Upstate Republicans and Political Reform in New York State, 1906-1927

City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Dissertations and Theses City College of New York 2015 The Long Road: Upstate Republicans and Political Reform in New York State, 1906-1927 Todd Leskanic CUNY City College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cc_etds_theses/361 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] The Long Road: Upstate Republicans and Political Reform in New York State, 1906-1927 Todd Leskanic Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts of the City College of the City University of New York Anne M. Kornhauser, Faculty Advisor August 10, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 HISTORIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 8 UPSTATE REPUBLICANS AND THEIR DISCONTENTS .................................................................. 12 THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1915 ............................................................................. 27 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ 48 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................ 54 Introduction A tenacious brand of conservatism, often overlooked in histories of the Progressive Era, remained active and powerful in New York State well into the second decade of the twentieth century. Republicans from upstate counties and cities held power amidst the rising progressive tide and hindered its progression well into what most historians classify as the Progressive Era. A basic tenet of progressive ideology was the creation of powerful executives at the expense of legislatures. Mired in politics, the thinking went, these large bodies could no longer effectively deal with the economic and social realities caused by the rise of big business and corporate capitalism. Progressive Era political thinkers saw the answer in creating powerful governors able to command an army of commissions and boards. Staffed with experts, these boards and commissions would regulate the corporate giants without interference from legislatures. This scheme might blur the line between the executive and legislative branches, but it would also achieve the efficiency and accountability so desired by political scientists, legal thinkers, and reformers.1 1 Edwin L. Godkin, “The Decline of Legislatures,” in Unforeseen Tendencies of Democracy (New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1898), 96-144; H. Gerald Chapin, “Our Paternalistic Tendencies,” University Law Review 191 (April 1897): 191-195; David B. Hill, “We Are Too Much Governed,” The North American Review 170 (March 1900): 367-383; Samuel P. Orth, “Our State Legislatures,” Atlantic Monthly, December 1904, 728-39; George W. Alger, “Executive Aggression,” Atlantic Monthly, November 1908, 577-84; Richard L. McCormick, From Realignment to Reform: Political Change in New York State, 1893-1910 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981), 19; John Whiteclay Chambers II, The Tyranny of Change: America in the Progressive Era 1890-1920, 2nd ed. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992), 141; Robert H. Wiebe, 1 Progressives in general and progressive Republicans in particular found a political battleground when they attempted to bring wholesale change to New York State government. To be sure, progressive Republicans succeeded in implementing some reforms under Governor Charles Evans Hughes (1906-1910), most notably the establishment of two Public Service Commissions to regulate the state’s public utilities. But they were unable to push through their larger agenda of political reform, which centered on the executive budget, government consolidation, and the short ballot. That honor went to the Democrats a decade later under the leadership of Governor Al Smith. Conservative upstate Republicans fought against progressive political reform in part because they believed in the strict balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. These old guard conservatives distrusted executive power and frequently referred to it as “autocratic.” They opposed government reorganization and the strengthening of the executive and managed to delay the reconfiguration of state government for nearly two decades.2 The success of the opposition speaks to the persistence of older notions of government and the influence of the men who espoused them. It also highlights the geographic The Search for Order (New York: Hill and Wang, 1967), 160-163; Henry Jones Ford, “The Cause of Political Corruption,” Scribners Magazine, January 1911, 54-60. 2 Hughes was an “early advocate” for reorganization while governor from 1906-1910. The two decades I am referring to begin in 1906 with Hughes’ election and end in 1927 with Smith’s successful government reorganization. 2 and political divisions that cut across the state and were voiced by conservative Republicans for both ideological and political reasons. Driven partly by ideology and partly by the need for political survival, these oppositional Republicans from upstate New York opposed the progressive political agenda at almost every turn. Many histories of the Progressive Era focus on the lives and actions of people who called themselves progressives at the expense of those who did not identify with progressive ideas. Yet every historical period has dissenters with significant influence on the actions of a dominant group. The New York politicians who opposed increasing executive power are a case in point. These conservatives knew their constituencies well and were able to portray progressive proposals as evidence of a rising autocracy. They viewed legislators as best suited to represent the electorate because of the relatively small areas that elected them. This meant legislators had more knowledge of their districts and constituencies than an executive who required a statewide vote to be elected.3 Republicans controlled the legislature for most of this period, which also gave upstate conservatives a political motive for favoring the legislature over the executive. The popularity of upstate Republican leaders along with the lasting appeal of their message made them a formidable opposition for progressive politicians. By moving state politics and specifically the opposition to political reform to the 3 See “Brackett’s Farewell Word on Quitting Public Life,” New York Times, Sept. 8, 1912. 3 forefront, we can recast the period as one ruled as much by conservatives as by progressives and bring into question the conventional story that assumes progressive success and pushes non-progressives into the background.4 Research into the political culture of New York State complicates the story of easy progressive victory and hegemony. The effective resistance to progressive political thinking is often obscured by Whiggish narratives tracing the “triumph” of reform. Old-style politicians, some of whom had held office starting in the late 19th century, are often portrayed as the villains in the good versus evil struggle for reform. Reform-minded politicians such as Hughes benefit from this narrative at the expense of “machine” politicians and political bosses. Yet upstate Republican leaders such as William Barnes Jr., Edgar T. Brackett, John Raines, and Elon R. Brown – often referred to by historians as “standpatters” – continued to lead the legislature and command political machines throughout the second decade of the 20th century.5 Historian Robert F. Wesser has written that a 4 By “conservative,” I mean Republicans who practiced traditional machine politics. They were often holdovers from the late 19th-century. Many represented rural areas but some represented upstate cities, as well. They may have supported some progressive measures out of Republican loyalty, but they battled against reforms that would have fundamentally changed the political system. They stood in opposition to more progressive Republicans such as Governor Hughes, Elihu Root, Seth Low, and Henry Stimson, even though they shared the same political party. My analysis and conclusions are limited to New York State politics. See Robert F. Wesser, A Response to Progressivism: The Democratic Party and New York Politics, 1902-1918 (New York: New York University Press, 1986), 15; or McCormick, From Realignment to Reform, 233-34. 5 Wesser, Response to Progressivism, 163. 4 pronounced conservatism reached a “high tide in 1915 and thereafter” in New York State.6 In Progressive Era New York State, the Republican Party was split between these upstate conservatives and their more progressive brethren, who were generally younger and from areas in and around New York City. The conservative Republicans believed in the legislature as the primary representative of the electorate, the primacy of the party, and the use of patronage as reward for party loyalists. The progressive challenge meant attacks on all three of these core beliefs. Party primacy required that loyal Republicans fall into line on controversial issues and avoid independence. Patronage meant the political appointment

Load more