Senator William E. Borah's Dry Campaign : Its Effect on the Presidential Election of 1928 Emily White Zehmer

University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository

Honors Theses Student Research

1971 Senator William E. Borah's dry campaign : its effect on the presidential election of 1928 Emily White Zehmer

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/honors-theses Part of the Political History Commons

Recommended Citation Zehmer, Emily White, "Senator William E. Borah's dry campaign : its effect on the presidential election of 1928" (1971). Honors Theses. 1081. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/honors-theses/1081

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND LIBRARIES

llll IIll Illllll II lllll lllll llll llll l///llll II llll !!If !!I If!!!!!I 3 3082 01030 8665

SENATOR WILLIAM E. BORAH'S DRY CAMPAIGN:

I 1rs EFFECT ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1928

THESIS For Dr. Frances Gregory In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement of the Degree Bachelor of Arts University of Richmond

Emily vlhi te Zehmor 1971 SENATOR WILLIAN E. BOHAH 1 S DRY Clu1PAIGN: ITS EFFECT on THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION JF 1928

Ernily W. Zeh.'lller April 21, 1971 Senator William E_. Borah's Dry Campaign: Its Effect on the Presidential Election of 1928

Liko many of its predecessors, the campaign fol"' the

Prer;idoncy of the United States in 1928 bor:an months before candidates were nominated and ballots we1"e cast.

'1.'hc Republican Party found itself without a candidate when President Coolidge announced late in the sur.rraer o:r

1927 that he would not seek re-election in the following year. Thero was a slight scramble within Republican ranlrn for the nomination. Among those considered were Senator Charles G. Curt:i.s of' Kansas, majority floor leader, who subsequently was elected Vice-Presid0nt;

Senator Wi.llia.:.'11 E. Borah, the Ida...'-lo Progressive whose role in the campaign is explorer\ hei-'ein; Dr. Nicholas Hurray Butler, President of Columbia University; the

Coolidge Administration 1 s Vice-President, Charles G.

Dawes; and the rugged ind:I.vidualist of considerable experience,. Herbert C. Hoover, Secretary of Com:rnerce since 1920. Hoevel" 1 s pre ... convention carnpaign was evidently the most ei'ficient, and by early spring of that election year, although there had been somo sentiment to draft Coolidge, the Secretary's nomination was a certainty •.l Similarly, long before the Democrats met in Houston, Texas for their National Convont:i.on, the 2

cnoico of Alfred E. Smith, Governor of Now ~~ork, was a .pr>eclusion. Four years. earlier, Smith and Williar11 G. McAdoo, contending for the nomination, had split the D0:r:1ocratic Party along Protestant and Catholic, Northern and Southern, and dry and wot lines. forcing the delegates to compromise by naming John W. Davis, a Wall sti-.ect lawyer whose views wore remarkably Republican in sonti-

ment. The election of 1924. had left the Democratic or-

ganization in shainbles, except in Ne1.. 1 Yorlr, 1.·rherc Smith had been re-elected Governor for a third term, amassing 2 three million more votes than Davis. With their nominees all but chosen in advance, it uas therefore tho primary function of the national party conventions to construct presidential platforms. The Prohibition question .• seems to have been the campaign issue upon which the parties offered the only outstand- ine choice. The election of 1928 was therefore a referendum in this sense, and. in light of the evidence

presented in this paper, made so through the tireless. efforts of Senator Williar.i E. Borah. +o The conversion -e.f!. Prohibition after the ratification of th0 Eighteenth J\ynondrnont to tho Constitution 3 in 1920 was relatively easy, due. to the fact that the sale of hard liquor had been severely restricted during 3

the First World War, and many state govern.-nents had already adapted dry lcgi'slat:!.on. By tho mid-twenties, however, in both wot and dry camps, there was considerable dissatis- faction with the results of national ad.ministration. 'l'he

Volstead Act., ·which provided the dofini tion of intoxicating liquor as pr>ohibi ted by the Amend..'1lent, hMi failed to accomplish its purpose, for bootleggers could easily re-interpret it, however illec;ally, to their ad.vantage. The Prohibition

Bureau, a division of the Offic·e of the Commissioner of In- t01~no.l Hevenue was putty in the hands of poli t:i..cal manipu- la-Cors.4' Not until it 00came an independent agency in 1927 tvt:H'A its agents subject to civil service requirements.

In addition. Senator James B. Reed of Hissouri, himself a :.-ret, had uncovered unsavory poli t:_cal dealinr;s in Penn- sylvania and Indiana, imp1.icating the .two most rcsr;octod tiry and wet lobbies, tho Anti-Saloon League and the As so- ciation Ago.inst tho Prohibition Amendment. Recd was the leader of the vocal wet n1:i..nori ty in 8ongress, whose num- ber substant:ially increased after his report was released in 1926. 5 Pu.rtherr;1or0, the Report of the }'ederal Council of the Churches of 8hi"'is t in iunerica revealed the di visions

m:iong churchgoers over the issue, bluntly stating that a lm~r;e ·majority of the. American people opposed the ~:;ightecnth ll.mendment. The .f\.nt:L-Saloon iieague exerted enough pressure 6 so th~t this report was revised in favor of Prohibition. the original. was widely publicized, and the r.1ost stalwart of the drys) Bishop J • D. Cannonf has 3aid

of .it that, 11 :rfo document had ever been printed which had

been productive of more real harm to the cause of Prohi~ bition.u 7

Prior to the 1928 campaign. the action which provoked the mo."lt controversy between dry and wet: :f'orces was l;he

refGl"'endora. held in New York State in I>1a:v of 1926. A mil 8 lion vote.s ravorod the revision of the Volstead Act to

tho extent that states could deterrr1inc for themselves

the definition of intoxicating liquors. Four years earlier. New York had repealed its state enforcement lm·t,

leaving the nconcurrent Enforcement 11 section of the

Eighteenth A....'11.endrnent open to question. These events in

Hew Yor1{, sanctioned by -che State 1 s politic ally promis- ing, anti-Prohibitionist Gpvernor Smith, and coupled with the disillusionment with Prohibition spreadin.r.s thl'"'.oughout the country, forced the drys to rally. They found their l.eader and most able spokesman in Senator \1illia.rn E.

