Joseph Hadwal Professor Hendrickson Writing of History November 5th 2013 Election of 1928 The election of 1928 was not fought over any pressing national issue. It did not solve, or attempt to solve, any major political misalignment. In fact, the nation was in a period of perceived prosperity. There was no war and no extreme discontent. Despite these dry conditions however, the election of 1928 was of major significance. Behind the backdrop of the scenic prosperity was a struggle between ‘new’ and ‘old’ America.i The ‘new’ represented the growing urban population that challenged the established social norm. The ‘old’ symbolized the rural American who clung to established tradition. The 1928 presidential election was the battleground where these two forces met and created a turning point in American political history. This urban political shift was partially due to growing metropolitan centers as a result of the 1920’s consumer revolution. The increased demand for consumer goods initiated the “second industrial revolution.” Many workers flocked to the cities for the opportunity of jobs as agricultural prices continued to fall. However, both urban and agricultural labor suffered during this ‘prosperous time.’ Consumer debt rose and older industries such as the railroads crumbled. These darker signs of economic weakness were covered by the exaggerated prosperity of the previous Republican administrations. Despite this economic decline, urban centers developed a new culture. This culture was based on material goods and focused on the perceived prosperity. This new age, known as the “Jazz Age”, also produced skyscrapers and broke Victorian social ideals. Urban women developed the flapper image which was an aura of independence against male double standards. In addition the cities had become multi-cultural grounds for the ‘new’ immigrants. These immigrants came from Western Europe and brought their culture with them. This culture was foreign to many Americans. The Eastern Europeans tended to be Catholic, and spoke different languages and held different traditions. Many of these immigrants had been discriminated against since their arrival in the mid nineteen-teens, however by the 1928 election they made up a significant force in the ‘new’ America. After this election, no longer would the ‘old’ or rural America determine who would sit in the oval office. Catholic bigotry and prejudice for the most part has been a consistent element of American History. As Historian Edmund Mooreii points out, anti-Catholicism can be traced back to our pre-18thcentary revolutionary roots. In colonial history, the majority of the colonies were Protestant based with the exception of Maryland. Maryland was founded on the premise of being a religious haven for persecuted Catholics. The revolutionary war was fought on the principles of independence from a foreign power. And these principles of independence from outside interference were then rooted deeply into the American. Anti-Catholicism would not surface as a major force until the 1830s when an anti-foreign movement was sparked by heavy Catholic immigration. This anti-immigrant/Catholic attitude would again be seen by the development of the Know-Nothing-Party in the Civil War era. The Know-Nothing party terrorized Catholics by burning convents and starting bloody riots. The motivation was to preserve the American way of life. Eventually the Ku Klux Klan developed along with the American Protective Association. The American Protective Association was a comparatively small group that also terrorized Catholics. The Ku Klux Klan would remain a force in America up through the mid-nineteen twenties. By the 1928 Election, Al Smith’s Catholicism was considered by Historian Lichtmaniii the most sensitive and important distinction among voting lines. The issue of religion however, Hadwal 2 did not follow traditional voting lines established in the 1920siv. The issue of Smith’s Catholicism also encompassed many other campaign issues. Many voted against his Catholicism based on his stance toward Prohibition or his connections with Tammany Hall. In addition the Whispering Campaign, the Ku Klux Klan, Senator Heflin of Alabama, and Assistant Attorney General Wildibrandt took direct aim at Smith’s religion. The culmination of anti-Catholic propaganda along with the engrained history of anti-Catholicism forced Al Smith’s connections to the Catholic Church to be the most important campaign issue in the 1928 presidential election. Although there were many differences between Al Smith and Herbert Hoover, both presidential candidates had somewhat identical backgrounds. Both Al Smith and Herbert Hoover grew up with in rather modest conditions. Al Smith was born and raised in New York City. Despite his family’s connection with the ‘new’ immigrants, Smith did not have an early childhood of hunger or destitution as sometimes portrayed. Smith grew up in comfortable conditionsv. Likewise Herbert Hoover of West Branch, Iowa also grew up in a modest but decent home. At the age of nine, Herbert Hoover became an orphan and lived with