and most energetic members" of Congress.^^ In­ does his will," and rejected any possibility surgent Minnesota Congressman Halvor of Tawney becoming speaker of the House. Steenerson also defended Tawney, praising "The people . . . would [not] tolerate cast­ his efforts for free lumber and for appro­ ing out one twin [Cannon] and putting the priations for a tariff commission. The pow­ other in his place." Most of the address erful National Dairy Union staunchly was devoted to a detailed portrayal of Taw­ confirmed Tawney's support of the dairy ney as the archfoe of Roosevelt's most interests. Its board of directors "assert[ed] worthwhile conservation programs. He boldly that no member of the Congress has bluntly proclaimed that Tawney was Roose­ done more in the past to defend these inter­ velt's "bitterest enemy in the House." ^^ ests." ^^ The next day Roosevelt himself got into the act. In his speech to the National Con­ THE PACE of the campaign quickened servation Congress in St. Paul, the popular as election day approached. Anderson con­ ex-president took a sideswipe at Tawney for tinued his vigorous speaking tour of the dis­ blocking his conservation commission. An trict, and the Lanesboro band accompanied indication of the progressive spirit of Min­ its home town candidate to provide added nesota was the noticeable difference in the excitement. The progressives virtually ig­ receptions given to Roosevelt and Taft, who nored the river counties of Wabasha had addressed the Congress the previous and Winona — Tawney strongholds — and day. The crowds were polite to the presi­ concentrated on the rural areas. Both sides dent but wildly enthusiastic over "T.R."^' focused on Rochester and surrounding Tawney made only one major speech dur­ Olmsted County, which had supported ing the campaign. On September 13 three Tawney heavily in the 1908 primary but had special trains carried faithful supporters of given him a bare plurality in the general election.^^ Rochester was the scene of ma­ ^ Knute Nelson to C. L. Swenson, August 31, jor speeches by Pinchot and Tawney. 1910. Nelson's letter was ostensibly in reply to one from Swenson; Tawney sent Swenson's letter to Both sides claimed misrepresentation of Nelson with one of his own, dated August 25, in their positions. Forced to answer Tawney's which he solicited a public reply and suggested its challenge to his party loyalty, Anderson as­ contents. Copies are in the Tawney Papers. serted his fidelity to Republicanism and its ^ Minneapolis Journal, September 7, 1910; Daily Post and Record (Rochester), September 12, 1910; principles; his quarrel was "with the men Board of Directors, National Dairy Union to who . . . sacrifice them upon the altar of the Tawney, September 10, 1910, Tawney Papers. Wil­ liam D. Hoard, ex-govemor of Wisconsin and editor system." Tawney angrily declared that An­ of Hoard's Dairyman, was instrumental in securing derson misrepresented his record on the the resolution. tariff, conservation, and dairy legislation. "^ La Crosse Tribune, September 19, 1910. Each side resorted to petty politics and " La Crosse Tribune, August 24, September 6,14, 1910; St. Paul Pioneer Press, September 6, 7, 1910. chicanery as the battle progressed. In one '^ St. Paul Pioneer Press, September 6, 1910; Min­ town Anderson was denied use of the band- neapolis Journal, September 6, 1910. '^ St. Paul Pioneer Press, September 7, 1910.