Borah of Ida.Yio, 't-rho, according to tI. L. Hencken, 11 ai'ter long having been a professional Liberal, is now a pro

11 9 f'essional Prohibitionist.

Sc::.inat.or Borah considered himself a man of principle rather than party. 11 They say I have been a Republican only during campaigns. Well. in ca.m.pa.igns parties are 5

proper and desirable. I haven 1 t felt yet that I should go with the party ago.inst my convictions on questions oi' fundamental policy.n lO Although Boro.h himself' was a teetotaler and fought f'or a national ·:Brohibi tion Amend 11 ment as early as 1914, he would have nothing to do 12 irrit;h the Anti-Saloon League. In his dry campaign, he concentrated not on tho evils of liquor, which he as~rnmed were obvious to h:ts audiences. but on the consti tut:I.onali t:v of' the Eighteenth An1endment and the dangerous precedent repeal would set.

In the sprint:: of 1C126, when the New Yor•k proposals f'or revision of the Volstead Act captured the attention of tho nation. Borah stepped for•ward as tho guardian of the Constitution both in the Senato and out. His co.m- paign to make prohibition a political i'actor in 1928 began ostensibly with '3. speech in BaltimorG to a meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church on the thirtieth of Hay. Although he attacked liquor traf-

11 f ic as a rt cm"'se to hUJ.ilani ty, Bor•ah adm.i tted that the greater question ·was Shall we live up to and enforce that pro vision of the Constitution until in the orderly mothor1 pointed out by the Consti tution H8 see :fit to change it? Can we enforce the law which we have deliborately made? •••• rro disregard our Constitution, to evade it, to nullify it, ·.-rhile still rei'u s ing to change it is to plant the seeds of destruction in tho heart of the nation-- is 6

to con.f'ess bofo::--e tho world that we havo neither th.0 moral courae;e nor the intellec- tual sturdiness :t.'or self-government. 13

Bo1~.ah reacted in this same speech to the New York reforendmn with his nullification argument, which he reit- e2:·ated mo....11y times prior to the November election of 1928.

In the dra..111atic language characteristic of his rhetorical style~ he stated

If this referendun inter1"ogatory has any moaning at all, it is that every state shall determine i'or its elf its m,,m con struction and obligation to the Constitu tion or the United States, and that con struction is to bind tho Federal Govern ment. That doctrine ·was shot to death at the Battle of the Wilderness. 14

Horoovor, in the Senator 1 s address to tho Presbyterian Genorul Assembly, he demanded that candidates .for oi'i'ice declare themselves on the Prohibition question because tho vo0ers had a right to lmo,.r where they stood. Throughout the SU.."l'rrner of 1926. Borah made this plea again and again. In Augusta, Georgia, Borah was once :more the speaker at a rAligious conf.~T>ence, !:hi.~ time thn Protestant Einisters

Association. nif neither of our political parties 1-1il·l take a dA.finite stand, on the liquor question, then let the people organize another pa.rty which will be loyal to the

II 15 Constitution of the United States, hA suggested. In an intervio·w published in the Christian Advocate just prior to his Augusta speeoh, Borsh ·warned that unless 7

tho Republican party as a party talrns a pos:i..tion and puts its prostigo behind enforcement, there will be no enforce ment worthy of thEl. namo, me1~01y skir- 1:lishing botHoen tho lines, always anxious of giving offense to tho drys on one hand l6 and tho i·mts on the othor.

Senator Borah did not coni'ine his speaking engage- mcnts to religiously oriented audiences ~~10 would be alr;'WS t certain to share his viO"wpoint. He scored his r.10st improssivo and widely publicized Prohibitionist victor•y in a debate with Dr. :Nicholas Murray Butler bei'oro the Hoosovelt Club of Boston on April 8, 1927.

A fello~-1 Republican, Butler was nevertheless adamant in

his areuments for repeal. 'lhe two debated the auestion- J 11 Should the Republican national plat:rorm of 1928 advocate l"epeal of the Eighteenth AmendmontZ 11 Both men agreed that the point was not a matter of wet as opposed to dry sentiment {Butler himself was not a drinker), but ua governmental question without the pi-•oper conception and solution of which there could be no ordcr·ly, regulated life for our people. 11 l 7

Te.king the affirmative, Butler argued that the

Eighteenth .Amend."ilent had no place in tho Constitution.

Ilather, it was a

revolut:Lone.ry act which has no likeness to anything in the Cons ti tu ti on, ·which has nothing whatever to do with the form 8

and structure of thei Govornm0nt or with t!:e limi ta ti on of powers, but w:hich is an ordinary :mun:i.c:i.pal lau. operating directly rrnd almost irre- 1rocably upon tho whole body of' our ~itizenship •••• It is a question of State priveleges, State duties, State t J..• responsioi., ·1·t• 1-ies ••• 01"' ~'h e pro ec~ion and preservation of local self government. 18 Butler favored a repeal of' the Eighteenth Amendment and an adaptation of the Canadian systom 01" state liquor control, which abolished private liquor traffic and the saloon, and allowed the sale o:f liquor in limited quant'ities for p;-•ivate use. Sr-m:ltor Borah then stated his position; namely, that It is tho duty of every loyal citizen to u~)hold and maintain that; Constitution until the people sec fit in their wisdmn to cha:nr;e it •••• Eisht years a.go the American people deliberately outlawed int.oxicating liquor for boverago purposes • ••• The American people will never repeal the Eight0enth A:menclrncnt until its enforce ment has had a fair trial. and it has never had a fair trial. Borah went on with his nullification argu:ment and called the proposals for modi:fication of the Volstead Act ripolit- ical expediency to enable candidates to get by the election without tcllin5 what their position is on tho 8ightecnth

Amenc1ri1ent. 11 As for Pepeal, Borah bolieved it would set a dangor>mJs precedent a.._'1.d 1:ould result in tho inevitable re- turn oi' the saloon. He. then directed a question to Dr.