relatives. He later attended the newly constructed Stanford University where he studied mineral engineering and later traveled around world as an engineervi. Similarly, Al Smith’s father passed away. However, Al Smith had to quit school in the 8th grade to help support his mother who suffered of failing health. In 1895, Smith became involved in the political machine, Tammany Hall. He served first in the municipal court and later in the state assembly. While in the assembly, Smith earned a reputation for helping the urban poor. Later, in 1918, Al Smith ran successfully for the office of governor. He earned his reputation as a reformer due to his concern for labor, factories, and employee compensation. As governor, Smith strengthened public education, parks, and reorganized the state government while overhauling the state’s tax structure. Smith was considered one of the most successful Democrats in the Northvii. After becoming a successful business man, Herbert Hoover entered public service around 1914 and would eventually become a successful organizer of relief during and after World War One. Mr. Hoover became the most important advisor to President Wilson and to the American Commission to Negotiate Peace. Hoover was the Commissioner for the Relief in Belgium and worked as the U.S. Food Administrator. In these positions, he developed a profound sense of humanitarianism, while focusing heavily on child relief. Mr. Hoover’s largest contribution was his ability to obtain supplies and deliver this relief while fighting political obstacles. Hoover’s greatest strength was his ability to organize. His success can also be attributed to his extensive use of volunteers. In addition he spent 1.5% of his total budget of 1.1billion on charitable gifts. After the relief of World War One, Hoover returned to the United States. Hoover ran as a candidate in the 1920 California Primary, however he entered late which gave him a severe disadvantage and forced him to pull out of the race. After the presidential election of 1920, newly elected President Harding met with him to discuss a future in his administration. President Harding admired Hoover for his work in Wilson’s Administration as a humanitarian and administrator. However Hoover wanted the United States to enter the League of Nations. This conflicted with Harding’s opposition to the League. Harding therefore could not endorse Hoover as his Secretary of State. However Harding did appoint Hoover as his Secretary of Commerce. Hoover, in both Harding’s and Coolidge’s administration, earned the reputation as “Secretary of Commerce and everything else”viii because of the way he reformed and strengthened the Commerce Department. Meanwhile Al Smith grained much success in the Democratic Party, and was considered a contender in the 1924 Presidential election. Smith’s success in New York politics was reminiscent of both former Presidents Taft and Cleveland. However Smith faced the opposition Hadwal 3 of his Catholicism which garnered national attention. The Ku Klux Klan backed Democratic challenger McAdoo who eventually got the nomination. Smith’s Catholicism was coined as the “Silent Issue.”ix Both Herbert Hoover and Al Smith had remarkable public service records leading up to the 1928 election. They both had shown that they had a capacity to organize and reform government. And both candidates had a desire to help the less fortunate. Al Smith was also well known for his strong commitment to his moralsx which can easily be compared to Hoover’s Midwestern integrity. Based on their experiences, the fundamental difference between the candidates was their proposed ways of reforming government. Al Smith focused on aiding the individual while Hoover’s goal was to help provide opportunities for the individual to advancexi. But despite this difference, the backgrounds and integrity of the candidates were very identical. The most eclipsing factor then that demonized Al Smiths candidacy, as evidenced in the 1924 Democratic Convention, would be his ties to Catholicism. In addition to having identical backgrounds, both Hoover and Al Smith had comparatively identical successes in their nominations. On August 2, 1927 incumbent President Coolidge announced to the United States and to the world from his South Dakota home that “[ he chose not] to Run for President in Nineteen Twenty-Eight.”xii This famous twelve word statement surprised the entire nation. Reports speculated whether it was because of his wife or his health or possibly the recent death of his son that would motivate him to effectively drop out of the 1928 electionxiii. The precise motivation remains unclear today. However, his disinterest in the 1928 campaign encouraged Herbert Hoover to seize the opportunity and to begin organizing a campaign. Coolidge, however, would remain Hoover’s largest threat in securing the Republican nomination. Despite his twelve word statement, many speculated that Coolidge might still run in 1928. xiv But on December 6th 1927, Coolidge once again stated his intentions not to run for the office of president.xv After this