324 MINNESOTA Histonj "Our Jim" to Rochester for a huge rally. THE HEATED CAMPAIGN resulted in an Tawney completely ignored Anderson and unusually large turnout on September 20. devoted his address to answering charges The returns soon indicated that Anderson that Pinchot had leveled against him. He had scored a substantial victory. Tawney's asserted that Pinchot's attack upon him was large majorities in Winona and Wabasha made because he "stood in defense of gov­ counties could not offset the margins An­ ernment by law as against government by derson piled up in the remaining eight executive choice and discretion and stood counties. The official canvass gave Anderson between him [Pinchot] and his lawless ex­ 13,447 to 10,653 for Tawney. With a 2,794- penditure of the people's money." He de­ vote plurality, Anderson polled 55.8 per cent fended his 1908 amendment and pointed out of the Republican vote.^^ that it had passed both houses of Con­ Progressives around the nation heralded gress unanimously. On the tariff issue Taw­ the defeat of the redoubtable Tawney as ney cited his fight for free lumber and a great triumph for their principles and an named some leading insurgents who had indication that the people were opposed to helped to defeat it; he also boasted of his Cannonism and all it stood for. The more successful efforts to get $250,000 appropri­ rabid progressive organs rejoiced in Taw­ ated for a scientific tariff commission. Pin­ ney's downfall, but many expressed mixed chot was not the only one who saw him as feelings because of his experience and leg­ a menace to the public welfare, he aver­ islative ability. ^° The Cleveland Plain red; so did the oleomargarine and ship­ Dealer of September 22 noted that "regard­ building industries and other powerful less of the manifest merits of the pro­ vested interests who were working to de­ gressive movement, the defeat of Tawney feat him. Tawney also claimed he was a cannot be viewed in any other light than friend of Roosevelt, had voted for his legis­ that of a misfortune." The St. Paul Pioneer lation, and was a supporter of his policies.^^ Press on September 26 called Tawney a The speech was an effective answer to "brilliant and able representative," but like Pinchot, but Tawney failed to confront the his constituents it "refused to excuse his as­ issue uppermost in the minds of many Min­ sociation and alliance with elements and fac­ nesotans : his relationship to Cannonism. The tors in public life which work evil to the Pioneer Press later reported that his skirt­ public interests." ing of the foremost issue dismayed even his Others expressed less surprise at the re­ ardent supporters; moreover, many felt sults. Putting the election into the frame­ Tawney's specious declaration of Roosevelt's work of the summer's events, they viewed friendship to be an insult to their intelli­ it as part of a revolt of the common people gence.^^ to restore popular control over the govern­ ment. The Pioneer Press contended that the ""' Minneapolis Journal, September 14, 1910; Eve­ ning Tribune, September 14, 1910. result "well illustrates the power of the peo­ ^ St. Paul Pioneer Press, September 22, 1910. ple in American politics," that they, and not ™ "Statement of Official Returns First Congres­ leaders in Washington, were the real source sional District of Minnesota, Primary and General Elections, 1908 and Primary Election, 1910," copy of laws and government.^^ in the Tawney Papers. The Legislative Manual of Anderson acknowledged the aid of Roose­ 1911 gives an erroneous total for Winona County; velt, Pinchot, and Heney, but credited his the actual figure for Tawney was 1,441, not 1,141 (p. 484). victory to his "educational campaign against ^°See, for example. Collier's Weekly, 46:10 (Oc­ Cannonism." Other factors reportedly affect­ tober 8, 1910); La Follette's Magazine, 2:12 (Octo­ ing the outcome were Anderson's nationality ber 1, 1910); Milwaukee Journal, September 21, 1910. and Tawney's complacency. But informed ^St. Paul Pioneer Press, September 22, 1910; opinion almost unanimously cited the tariff Nonpareil (Council Bluffs, Iowa), September 22, and Tawney's connection with Cannon as 1910; Milwaukee Journal, September 21, 1910.

Fall 1967 325 PRIMARY, 1908 PRIMARY, 1910

TAWNEY KNATVOLD KNATVOLD FRENCH TAWNEY ANDERSON ANDERSON BUCK COUNTY Repub. Repub. % R. Vote Dem. Repub. Repub. % R. Vote Dem. Dodge 870 888 50.5 4 816 1,358 62.5 4 Fillmore 1,653 1,619 49.5 49 1,473 2,464 62.6 20 Freeborn 1,269 1,964 60.7 11 1,277 1,873 59.5 9 Houston 488 533 52.2 80 893 1,232 58.0 147 Mower 1,857 1,328 41.7 58 1,452 1,918 56.9 68 Olmsted 1,440 902 38.5 226 1,230 1,864 60.2 177 Steele 684 343 33.4 324 694 734 51.4 546 Wabasha 817 237 22.5 754 808 349 30.2 921 Waseca 747 294 28.2 499 569 1,049 64.8 245 Winona 1,626 376 18.8 1,624 1,441 606 29.6 1,760 11,451 8,484 42.6 3,629 10,653 13,447 55.8 3,897