11 Butlor 1 s suggestion of state controlled Prohibition. Do 9 you think tho liquor tra.ffic in this country would lie dm·m, surrender, be good, and satisfy the law under goverrunent control? Not at all. 11 Borah would direct the Republican Party to ndeclare for the Amendment and :for its onfo1"comcnt.... It will be time enough for the Republican Party to dcclarE for repeal when the Repub lican Party has really tried to enforce it. 11 l9

In rebuttal, Butlor)quoting Borah 1 s states 1 rights stand on ·wmnen 1 s suff'rage by which the Senator had argued against the l·Jineteenth l®cncl_rnent, asked why the same ar•gnment was not npplicable to Prohibition. Borah replied, giving credence to the accusations of inconsistency made 20 by his critics, that the Statss which wanted 1-romen 1 s

::rni'frage could have it without Constitutional amend._ment. Because wet states shipped liquor into dry ones, however, national laws were needed to enforce Prohibition. Butler th0n inquired if the ·wet states were not then deprived 'J:f their rights. Borah returned wi tb the il~refutable logic that, 11 Wet states can ship wet into the dry states, but

.... ' 21 i...110 dry states cannot s~p dry into the wet .. n 22 According to Butler, it was .one o:f the conditions of the debate that there be no decision as to its outcone. Yet the event was so widely publicized that +.h.ere vrnre several sots of unofficial judges. Those representing the Boston Herald-- four wet, four dry, n.nd one neutral-- 10

ge:.ve the vex•dict to Senator Borah, 23 as did the editors -" · l 11~ y , T . 2h O.L 't :io J.•JGW or.c · ime s. · Commentators found similarities between the Butler-Borah contest and the Lincoln-Douglas debates on sla1rnry. It was suggested that, like the slc.very qUP-f-ltionj Prohibition be submitted to the voters in the i'orm of a Presidential 3lection, 25 exactly as Borah intended.

After Coolidgc 1 s announcement that he would not run again, Borah 1 s name appeared on the list of potential Re- pnbJi.can candidates for iq28. Editorials in both wet and dry periodicals congratulated the Senator on his attempt and apparent success in proj~cting the enforcement of

Prohibition into the PrP.!'li dontial campaign. I1he lTew

B..£.nublic, albeit humorously, suggested that the election rest solel-:r on the Prohibition issue, with Senator Borah and conservationist Gifford Pinchot on one ticket, opposed 26 by Dr. Butler and H. L. I1cnckon on the other. There were niore serious speculations that Borah would keep his promise made in Augusta, Georgia. to organize a third party. According to some sources, Borah had tho largest personal following of any man in American public life. As the nominee of' a Prohibition party, he would be Likely to car1"'y the dry South and tho libei"'al, Progressively oriented 1:lest whose favorite son he was. Borah1 as a dry ca..11.didate.; ·would therefore sto.nd a good chance of election bcca\J.so tho :Um:10- crat heir apparent; Smith and whomever the Republicans riiight 11 choose would split the Eastern vote. 27 Ther•e was also considerable support among the remains of La Folletto 1 s

Progr•essive Pa1•ty for Senator tiorah 1 s co.ndj_do.cy. Hoy

Kc..igi the leader of this faction in Borah 1 s native Idaho. hoped that Progressive support would strengthen the Sena 28 tor ls chances for the Republican nomination. Despite the conjectures made concerning his motives,

Borah himself was appa1'ently indifferent to the idea of campaigning :for the Presidential nomination. He preferred to be t.he pm·rnr behind the convention, as indeed he p1'oved to be. He allowed his name to be used to win the Progrcs- sives over to tho Republican ranks, according to his biog raphe~. 29 Purthermore, the national prominAnce his dry carn.paign had won for him gave him sufficient influence to write several planks of the Reublican platform, inclui- ing that concerned with Prohibition, and virtuallyt to name their candidate. Borah began his search for a Republican candidate in Feb1.,uary of' 1928 in a highly unorthodox manner. In lettci-•s to each of the leading aspirants, he asked:

Do you favor incorporating a spe cific plank pledging the party to vigorous endorsement of' the Eighteenth 1l.mendment and la·ws enacted to carry it into ci'fect? What is your attitude and what ·would be your attitude toward the Amendment and its enforcement in case you are 12

nominated and elected? Do you favor into law of the prin ciple embodied in the New York refer endum?

Do you favor repeal of the Eighteenth 30 l.\Jnodment or o.f the Volstead Act?

The i->esponse which evidently brought the most sat is- f o.ction to Borah was that of Herbert Hoover. In a reply quoted :>ften in the ca.;;ipaign and afterwards, Hoover stated that he did not favor repeal and that Prohibi- tion was ua groat social and economic experiment, noble in motive, far reaching in purpose. It must be worked

1 out constructively. ' 3l These words reve~led a politic al

cunning in Hoover 1 s nature; he h;tad left himself open i'or revision short of re~eal, ~1ereby totally alienating nei 2 ther d1"'ys nor wets. Hoover 11.nd Borah conferred often 3 in the spring of 1928, and it was understood that they agreed on important matters of policy and campaien strategy. Borah, havinc; skillfully ::maneuvered the P:-ohibition issue into the campaign liI11elight, was the author of the

£0publican ?arty 1 s plank concerning it. Undc1~ the guise

11 11 1 0 ..L-"' T·"''·'.U"'-·• '<'n-"'ov·cc.,,.,,Ant-"" .J.. ... • •••, , the section reiterated Borah s constitutional argu.."'lcnt, buttressed with quotations fro1n