announcement, Hoover’s campaign took off. He never named a chairman, but ran his own campaign. In the press, Hoover was a success and some historians believe he locked up the nomination even before the first primary.xvi However, Hoover would eventually enter eleven of the sixteen primaries. His strategy was simple. He intended to nationalize his campaign. This way, even if he did not win certain primaries, he would still be considered a strong contenderxvii. And when the Republican National Convention met in June, Hoover schemed to be the overall strongest national candidate for the party. Hoover’s strategy worked. He faced resistance in states such as Illinois, Nebraska, Indiana and Wisconsin, but in each contest, he gained vast support or recognition. Hoover outright won the primaries in California and New Jersey as well as Michigan, Maryland, Oregon, and Massachusettsxviii. However, he faced problems in the South. The Republican organizations were divided among the “lily-whites’ and the “black-and-tans.”xix These distinctions were based on the race of the members. The Hoover campaign gave money to whichever faction that could promise the state vote for Hoover. This strategy weakened the Republican Partyxx. The Republican Convention was held in Kansas City, Missouri. Once again, the southern states proved to be an issue. The Hoover organization seated the delegates so that race could not be factor. Because of this, the power in the states of Louisiana, Florida, and Texas shifted from the “black-tan” contingent to the ‘lily-whites.” Many African Americans left the convention in anger vowing support for Al Smith, which set a bad precedent for the Republican Party. But despite this walk-out the Republican National Convention was rather unexciting. Outside was a small protest of farmers who disapproved of the party’s platform of opposition to the McNairy- Haugen Bill, but this demonstration was smaller than anticipated,xxi and Senator Lowden, who Hadwal 4 supported the McNairy-Haugen Bill, dropped out as a result. Hoover ended up receiving 837 votes, which was a landslide compared to any other Republican challenger.xxii The Republican platform advocated a strong agricultural tariff, noninterference of other nation’s affairs, enforcement of the 18th amendment and many other provisionsxxiii. After the official nomination, the party chose Senate Majority Leader Charles Curtis as the running mate for Hoover. Curtis was a native of Kansas whose strengths were coalesced in his ability to pass legislation behind the scenes. On the Democratic side, by January of 1928, Al Smith’s popularity guaranteed him the nomination. Smith’s strongest opponent would have been McAdooxxiv, but he withdrew in December of 1927. There was concern that if McAdoo continued to run he would effectively split the Democratic Party. The Democratic Convention was held in late June in Houston, Texas. Smith received a majority of the votes on the first ballot. Smith was partnered with Joseph Robinson of Arkansas as a running mate. Senator Robinson was considered a “dry” Protestant that the Democrats hoped would balance the ticket. But in Houston, the main issue that needed to be resolved was the party’s stance toward Prohibitionxxv. The Republican and Democratic Parties each had members who were both considered “wet” or “dry”. In the 1924 Democratic election, the prohibition question, motivated by religious bigotry from the Ku Klux Klan, had destroyed the base unity of the Democratic Party. xxvi Prohibition in the 1928 convention carried the same threat if a conclusion was not met. Senator Glass of Virginia, however, organized the party plank so that “The resolution…. [did] not bind anybody to anything except enforcement - obedience to the constitution and the enforcement of the law.” xxvii Later known as the “Glass Compromise,” it was adopted by the platform and arguably saved the unity of the Convention. However, upon accepting his nomination, Al Smith stated that when president, he intended to use the law to change the amendment.xxviii Although Hoover and Smith fought different battles in pursuit of their nomination, both candidates were overwhelmingly popular and successful in their parties. Both were nominated with little struggle, and both candidates’ nominations were virtually confirmed months before the actual convention. But despite this early comparable success, the fervor of Al Smiths nomination and campaign would dwindle against the onslaught of the endless propaganda waged against him. Propaganda was disguised as other issues by the Republican Party and by the Ku Klux Klan. Although the Election of 1928 was dominated by the two major parties, there were several third party candidates. The most successful third party was the Socialist Party headed by Norman Thomas. The socialist party had formed in 1901 at a political convention in Indianapolis Indiana. Soon after its formation Eugene Debs, a cofounder, became the central figure of American Socialism.xxix However, Debs passed away before the 1924 Election, and Norman Thomas then took over the party and