Vote for Congress in Minnesota's first district primary elections the overriding factors in his downfall. Per­ both parties. Tawney wrote Cannon that his haps the New York World put it best: "We defeat was "due entirely to political chican­ may gain a fair idea of the intensity of the ery and debauchery, of the betrayal of my revolt against tyranny in the Speakership opponent for the nomination of his party and perfidy and corruption in tariff legisla­ into the hands of the Democrats." He al­ tion when an enlightened district retires a so demanded that the primary law be man like Tawney for those reasons and over­ amended to prevent such practices. Demo­ looks wholly his courageous and patriotic cratic participation in Republican primaries labors in other directions." ^^ was so widespread in Minnesota in 1910 The congressman had an entirely differ­ that many others echoed Tawney's desire.^* ent explanation for his defeat. It was neither Judge Buck, the Democratic nominee, "the false representations of me made by my deprecated Tawney's contention. He admit­ opponents" nor the exploitation of Roose­ ted that some Democrats took Republican velt's popularity. "It was simply the vote of ballots but insisted that Democratic leaders the Democrats in counties where there was opposed the practice, and he cited his own no Democratic contest for the Democratic plea for noninterference in the Republican nominations." Tawney provided data to sup­ primary. Moreover, he argued, just as many port his claim. In seven counties where there Democrats might have voted for Tawney as were no contests for Democratic nomina­ Anderson, and in any case the returns did tions for local offices there had been less not support Tawney's assertion.^^ than 150 Democratic votes compared to Tawney and his ardent backers remained more than 2,000 in November, 1908. "In a intensely bitter over the results. Tawney re­ single precinct there were seventy more jected pleas that he run independently, but Republican ballots voted than were cast for he did consider refusing to endorse Ander- President Taft in the same precinct two years ago." '^''^ ''Sf. Paul Pioneer Press, September 22, 1910; Tawney further charged that Democrats New York World, September 22, 1910. had worked for Anderson throughout the •" St. Paul Pioneer Press, September 22, 1910. "* St. Paul Pioneer Press, September 21, 22, 1910; campaign and had even boasted of their in­ Minneapolis Journal, September 22, 1910; Tawney tent to cast Republican ballots. Anderson's to Joseph G. Cannon, October 4, 1910, quoted in victory meant that Democrats had deter­ William R. Gwinn, Uncle Joe Cannon, Archfoe of Insurgency, 234 (New York, 1957). mined the nomination of the candidates of ^^ Winorw Independent, September 22, 1910.

326 MINNESOTA History GENEJ?AL ELECTION, 1908 GENERAL ELECTION, 1910

TOTAL FRENCH TAWNEY % for TOTAL COUNTY BUCK ANDERSON ANDERSON Dem. Repub. TAWNEY VOTE Dem. Repub. % for Dodge 2,083 781 1,302 62.5 1,390 438 952 68.5 Fillmore 4,700 1,902 2,798 59.5 3,427 1,221 2,206 64.4 Freeborn 3,886 1,710 2,176 56.0 3,451 888 2,563 74.3 Houston 2,538 1,015 1,523 60.0 2,258 853 1,405 62.2 Mower 4,006 1,626 2,380 59.4 3,430 1,349 2,081 60.7 Olmsted 4,261 2,048 2,213 51.9 3,909 1,937 1,972 50.4 Steele 3,530 1,760 1,770 50.1 3,416 1,578 1,838 53.8 Wabasha 3,860 2,018 1,842 47.7 3,606 1,711 1,895 52.6 Waseca 2,779 1,358 1,421 51.1 2,481 937 1,544 62.2 Winona 6,529 3,490 3,039 46.5 5,763 3,904 1,859 32.3 38,172 17,708 20,464 53.6 33,131 14,816 18,315 55.3