Gem-·ge ·vlashington n.nd Abrahai.11 Lincoln. 13

We aff'irm the American Constitu tional Doctrino as announced by George Washington in his Farewell Addressf to wit:

firer..tne C ons .<..01. • .t.vu:i.on • w~h• ::i..c h a t any tune" c::::ists until changed by the explicit and authentic act by the whole people is sacredly obligat()ry upon all.n

We also reaffi1"m the attitude of the American pooplA toward the Federal Con- s ti.tu tion as declared by Abraham Lincoln:

nwe a.Po by both :!.uty and inclination bound to stick by that Constitution in all its letter and spir>it from beginning tonend. I am f'ot> honest enforcement of the Constitution. Our safety, our liberty depends upon presor·ving the Const:i'tution of the United States, as our forefathers mado it inviolate." Tho pAople, through the method pro vided by th0 Cons ti tu ti on have tvri tten th0 X~igh.tee:.-1th J1,mendmont into the Consti b1tion. rL1l1.e Republican Part~f pledges itself and its nominees to the observance and vir;orous enf.orccr11ont of this provi sion of the Constitution. 11 33

Despite Senator Borah 1 s over1.. ihe1ming influence at the

Rcpublice.. n convention, his former adversary, Dr. Butler, a ttcrr11)ted to introduce a proposal for repGal of the Pro- hi bi ti on Arnendment. Al though the Comrni ttee on Resolutions ignored it, they a.id allow him five minutes in which to read and suppol"t an amendment to the .platform. Dutler substituted fol" Borahls plank a declaration rea1'fii-•:ming the principles of the Republican ?arty as established in the 1G6ors, and asking .for the earliest posnible repeal of the Eighteenth A:mendment. Al though Butler 1 s proposal was voted down almost as quickly as it was read, he ad mitted later 34 that the vote was much closer than he had expected. Nevertheless. Borah had once a.gain over- ridden Butler, and it we..s the 1928 convention which

definitely put the Republican Party on the side of the Amendment. If Borell had forced the Prohibition issue, the Demo- c:eats ha.d no choice but to make a stand. Prior to the campaign, although Al Smith was all but formally nominated, thei->c was a split within Democratic ranks over the question. The division only increased when Smith made his views clear after he was officially their candidate. Senator Robert L. Owen of Oklahoma, a dry Democrat. i->o- cognized that tho Republican ?arty was nattemptinr; to use it[ProhibitionJas a means of splitting ourparty. 11 35

Yet William G. Hc.Adoo, who had lost the nomination in

192L~ because of his very adamacy on the question, wel-

cor:1cd the opportunity for his pax•ty to take a position.

Agreeing Hi th Senator Borah, 1foAdoo stated in an inter-

the kind of question upon which

parties th.at appeal f'or votes should have a policy, and

above s.11, doclo.ro a policy. 11 Deciding upon a policy, hOi·revor, was anoth<)r matter.

Form01" Senator Oscar Underwood of jl.laomna felt that a 15 nominee favoring repeal would rally liberal forces in tho cOUtJ.try, even in the South. 11 ·:rh0re are many people in the South who recognize the c.vils of this thing (Prohibi tion] , many otho1""s who do not favo1., constitutional P1"'0- hibition, and then there are just those who are regular in their par-ty allegiancc.n 37 Governor Albert C. Ritchie of' I·iaryland, a wet, agreed with McAdoo, the Pro-

4 l" 0 • .:.. ~ 'l • 1 II 1 • • , • 11i. 'o i• c nJ_s v, t'l1 ,,:, -c' .._vl e :Ls sue I· as some t ...1ing in wnic h -c ' h e AmePican people are concerned abo.ve any or all political questions you might mention. I cannot see how we can 8 evade i"t • 11 3 Th0 dry faction of the Democratic Party, howeve'l'.', was equally insistent. Edwin T~ Marshall, Wilson 1 s Secretary of Agriculture, declared that the Democrats needed tho West to win in 1928.

Prohibition has be0n fo"tmd not only good for the fireside but for the ractory and the farm. The proof of the Prohibition pudding, as the West has experionced it, is in the eco nomic eating. Any Democrat ·who does not stand four-square for Prohibition, not only foi-> law enforcement, must abo.ndon hope •••• 39 Another dry, Senator Carter Glass of Virginia, was in favo1" of keeping the Prohibition question out of the election altogether. He upheld that the South would not re jcct Smith on Roma...'l'"l Catholic grounds. Virginia, after all, was the home of Thomas Jefferson, author of the state 1 s Statute of Religious Freedom. Yet, i1' 16

Sr:iith nhould run as a wet, he would be 11 badlv beaten in

0 Vl•1..,r•' t:,ln l a, \,DO~o uOUCl tl - J. anQ"'h "C e COUilvry.._ •'lt Tho Eighteenth

Amendment and the Volstead Act, Glass argued, were not en2,ct,0d in response to any party declaration. rl'hc Demo- c1"'2~t;s therefore had no obligation to transform them into party issues. Furthermore, the President o.lone could not change the Constitution or the Volstead Act. 'rhere- fore,

1'I'ny then cormni t a Democratic presiden tial candidate to a cou1..,se which, ii' elected, ho could little, if at all, effect; particularly when t0 do so would cause him to be rejected, if not bitterly repudiated by millions of voters in the surest Democratic States who might otherwise vote for him? 40 Senator Glass and the former Secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels, drafted th0 Democratic platform's plank concerning Prohibition. Like tho Republican tenet, it

·was ::.1asked under the euphemism, 11 Law .Enforcement. 11 While echoing the constitutional argu."ilont set down by Senator