ran for President in both 1924 and 1928. He later ran in the next subsequent four elections. Thomas was able to garner 267,414 votes which represented 0.7% of the national popular vote.xxx The Socialist Party did not obtain any electoral votes. The lack of success can be attributed to the fact that the socialist movement was a third party, and not as well established as the other major parties. Also, the concept of socialism was not popular with the seemingly prosperous economy and the fear generated by the Red Scare at the beginning of the decade. The second most successful third party in the election was the Communist Party which ran William Z. Foster as its candidate. The Communist Party of the 1920s was formed in 1919 in Chicago. However the party was split for a majority of the twenties leading up to the 1928 election.xxxi The Foster faction counted on gaining support from the radical wing of the American Federation of Labor, and the Ruthenberg faction encouraged class Hadwal 5 warfare. But by the 1928 election the party had reunited under the Ruthenberg faction, though they still supported Foster as their 1928 candidate.xxxii William Foster had gained recognition for his role in the ‘Big Steel’ strike of 1919. Foster ran repeatedly in 1924, 1928 and later in 1932. The party in the 1928 election received 48,497 votes representing 0.1% of the popular vote and did not receive any electoral votes.xxxiii Like the Socialist Party, the Communist Party was not popular with a majority of the Americans. In addition to being confronted with the celebration and prosperity of capitalism in 1920s, the Communist Party was subjected to government harassment.xxxiv The Red Scare had rooted a fear of communism in Americans which also caused membership of the Communist Party to drop. The last major third party in the 1928 election was the Prohibition Party. Their candidate was William Frank Varney. Varney was the least successful of all the parties’ candidates. However, the Prohibition Party had ceased its attempt to become a major party. Between 1896 and 1932 the Prohibition Party entered a period in which its goals focused on influencing the already established major political parties.xxxv Nevertheless, in terms of the electoral race, the party was unsuccessful. In the election of 1928 the combined third parties support only represented 0.9% of the popular vote, and no third party received an electoral vote.xxxvi Moreover, no third party represented any majority interest. The primary focus of the 1928 election was centered on the competition between the Catholic Democratic challenger Smith and Republican challenger Hoover and their ability to sustain the prosperity of the 1920s. In the forefront of the election, besides the slanderous propaganda, the candidate’s major campaign concerns were agriculture, the economy, and energy resources. After World War One, the farmers of America experienced overproduction due to the lack of wartime demand. The prices for agricultural goods fell and the purchasing power of the famers also dwindled. The Republican administrations of Harding and Coolidge comparatively did very little to alleviate the farmer’s plight. Al Smith, in his Omaha speech addressed this and attacked the Republicans for their “betrayal of the confidence which the famers imposed in them…”xxxvii Smith also commented on the 1928 party platform which stated, “The general depression in a great basic industry inevitably reacts upon the conditions in the country as a whole and cannot be ignored.”xxxviii Smith attacked the Republicans for allowing the agricultural conditions of the country to reach a point of depression. Al Smith then quoted Senator Norris saying, “… [the Republicans] have fought practically every proposition of a remedial nature for agriculture…” xxxix The proposition was the McNary-Haugen Bill which was created to be able to help and correct the farmer’s surplus. Later in the address, Smith states that: From 1910 to the present time the farm debt has increased by the striking sum of ten billions of dollars. The value of farm property between 1920 and 1925 decreased by twenty billions of dollars. …In 1927 there were 830 bank failures, with total liabilities of over 270,000,000, almost entirely in the agricultural sections as against 49 such failures in the last year of the last Democratic administration. In the period since 1920 there have been almost 4000 such failures.xl