Vote for Congress in Minnesota's first district general elections

son as the Republican nominee. His strong ney had slipped in 1908 and in Scandina­ party loyalty overcame his personal pique, vian areas, and he surpassed Tawney's 1908 however, and the appearance of Scott Laird, plurality by 676 votes.^^ editor of the Winona Republican-Herald, to speak at a congratulatory rally for Ander­ THE TOTAL Republican primary vote was son was regarded as Tawney's personal en­ 4,165 votes larger than that of the previous dorsement and plea for party harmony. primary, and greater than Taft's vote in the Tawney's support of Anderson was not en­ district in 1908. The counties showing the thusiastic, and some of the Tawney press greatest increase in total vote all witnessed openly backed Judge Buck.^® a marked decline in the percentage cast for Rumors of widespread conservative de­ Tawney. The surprising turnout was the re­ fection from Anderson continued up to elec­ sult of Democratic votes and the effect of tion day. Many standpatters believed that Anderson's whirlwind campaign upon Scan­ a victory for Buck, in addition to punish­ dinavians and progressive-minded voters. ing the progressives, would leave a clear The fact of widespread Democratic par­ field for Tawney in 1912; if Anderson won, ticipation emerges clearly from the returns. however, he would almost be assured of re- The primary vote in the seven strongest nomination. Desertion of Anderson in favor Anderson counties was considerably larger of Buck did manifest itself on November than the Republican vote in Novem­ 8, but was largely confined to Winona ber, 1908. In Waseca County, with a sub­ County and isolated pockets of disgruntled stantial proportion of Democrats and few standpatters; it did not affect the outcome. Scandinavians, the Repubfican turnout in­ Anderson defeated Buck easily, winning creased by 55 per cent and the Democratic 55.3 per cent of the 33,131 votes cast. An­ vote was cut in half; Democratic support derson increased the Republican share of for Anderson was instrumental in cutting the vote considerably in areas where Taw- Tawney's share of the vote from 71.8 to 35.2 per cent. In Dodge and Fillmore coun­ ties the Republican primary vote exceeded ™ Lanesboro Leader, October 1, 1910. '^ Standpat knifing of Anderson was particularly that cast for both Anderson and Buck in obvious in the town of Chatfield and the village of November, 1910, and in four others it was Wykoff, Tawney strongholds in Fillmore County. more than 80 per cent of that total. The See Lanesboro Leader, September 25, November 12, 1910. ludicrous primary totals for Buck of 4, 20,