Boro.h, the Democrats unabashedly blamed the Republican a~;1inistrations for the increasi11~ disrespect and disro- gl~rd for ~he .A.rr..en&nent and i.ts corollaries: Tho Republican Party, for eight years in complete control of the governr.1ont at Washington, presents the remarkable spec~ tuc1e o:f :reeling compelled in its national platform to promise obedience to a provi sion of (~he .f0de1"'al Constitution -:-:hich it 17

has flagrantly dispegardod and to apol ogize to tho country for its failure to enforce laws enacted by the Congress of' tho United States. Speaking for the ne:tional Domocracy, this convention pledges the Party and Lts nominees to an honest effort to enforce the Eigh teenth Amendment and all the other provisions of the federal Constitution t.nd all laws enacted pursurant thereto. 41

'fi1.e Dcn1oc1"ats, having compromised on tho Prohibi- tion ouostion in favor of the d1~ys, evidently hoped to straddle both sides of the issue by runnine a candidate

~-Jhose past record was i·Jet on a constitutionally arguedJ

Prohibitionist platf'orm. Smith, however, im.'11.ediately rnado this position more awkward. Accepting his nomination by telegram, he stated that he was 11 known to support fu.'1.da.1'!1ental changes in the px'ovisions for national Pro- hibition, based on the principles of Jeffersonian democ- racy,:r and that he felt it his duty to point the people of tho country in that dirc3ction. L1.2 Thus, be.fore the election ca.1'!1paign had actually bogU.t"1., Senator Borah 1 s introduction of the Prohibit.ion question had hopeles[3ly divided his Democratic opponents while rallying Progres- sives, Southorners, and Westerners to his 01-m Republican dry cause.

:rhe campaign itself, of just six weeks duration, was bi ttcr and virulent. 'l'hore was not as much emphasis on individual party platforrns as there was on the personal habits and characteristics of the candidates themselves. 18

Smith and Hoove1" 1 s diverse backgrounds lont thomsolven to obvious comparisons. Hoover, a quaker born on an Iowa far•ra, ll:Dccrune a successful engineer, whoso personal for- tlme was r·oportodly worth four million dollars at the beginning of World War I. 43 Tho War increased Hoover's political ·fori~1me!'t ~ubstantially. He handled the r0patri- ation of American citizens stranded in Europe, and later headed the Pood 1\c'Jministration Office, which urged Pro- hibition as a means of conserving grain. Following the

Uar•, he had served eight years as Secretary of Comm.o.rco, and there ho gained the ti tlo which was a virtual earn- paign slogan in 1928, n11.rchitect of Prosperity.n Prior to ig28, he had been engaged in many numanitarian efforts.

According to Andrew Sinclair, the Presidential campaign elevated his rugged individualism and self-sufficiency to politic al uhilosophy. l.r,J_~

Lilrn Hoover, Alfred E. Smith was also a self-made rirnn. Bo;:·n of Irish im..Tiligrant par8nts on New York 1 s 10H0r

East Side, he had 1-.rorlred his way t.Lp through lfo·w York politics via the Tamra.any Hall macJ-1ino. Al though his Tammany associations 1.-:ore a definite liabili t.y in national politics, his campaign advisors believed Smith's liberal record would overcome them. His Catholicism was an.othcl"' matter. .-\.'!J.ti-Catb.olic propaganda was rampant both prior

• !- ' to and iuring the ca.rnpn.gin. Having foreseen religious f ~eJ<-<-ci. '"" ~ 19

as n possible obstacle to the Presidency, Smith had replied in no uncertain terms to Protestant critics of his Catholicism in a response to :in articie appearing in the Atla:r1tic Honthly in Ap1"il of 1927. Later, the periodical published his reply:

••• I recognize no povrnr in the institution of mv chm'"'ch to intorf'ere with tho ouoration of the Consti.tution of' the United States or the enforcement of the law of: the land. I believe in absolute freedom of' conscience for all :men, and in equality of all churches, all sects before the law as a matter of right. 46

It cannot be denied that Al Smith's views on prohi bition provided a mask for the religious bigo'Fi;y practiced by sorae Americo.n voters. Yet Richard Hofstadter, in a study conducted in 1960 when a Democratic Catholic sue-

ccssfully ran f'or Pi-1 esident, c.oncludod that religious bias was tho deciding factor in only six states in 1928. If Smith had carried these states. all in the South, and even tho :few Northern states where his vote comprised more than forty-five per cont of the total, he still would not have had enough electoral 1.1otes to win. 47 Durine the ca.'llpaign, Hoover repudiated all anti-Catholic sentiment. Senator Borah cancelled an engagement to

speak at a !·lethodis t ministers f conf'erence in Peoria, Illinois on September 28, 1928, when a. minister in at- tondancc stated that Smithts candidacy should be de- nounced from every h"'otesta..'l'lt pulpit in the country. fJ 20

It is -perhaps more significant that Smith did not curry his ~ative state in the Presidential election, although

New Yorke.rs had had no qualms about sending a Catholic to the Governor 1 s Mansion at Albany. There wer·e other reasons why they a.nd the voters in othe!> states did not send Smith to th0 White House. Of these, the Democratic candidate 1 s anti-Prohibitionist sta..l'ld seems to ha.ve been the foremost. According to the LiterG.I>J Digest, survey- ing the nation 1 s editors just before Smith was nominated, n 'che one thinr: in a long and detailed discussion of cam- paicn issues that will stick on the public from now t.ill 9 1Jovomber 11 was .Smith's plan for state liquor control. 1-1.