Smith’s analysis of the agricultural debt situation was correct. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas in their 2011 Report,xliagricultural debt rose significantly between 1910 and the 1920’s due to the low wartime interest rates that encouraged borrowing. However, after the war, the Federal Reserve increased interest rates to combat postwar inflation. This caused a recession which primarily affected the farmers by straining their ability to borrow money for necessary Hadwal 6 capital. The high interest rates also caused the value of the farmer’s land to fall. In addition, the farming overproduction caused a decrease in demand for their goods and created a surplus that reduced the available market profit. Smith argued that in order to compensate for the overproduction the government must “…establish an effective control of the sale of exportable surplus with the cost imposed upon the commodity benefited.”xlii He claimed that the McNary- Haugen Bill accomplished this feat. Smith also argued that Hoover’s position was to increase the tariff which, of course, would not affect the surplusxliii. The Republican Platform did call for higher tariffs, but the platform also recommended the formation of a new farm agency that would be designed to assist cooperative farming activities.xliv Hoover did not support the McNary- Haugen bill. Despite the bill’s potential to aid the local farmer, it called for the dumping of the national surplus onto the international market.xlv Hoover was concerned that this agricultural dumping would strain relations with other nations and would perpetuate the cycle of overproduction. His proposal of cooperative farming would “…improve the sales and distribution of agricultural productsxlvi…” and force the farmers to better regulate their industry. Despite Smiths farmer friendly plan, the rural small town American was still partial to Herbert Hoover. Rural America still valued the traditional ideals of the ‘old’ America. Smith’s city background was yet too foreign to the traditional farmer. As Professor Turner points out, Herbert Hoover was a better representation of this ‘old’ America given his Midwestern rootsxlvii. Farmers would therefore have been more comfortable with Hoover. In addition, the Ku Klux Klan’s power base was rooted in small town America where Catholics were not commonxlviii. The Klan’s anti-Catholic propaganda was then able to slash through Smiths chances. Another major campaign issue that was outlined by both party platforms was utilities. At his Denver address, Al Smith called water the “…white coalxlix…” Smith argued that the energy resources of the United States are God given and should therefore be controlled by the public. He felt that only government regulation of resources would provide fair and reasonable rates and distribution of electricity. And in order to achieve this goal, Smith would create “…a quasi- public corporation, municipal in character and clothed with the authority to issue its bonds, exempt from taxation, to carry on the developmentl.” Smith’s concern was based in the pyramidal holding company scheme devised by the utility companies in the 1920s.li The utility companies wanted to use holding companies to buy smaller utility companies in order to maximize profits. However, costs were often transferred to the consumer by heightened rates. The monopolies advanced at such a rate that seventy-five percent of all utility systems were operated by only ten companies by the end of the 1920s. Hoover in his New York address however condemned government involvement in what he considered to be commercial business: In effect, they [the Democrats] abandon the tenets of their own party and turn to state socialism as a solution for the difficulties presented by all three. It is proposed that we shall change from prohibition to the state purchase and sale of liquor. If their agricultural relief program means anything, it means that the government shall directly or indirectly buy and sell and fix prices of agricultural products. And we are to go into the hydro-electric power business. In other words, we are confronted with a huge program of government in businesslii.

Hoover stressed that government intervention in the utility industry and others would destroy the economic base that powered the prosperity of the 1920’s. As Secretary of Commerce in the Harding Administration, Hoover had also opposed the creation of a federally chartered corporation that would sell electricity to the public utilities of New Englandliii. Hoover was also Hadwal 7 involved in the Federal Water Power Act of 1920 which would develop the Colorado River basin. But it was questioned whether or not controlling such a vast project would “conflict with the administration’s preference for private enterprise.liv” It appeared that the Republican Party had already cemented its position toward government regulation at the beginning of the decade, and the party’s position remained consistent throughout the twenties and into the 1928 presidential election. Hoover believed that government intervention would place a high price on prosperity, and he was not going to pay. During the election Hoover campaigned strongly on the Republican record of prosperity during the 1920s. The Republicans took credit for the rise in consumer purchasing powerlv which triggered the consumer industrial revolution. But despite these claims of prosperity, the growth experienced in the 1920s was very uneven. The older industries of railroads, shipping, and agriculture were in trouble. Farmers were experiencing declining agriculture and wealth,lvi but oddly in response, the Democrats did not blame the Republicans for this mismanagement. Instead, they endeavored to bolster Al