Fall 1967 327 and 9 in Dodge, Fillmore, and Freeborn can than Democratic. Most non-Scandina­ counties indicated that not even Democrat­ vian foreigners, particularly Germans and ic election officials and poll watchers voted Poles, tended to vote Democratic. For ex­ their own ticket. One supporter wired Taw­ ample, Wabasha and Winona counties, with ney on election day that "Dem's. here are few Scandinavians and large German and working the 'Anderson racket' for all that (in Winona) Polish populations, were the it is worth," and similar complaints came only counties in the district to support from all parts of the district. ^^ Democrats consistently.*^ The Minnesota primary law, which ap­ Anderson's heaviest vote was polled plied only to local, legislative, and congres­ in counties with large Scandinavian popu­ sional offices, was partly to blame for the lations. Scandinavians were prominent widespread Democratic participation. In among Anderson's campaign workers, and 1910 the Minnesota Democratic party was Norwegian progressives from Wisconsin rent with factional strife over the issue of campaigned for him. Several Tawney sup­ liquor regulation. Had the state-wide of­ porters lamented the solidarity of Scandi­ fices been included in the primary election, navians behind one of their own in the it might have provided a strong deterrent to election. "When a Norsk, Swede, or a Dane voting in the Republican primary. In ad­ calls on the Scandinavians," one remarked, dition, the fact that the primary was open, "it is politics and principle to the devil, as requiring no statement of party affiliation shown by the vote." *- or registration as a party member, made Of the three major factors which deter­ crossover voting extremely easy.^^ mined the outcome — the issues raised by Democratic participation in Republican the progressives, Democratic participation, primaries prior to 1910 seems to have been and ethnic bloc voting — the most crucial commonplace in some parts of the first dis­ role was played by the issues. Tawney's trict, although never before reaching such ability, prestige, and popularity could not runaway proportions. The Democratic con­ gressional candidate in 1908 received totals == J. B. Kendall to Tawney, September 20, 1910, Tawney Papers. of 4, 49, and 11 votes in Dodge, Fillmore, '"Minnesota, General Laws, 1901, p. 297-305. and Freeborn counties compared to Buck's At a special session of the legislature in June, 1912, 4, 20, and 9 in 1910. In those counties no provision was made for "candidates for all elective offices within the state" to be on the primary bal­ Democratic slate existed for local offices; the lot, and the following year a bill providing for pri­ only chance for Democrats to maintain a mary nomination of United States senators was voice in local affairs was to choose between passed. General Laios, 1912, p. 4-22; 1913, p. 756- 758. For a general discussion of the primary laws, rival Republican candidates. This seemed to see William W. Folwell, A History of Minnesota, be the accepted practice, and such candi­ 4:365-374 (St. Paul, 1930). dates openly solicited the votes of Demo­ " The pro-Tawney Preston Times, September 28, 1910, blasted Democratic votes for Anderson but cratic friends and neighbors. Their ballots did not seem to mind those cast for "local favorites" for or against Tawney may have been inci­ among Republican aspirants for local offices. dental to their participation and not the " The application of statistical techniques to the election data points out tlie extent of ethnic voting motivation for it.*'' in the district. By using correlational analysis, the Scandinavian solidarity was also a factor following correlations between Republican vote and in producing a heavy turnout and boost­ the percentage native-born of native parents plus Scandinavian stock was obtained: .861 for 1906, ing Anderson's majority. As in most mid- .748 for 1908, and .835 for 1910. The Scandinavian western states during this era, nationality percentage also correlates strongly with the anti- was a prime determinant of voting behav­ Tawney primary vote. The correlations are .879 for Tawney's opponent in 1908 and .523 for Ander­ ior. In general, American-born Minneso­ son. tans of American parents and voters of '" E. F. Greening to Tawney, September 25, 1910. Scandinavian ancestry were more Republi- See also Earl Stout to Tawney, September 21, 1910, both in the Tawney Papers. 328 MINNESOTA History A comment on the primary by the St. Paul Pioneer Press, September 22,1910

erase the fact that he had aligned himself concurrently with the progressive move­ on the unpopular side of these issues. An­ ment. Tawney represented the old politi­ derson's victory, however, was not a clear- cian — a rigid partisan whose campaigns cut mandate for progressive principles. It is were based on strict party loyalty and whose extremely doubtful, moreover, that the im­ victories were the result of smooth party pressive margin that Anderson polled could organization rather than personal appeal to have been achieved without the extra votes the electorate. In contrast, Anderson's cam­ provided by Democrats and fellow Scan­ paign represented the new political style dinavians. These three factors were closely that emerged in the progressive era. Its ap­ interrelated, and the extent to which the peal was nonpartisan and based on abstract latter two operated in affecting the outcome principles and ideology — popular rule ver­ was in part determined by the force of the sus special interests, democracy versus boss- issues and the sheer vigor of the progres­ ism. Its elements of success included good sive campaign. The magnitude of Ander­ political sense, vigorous campaigning, attrac­ son's victory would have been impossible tive candidates, and at times a sprinkling without any one of the three factors. of demagoguery. Anderson's victory — the The election serves to illustrate the multi- upset of an experienced, talented, and en­ faceted nature of electoral victory in the trenched political veteran by a dedicated progressive era, as well as the triumph of and eager novice through an appeal to the the new type of politics that developed voters in the name of greater democracy — was typical of many which occurred in the THE CARTOON on page 320 is from the Columbus Midwest in 1910 and throughout the pro­ (Ohio) Dispatch, September 21, 1910; other illus­ gressive era. trations are from the society's picture collection.

Fall 1967 329 Copyright of Minnesota History is the property of the Minnesota Historical Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles, however, for individual use.

To request permission for educational or commercial use, contact us.

www.mnhs.org/mnhistory