As the campaign progressed, it was not Smith who made tho issue so indelible, but Senator William Borah. On September 20, 1928, Borah made the first of many stops on the campaign trail. His speech had been antici-

})D.tcd by the press to suc11 an extent that it was somcthine of a disappointment. 11 [Roaring] as gently as any suckling dove, 11 50 Boro..h praised Hoove1.. ts 3xper:i.ence and tho cic;ht years of' Republican prosperity to a Detroit audience. In reference to the Prohibition question, he ridiculed Smith 1 s acce1ycance speech and th0 Governor 1 s denial in an Oma...11.a speech thn.t P1.. ohibi tion t·ms an is~»UG. Tho Senator's sarcasm ::lrcw great laughter from a respon- sive audience. 51 21

Borah 1 s forensic ability evidently gained momentum as the carnpaign wore on. His speech in Minneapolis on

the third of October was nresentcd to an audience of twelve thousand in the auditorium, and was broadcast throughout tho Hidwest via radio. He criticized Smith for saying he would lBave the question of the St. Law rence ':!aterway to Congress. adding. irwerd better have an engineer f'or President. 11 He defended Hoover on Smith 1 s charges of corruption during Harding's administration with a caustic reference to Smith's rarnrnany associations. He reminded his rurally oriented audience once again of

Smith 1 s Eastern, urban background. The climax of his speech was effectively understated, interrupted by ap- plause :Crom the crowd. 111-Jow, if it is not too late, I am going to say a word or two about ProhJ.bition •••• All those plans and schemes talked of •• , can accomplish but one thing, and that is the nullification, not the repeal, 2 of' the Eighteenth .4.mendmont. 11 5 Later in the campaign, after his resounding success in the Hiddle \fast, Borah invaded the traditionally Demo- era.tic South. He was probably chosen to fight Hoover's battles here because of his states 1 l"ights record on the worn.en' 8 suffrage question and h:i.s controversial interp!"e- tation of the F'ifteenth Amcn&ncnt. Borah had supported the Southern conservatives 1 exclusion of Negro voters on 22

the groi.mds that state officials were in a :ictter position to determine &"'ld sot qualifications for suffrage than was the federal c;ovorn.vn.ont. lit must be romombo1"cd tho.t fow of Bo1'ah 1 Ei Idaho constituents were black men.) Inclood,clriu.cLi'(l..s

Johlrnon har-i called the SenatnY' tho 11 greatest living ex pon0nt of states' rights.a 5'3 In respect to Borah 1 s nullification arguments, this evaluation is a paradox, but perhpas it is also a tribute to the Senatorts political .finesse.

In Dixie, Borah devoted his speeches to Prohibition,

Tammany Hall, a.11d GovernOl" Smith 1 s proposals to extend im- migration quotas. Speaking in Charlotte, North Carolina, he put these question8 to his audience, which responded to each with a resounding denial. 11 Docs Governor Smith s tan_d for anything i'forth Ca1..,olina wants? Do you want

T::m1~nany Hall moved fro:n New York to Washington, the repeal of' Prohib:t tion, and the letting dm·m of ir:nnigration bm."'s?rr 54 Borah asked tho same of audiences in Nashville,

Chattanooga, and Ric:b...mond.. When the returns were in,

North Carolina~ Virginia, and Tennessee were only a frac- tion oi' t!.1.ose states in the Republican colur.m.

'11he morning after the election, it uas clear that all of th0 dire predictions inado by Senator Glasr.• Senator

Owen, and Secretary I··1arshall were true. Smith rs percen- tage of the popular vote was substantially larger than 23

that obtained by his fellow Democrats in tho two proceed- ing Prosidontia.1 campaigns. 55 Indeed, six million more

votes had been cast for Smith than for any other Demo-

Cl"atic candidate until that time, roughly 15,016,000 in 6 all.5 Nevertheless, Smith's electoral vote tallied eighty-seven, cornpared with Hoover's four-hundred-forty-

:Lour, and Hoover's popular vote was an overwhelming 57 21 1 000,000 votes.

\.-/hat wa~~ the decisi.ve factor? Smith hiI1sclf at- triouted his failtn'e to win the election to his Cathol- icism and tho economic prosperity which the Republicans 8 claimed as o. credit to themselves alone.5 Yet Hof- stadter has shown with substantial proof that Hoover won elector·al victories resul·Ginr: from anti-Catholic oias in only six states. Furthermore, Hofstadter contended that even a Protestant could not have beaten

Hoover in 1928 because of the well established association of the Renublican Party with the boomin.P-.: economy. 59

Prospel"'i ty, however., had been a factor in the 192u election. and does not al togethel" explain the .fact that

Smith. rocei ved scventy-fi ve por cent more votes than ~d D . 60 h ~ avis. PeJ."'haps the most significant statistic of the 1925 election, with the exception of the electo1.,al tally, was the record nmnber of votcl''S who ca.me to the polls. Seven 61 million more ballots were cast i.n 1928 than in 1924. Distributed somewhat differently, bhese seven rnillion votes could have m·rung the election to Smith. Tho fact that he received only fifteen per cent of these r1ncw vote~~ :t is proof that the Republican organization ·was

·woll cons true ted~ T'ne engineer responsible for its con- struction was not the former professional who was elected President, but the professional Prohibitionist, William E. Borah, Senator from Idaho.

Senator Borah had introduced into the c~mpaign its only actual issue; furthermore, ho had persisted until his party had adopted his Prohibitionist viewpoint.

Ee had taken over for Hoover on the campaign trail where Hoover's conservative views were not so popular.

Borah 1 s liberalism app0aled to formel... Progressives who

had bolted in 1924, and it brought them back into the Republican fold. It kept Republice.ns of similar mind

·who might have been tempted to vote for the liberal

Smith .fron1 doing. so. On the other hand, Bo1"ah 1 s states' rights record attract0d Southernors, who welcomed hi1-:i more warmly than they did Hoover.t and therefore voted for the Republican Prohibitionist stand with clearer consciences. 25

The Re1:iublican National Chairman, l·lill Hays, said after the election that Senator Borah, "exerted a greater influence upon the electorate tho.n 11ms ever befor>e exer 62 cized by a human V'oice in a political car:ipaign. 11 Y:rs.