Smith as a credible business conservative.lvii Democrats were attempting to prove that Americans would not have to substitute economic prosperity for Smith’s win. On the campaign trail, Smith nominated millionaires to Democratic Party positions to prove that his candidacy was business friendlylviii. Smith should have campaigned instead on the economic hardships imposed by the Republicans’ rule of prosperity. However, the party chose to campaign Smith against Hoover as a preserver of economic prosperity, and by doing so, the Democrats undercut their own advantage on the economic issue. The issue of Al Smith’s religion was the most encompassing and most critical issue in the 1928 presidential election. Its prejudice could be felt in a vast array of propaganda targeted towards him. Some propaganda was direct, such as the Whispering Campaign, Wildibrandt’s anti-Catholic crusade, and the Ku Klux Klan. However other issues were vastly exaggerated by anti-Catholic motivation such as the issues of Prohibition and Smith’s ties to Tammany Hall. The 1928 electoral turning point between the ‘new’ and ‘old’ America was fought on the grounds of this religious and cultural clash. Many traditionalists claimed that Catholics, by their nature, were inherently unfit to hold any public office. They believed that a Catholic’s devotion to the Pope would undermine the workings of American Democracylix. There was fear that Smith would become an instrument of the Pope’s will and that the American concept of the separation of church and state would erode under this papal tyranny. As seen in a political cartoon in The Fellowship Form, opponents of Smith portrayed his Catholicism as a threat to American rights and traditions: Hadwal 8

lx Smith and the Catholic Church were accused of every possible allegation of moral indecencylxi. It was impossible for the Catholics to make a counteroffensive without establishing credibility to the anti-Catholic crusaders. By answering as a group, the Catholics would appear as a united front, confirming the fears of the anti-Catholic crusaders. The initial strategy of the Republicans was to reject the Democrat’s offensive claim of Republican religious intolerance, while accusing Smith and his followers of intolerancelxii. Anti-Catholics claimed that the religious intolerance was a Democratic invention designed to thwart the real religious intolerance the nation would face if Smith took office.lxiii During the campaign Hoover did not stress the religious issue while within the public eye. However, his party would later employ Assistant Attorney General Wildibrandt to run a smear campaign against Smith’s religion. The issue of Prohibition in the 1928 election was used as a cover to shield the tougher accusations against Al Smith’s religion. In his acceptance speech, Al Smith outlined his views of Prohibition. Smith believed that Prohibition increased crime. He expressed this view when he quoted law expert James C. Carter by saying that “… a law is made declaring conduct widely practiced and widely regarded as innocent to be a crimelxiv” in referring to the Prohibition question. Smith then continued by arguing that the Prohibition Amendment created a disregard for the law. He stated that the law is “…impaired, a consequence [of the] mischief of which can scarcely be estimate[d]lxv.” Smith argued that the law was undermined by everyday Americans which demonstrated that the then-current law of Prohibition was not working. To amend this, Hadwal 9

Smith proposed that prohibition ought to be a state’s rights issue. Smith argued that the states could best account for regional values based on a measurable scientific standardlxvi. Furthermore, the states’ proposals would balance the ‘wet’ and ‘drys’ that were present in each partylxvii. An editorial in the New York Times on February 3, 1928 supported Smith’s argument by stating “…that the Wet and Dry question is dividing both parties…”lxviii This shows that there was a general discontent with the Prohibition Amendment. Despite Smith’s modest proposal, he faced relentless resistance. The New York Times again in the February 3, 1928 issue reported Smith’s reply to McAdoo’s accusations regarding New York states adoption of the Volstead Act. McAdoo claimed that the act was not a part of New York’s laws; however Smith rebutted that the Prohibition amendment in the constitution was a binding law over the states. This evidence refuted McAdoo’s claims. McAdoo’s baseless accusations were designed at best to grab attention in order to discredit Smithlxix. As suggested in a related article in the same paper there was a mounting “… movement against [Smith] which is based on the cry that he is a wet. In this way…the religious question, which is the actual issue upon which their opposition is founded, is kept under the surfacelxx.” Also presented in Smith’s own Oklahoma campaign address, Smith stated “…the wicked motive of religious intolerance has driven bigots to attempt to inject these slanders into a political campaignlxxi.”These statements from the New York Times and Smith’s own campaign address highlighted the prejudice that Smith’s campaign was battling pertaining to his ties to the Catholic Church. In addition, this Catholic bigotry came in several forms. Herbert Hoover, during his convention, had strongly supported the campaign plank of a strict enforcement of the 18th Amendment. As the election season warred on, Hoover came to represent the candidate of Midwestern Protestant America. Hoover’s integrity and his capability to enforce the 18th Amendment was never questioned by Americans like Smith. Yet, while in post-war Europe, Hoover was known to have drunk alcohol.lxxii Prohibition on its own was a real voting factor in the 1928 election regardless of the religious bigotry. However, the question of wet and dry was greatly exaggerated in order to obfuscate and compensate for the anti- Catholicism that was prevalent in the election season. In addition to Prohibition, the issue of Al Smith’s connections with Tammany Hall was vastly exaggerated in order to promote propaganda. The assault on Tammany Hall began early in the election season. On October 22, 1927 the magazine The Literary Digestlxxiii reported that Col. Theodore Roosevelt of the Republican Party gave a slanderous speech warning America of the danger that Governor Smith possessed as a candidate. In his speech, Roosevelt accused Smith of being corrupt and representing the sole interests of Tammany Hall. Smith was accused of operating “[g]ambling pools and all manner[s] of vice and corruption….” Additionally Roosevelt stated that while Smith was governor of New York that “[t]he red-light district ha[d] crawled to the very steps of the State Capitollxxiv.” As previously discussed, Smith’s background was similar to Hoover’s. This gross exaggeration by Roosevelt exemplified how the Republican Party capitalized on false propaganda. In comparison of character, Hoover would have been just as likely to be associated with gambling and pools or other instruments of vice. Through the propaganda, the Republicans struck fear and doubt by alienating Smith because of his inner-city Catholic background. Repeatedly in his speech, Roosevelt attacked Smith for representing a “…shadow of Tammany Hall [which] lies athwart [to] the White Houselxxv.” As a ‘shadow’, Smith’s image changed into a picture of a sinister inner-city political boss. Also presented in The Literary Digest article, was news that Roosevelt’s speech would be “…circulated extensively throughout the country for Republican campaign purposeslxxvi.” Roosevelt’s slander on Tammany Hall served as a precursor to the eventual fight that Smith would have to wage against Hadwal 10 the Republican onslaught of propaganda. Several months later, in Oklahoma City, Smith’s integrity was still being disputed by his Tammany Hall connection. In response, he presented his service record as governor which portrayed him as the promoter of labor, welfare, and educationlxxvii. And Smith argued that there has never “… been one flaw in [his] record, or one scandal of any kind connected with [his] administration that gives any meaning to this cry of Tammany rulelxxviii….” Smith then outright accused the Republicans of using the Tammany issue as a bigotry tool in reference to “…the question of [his] religion.lxxix” This relation between Smith’s religion and the slander he received from the Tammany Hall issue further demonstrated that the elements of anti-Catholicism were deeply rooted within the other issues in the 1928 campaign. The Ku Klux Klan was an ideological force in the 1928 election that also contributed to the anti-Catholicism crusade against Al Smith. In the 1924 election, the Ku Klux Klan was able to influence the Democratic National Convention by splitting the party on the issue of prohibitionlxxx. The Klan backed candidate McAdoo while attacking Al Smith directly on the issue of prohibition, but indirectly on Catholicism. This helped McAdoo secure the Democratic Party Nomination. However, the Klan significantly declined in 1925 due to the murder trial of Grand Dragon D.C. Stephenson. Stephenson was found guilty of the murder of a state employee. Yet many Americans were sympathetic to the Ku Klux Klan.lxxxi Many people joined the Klan out of the fear of other movements including the Red Scare. The Klan’s stronghold was within rural Americalxxxii. This stronghold was important in the 1928 election. Rural America was isolated from the major eastern Catholiclxxxiii sections of the nation and therefore was more susceptible to the propaganda of the anti-Catholic crusade. In the 1928 election the Ku Klux Klan’s involvement was not as significant as in the 1924 election. Imperial Wizard Evens Smith held a demonstration in Wahouma, Alabama where he lynched Al Smith in effigylxxxiv. The Klan published anti-Smith material concerning his ties to Catholicism, Prohibition, Tammany Hall and Alienismlxxxv. The Klan was also able to garner the support of Alabama Senator Heflin. Heflin would address over ten thousand Klan’s men in Syracuse, New York, urging the members to do everything in their power to prevent Smith from winning the