Henry l'eabody. Prohibition crusader of 'Massachusetts, a.grend that Borah had led the cmnpaign, and had rendered invaluable service to his country. $3 From the evidence presented in this paoer. it may well be concluded that

Senator William E. Borah did more than any other man, with the possible. exception of' He1.,bert Hoover himself, to assure a RApt1hlican and Prohibitionist victory in NOTES

1 .i:\..ar-~ 1 S cnrix-cgiesser,' • ,... • • rmuu.s • 1,:ia.s .l\orma1;r 1 cy_, hn'I .:1.ccoun~ t of ?arty Politics Durin .,_ Twelve· Hepublican Years: 19-20- 1932 (Boston, 194

2 Anclre~·J' Sinclair, Prohibition, The Era of' Excess (Boston, 1962), 298.

3 U. •. °i..). ' Conn·[-~~u~i·on~ J.l .. l,; v ' Ai.~ondm0nt XVIII: SECTION 1. After one year from the ratification of tl'lis article the ma...'Ylufacture. sale, or transportation of intox:icating liquors within , the importation thereof in to, 01"' tho exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

SECTION 2. The Cone;ress and the sev<~ro.l States shall have concUl"'l"'ent powel" to enforce this article by appropri ate legislation. SECTION 3. Tnis article shall be inoperative unless it shall havo been ratified as an amen&nent to the Con stitution by the legislatures of the several States, as ~)rovidod in -cn.e Constitution, within seven years from th0 date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

L~ Sinclair, Era of Excess, 288.

5 Ibid.~ 350. 6 Ibid., quoting the Report, 291.

7 .r. Cam'lon, Bishop Cannon's O-t,m Story {Duke Univer sity, 1955), 357.

8 Claucn.us" o. Johnson, Borah of Idaho (Hew Yorl~, 1936), q_1J.oting the Neu York referendum, 44.

9 Henry Lewis Hencken, 11 '11he Strupglc Ahead:i (Pecombe1" 5, 1927), re})rinted in A Carnival of Buncomb~ Halcom l

11 Johnson, Borah of Idaho, 177. lC. Pringle, nrrhe Roal Senator> Borah, 11 141-!-• J,3 Now York Ti~es, May 31, 1926.

14 Ibid.

l.5 uBorat-i 1 s New Dry Party, 11 Literary Digest (July 31, 1926) XC, No. 5, 9. 16 Jolmson, Bor>o.h of Idaho, quoting from the inter view printed in the Christian Advocate ( J·uly 1L1., 1926), Li.J,.5.

l7 IHcholas l:lur·ray Butler, Across the Bus. ~car?._, Recollections and Reflections (New York, 19 O , II, 34.0. 16 New York 1l1i111es, A:pri1 9, 1927.

19 Ibid.

20 11 Pringle, 11 The Real Senator Borah, 133. 21 Ne·u York Times, Ap1"il 9, 1927. 22 Butler, Busy Years, II, 3~.0-3L~l.

23 nme Butler-Borah Debe.te on Prohibition, 11 Literary Dip,est (April 23, 1927), XCIII, No. 4, 10.

24 Wm·r Yor:-t Times, April 11, 1927.

25 11 The Butler-Borah Debate, 11 Outlook (April 20, 1927) , CXLV, No. 16, 2.

26 11 Prohibition as an Issue, 11 The New ReDublic (Docembc1" 21, 1927), LIII, Ho. 681, 128. 2 7 t;Drv Party, 11 Lit. Dig., quoting Mark Sullivan, ;i. 28 Jolmson, Borah of Idaho, 1~17. 29 Ibid., ~.18. 30 Senator William E. Borah, WashinGton, n. C., to Herbert c. Hoover, Washington D. c., February 23, 1928, Ibid., 419.

3l He1... b0rt C.. Hoover, Washington, D. C. , to Sena tor \'lilliam E. Borah, 1-Jashington, D. c., February 25, 1928,

Ibid. 9 l1.20. 32 Ibid., u21.

33 Kirk H.. Porter and Donald Bruce Johnson, comp., Nationi:tl ?arty Platforms 1811-0-1960 (University of Illi nois, 1961), 28d.

34 Butler, Busy Years, 341 •

., ,-J :>:::> rrwill tho Democrats Make Prohibition tho Issu0? 11 Literary Direst (October 15, 1927), XGV, Ho. 3, 7. 36 Ibid., 7-8.

37 Ibid., 8.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid.

~.O Senator Carter Glass, "Could Smith Be Elected? its a Catholic, Yes! l'i.s a w·et, Nol 11 The l'uncrican RevieH of Revimvs (Hay, 1927) LXX:J, Ho. 5, ~:77. Glass actually uses tho Jeffersonian tradition to support his argurnontl

41 Porter and Johnson, Platfo:ems, 276-277.

42 New York Times, September 22, 192 8 •

43 Sinclair, Era of Excess, 293. Sinclair, Era of Excess, 293-291..1..

4.5 Schriftgiesser, Normalcy, 251.

46 Ib:id., 252.

L~? Richard Hofstadter, "Could a Protestant Have Beaten Hoover in 1928? 11 The Reporter (March 17, 1960). XXII, No. 6, el.

48 Jolmson, Borah of Idaho, L1.28.

L~9 11 Smith 1 s Plan for State Liquor Control, 11 Literary Digest (September 19, 1928), XCVIII, No. 9. 5.

50 11 Borah ts Debut. 11 Outlool-c (October 3, 1928), CLVIII, No. 5, 893.

5l Johnson, Borah of Idaho, L~25.

52 Ibid., 425-426. Also, Hew York Times, October 4, 1928.-

.53 Johnson, Borah of Idaho, 1711.•

54 Ibid., !i9o."

5S Hofstadter, aProtesta.nt in 1928?tr, 33, gives Cox 34 .• 1, Davis 23.8, and Smith L~O per cent of the total vote in 1920, 1924, and 19?8. Similar figures were derived by Schrifteiesser; Normalcy, ?Ml.

56 Hofstadter, 11 Protestant in 1928? ir, 33.

S7 SchPiftgiesser, Normalc:y, 260.

58 Ibid., 261. t:;g Hofstadter, 11 Protestant in 1928?", 33.

60 Ibid. 61 Schriftgies~er, Normalcy, 260. 62 Johnson, Borah of Idaho, 430. 6 3 ~.,r ·a L'~8~t.J * SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. PRIMARY SOD-:RCES

Butler, Nicholas Murray) Across the Busy Yeurs, Recol lections and Hefloctions, 2v •• New York~ 19L1.0.

A very informative, althouQ;h lengthy work, Dr. Butler is autobiography devotes a chapter to his views on P1"'chibition and his debate with Borah, whom he hold in high esteem.

Cannon, J., Jr., Bishop Can11.on 1 s 01-m Story. Duke Uni versity, 19)5.

Bishop Cannon 1 s devotion to thA Prohibi t:i.on cause is thoroughly discussed in his book, and provides o.n insight in-to the Southern .Protestant mind and the issue • .L -c was valuable backgr•ound reading for this pa1;er, al though not necessarily po1~tinent to Senator Borah.

Current :History, YJ{IX (September, 1928-April. 1929).

Va.Pious articles written prior to and after the election -were interesttng, 9.lthough moRt 1-rnre too short to be of any great help.

Glass, Carter, '1 Could Smith Be Elected? As a Catholic, 1 Yes l :\s a Wet, Nol 11 I1he Arnorican Rovi«:iw of Heviews, L.~r..v, No. 5 (Hay, 1927), 477-479.

Glass ts article proves to be a prelude to the Demo cratic nlatform ulank an Prohibition. He prohesics Smith's defeat qui to acc~"'ately, and apparently, with little regret. J"ohnson, Claudius o., Borah of Idaho. New York, 1936. Johnson, acco1""cling to his prcf'a.ce, t·ms gi von access to the Scnator 1 s nrivate paners in order to write this biography, w11ich ;ms publislY'il -rrmr years before tho Senator 1 s dee.th. Although he is evidently an admirer oi""' Borah, Johnson writes objectively.

Literary Digest, 1926-1928.

'i'his par'.ticular nows magazine was a valu.able source ol' quotations from vario1.lS smaller newspapers around the country. Its covero.ge of the Butlor>-Borah debate was most complote, containing pract:Lco.lly the entire text.

1 i I·Iarch of Events n World 1 s Wor-k LVIII (Novembcr- Decem.ber, 1928r,-No. 2-,-117-118. '

In its analysis of the election, ~dorld 1 s Hork con cludes that the Democratic a.."1d Rppublican platforms were not decisively different. Rather, the question turned on Prohibition, as this paper proposes, and Hoover had the good for•tuno to take the :ri1ost popular stand.

Hencken, Hem,y Lewis, A Carnival of Bu..ncombe. Halcom JvJ:oos, ed. Baltimore, i956.

'11his is a collection of Menc1cen 1 s articles com posed frrnn 1920 through 1932. Hencken rarely mentions Borah, but heo.ps scorn upon him when he docs. As a ~' taunch suppor•ter of Smith, I·foncken devotes many words o~ praise to him.

Nei:.-r York Times, 1926-1928.

1rhe flamboyant Senator Bora_h. provided front page copy for the 1fow York 'rimes during this period, and thei-•efore the paper was an invaluable primary source.

•:ehe Outl-ook, 1926-1928. Decid0dly Republican and ?rohi"'oi tionist, this pcr·iocJ.icr..l devoted much space to Senator Borah ts dr7Jr cmnpaign.

Po'.!."ter, KiY'l( H. and Dono.ld Bruce Joh.rison, compilers, N~J..tional ?arty Platforms, 1£31~.0-1960. University of Illinois, 1961.

Porter and Johnson have collected the Presidential Ple.tfm'ms of every rriajor r..nd significant minor party :luring period. ':L1hcre are no editorial coi:m:nents.

11 Prohioition as an Issue, 11 'I'he lfo·w He-public, LIII, (1927) No. 681, 12~-129.

Th,is edito1'ial in the wet, pro-Smith journal con Gl"8.tulatcs Senator 3ora11 on brinr,inc Prohibition into t~ie co..rnpait;n, and is proof of the high ree;ard felt by ooth wet and dry forces fer the Senator. B. SECONDARY SOURCES

Hofstadter, Richard, 11 Could a Protesta.'l'lt Have Ben.ton 11 Hoover in 1928? , ri:he Reporter, XXII (1960), No. 6, 31-33. Hofstadter concludes that it was the economic pr'osperi ty of 1920-1928 which defeated Sm:i.th. Prohi bition. he believes, was the Democrat 1 s ::inly issue, and it lost him. more votes than it gained. His Hork is helpful in its statistical analysis of the election.

'dri tten in the waning years oi' Prohibition and devoting consid.e:r>able space to Senator Borah's speeches, Hortz 1 !'l book was extremely good in its evaluation of Borab 1 s role from an anti-Prohibitionist viewpoint.

P1"ingle, H. :f:'., 11 The Real Senator Bora...li., 11 World's Work, LVIII (November-December, 1928), Wo. 2, 133-llilJO. Pringle does not seem to take Borcli seriously; his article has the flavor of a caricatu1.,e. It ·was published just ufter the 1928 campaign, but does not emphasize the Senator's role therein. Schrii'tgiosser, Karl, This Was Hormalcy; An Account of Part. Politics Durin Twelve Republican Years, 1~20-32. Boston, 19 • Schriftgiesser admits his liberal tendencies in the fox•1·rnrd of his book; nevertheless his coverage is solid. Although there is little reference to Senator Borah, the book contains illuminating portraits )f Smith and HooveT'. Sinclair, Andrew, Prohibition, The Era of Excess. Bos ton, 1962. Sinclair has perhaps written the definitive ·Hork on the Prohibition era. His book is a8 entertaining as it is in.formative, and surveys the issue from its nine teenth century origins through the Repeal of the Eight eenth Amendment.