Democratic nominationlxxxvi. Later Heflin attacked the Catholic Church and Governor Smith of New York based on “…religious intolerance and bigotrylxxxvii…” in the Senate. Heflin also attempted to challenge Vice- Presidential nominee Joseph Robinson’s leadership in the Senate. However Robinson was able to rebuke Heflin’s attacks by a majority vote. The Ku Klux Klan’s assault on Al Smith’s religion in the 1928 election was more ideologically based than real. The Klan was unable to sway the election due to their dwindling decline of membership. However the Klan was active and its opinions were well known. Despite Hoover’s statements of religious tolerance, parts of his campaign were built on religious bigotry. The Republican National Committee used Assistant Attorney General Mabel Willebrandt in their campaign strategy. Willebrandt was the highest ranking woman in the Executive Branch of government. She addressed and encouraged Protestant church groups to vote on Smith’s stance on both Prohibition and Catholicismlxxxviii. In Springfield, Ohio Willebrandt encouraged Protestant ministers to use their positions in their churches to campaign against Smith’s religion. Willebrandt claimed that her speeches were approved by the Republican National Conventionlxxxix. This shows that the Republican campaign was directly involved in the anti-Catholic crusade. Another prevalent campaign issue was the Whispering Campaign. According to historian Moore, the Whispering Campaign was a “…social campaign to defeat Alfred E. Smithxc…” The Hadwal 11

Whispering Campaign comprised almost all the anti-Catholic slander that was used against Smith. Hoover claimed that he too was a victim of this slur campaign; however there was no evidence to support Hoover’s assertion. Both the Whispering Campaign and Willebrandt’s slur campaign were direct assaults aimed at Smith’s ties to the Catholic Church. They further showed how Smith’s Catholicism was the central element in the 1928 campaign. Hoover won the election of 1928 by a significant margin of 17.4 percent of the national vote. In addition Hoover also received 444 of the 531 electoral votesxci. Despite Hoover winning the election, Smith took the campaign. Smith’s loss set the stage for Franklin Roosevelt in the 1932 election. Smith’s proposals of government regulation would prepare the Americans for Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation. The 1928 election changed American politics. After this election, no longer would the rural vote determine who would sit in the Oval office. For the rest of the century, cities and urban areas became and would remain possessions of the Democratic Party. In summation, the transfer from the ‘old’ American politics to the ‘new’ had occurred. By far, the most significant voting issue in the election was Al Smith’s ties to the Catholic Church. The Catholic issue was the most encompassing campaign element that Smith faced. As previously discussed, the Catholic bigotry influenced the other campaign issues such as Prohibition, Tammany Hall, and Al Smith’s integrity as a candidate. In reality, Al Smith was a formidable challenger to Herbert Hoover. Both were masterminds of governmental organization and planning. And both candidates had very identical backgrounds. Hoover’s landslide of the electoral votes exposed that there was a major bias in the campaign. And as seen in the magnitude of the anti-religious propaganda, this bias was Smith’s Catholic connection.

Hadwal 12

Annotated Bibliography

Books

Clements, Kendrick A. The Life of Herbert Hoover : Imperfect Visionary. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010 Clements’ book is an analysis on Herbert Hoover’s career from 1918 to the end of the 1928 presidential election. The book is well researched and well written. It provides a detailed account of Hoover’s accomplishments and of the Republican campaign.

CQ Press. Presidential Elections 1789-2004. Washington D.C. : CQ Press, 2005. The Presidential Elections book is published by Congressional Press and provides detailed quantitate accounts of the presidential elections from 1789-2004 including the election of 1928.

The Democratic National Committee. Campaign Addresses of Governor Alfred E. Smith. Albany New York: J. B Lyon Company, 1929 This primary source is an account of all of Al Smith’s principle campaign speeches in the 1928 election year. The book provides Al Smith’s unedited speech with no analysis. Al Smith states in the introductory that the purpose of the book is to serve as a contribution to the party.

Finan, Christopher M. Alfred E. Smith The Happy Warrior. New York: Hill and Wang, 2002 Finan’s book is a biography of Smith’s beginnings and successes. It provides a well-researched basis. The book serves to take a comprehensive look at Smiths career.

Lichtman , Allan . Prejudice and the Old Politics. Chapel Hill : The University of North Carolina Press, 1979. Lichtman is a well-respected historian. His book provides a comprehensive look at the issues of the 1928 election. He challenges common held election beliefs through quantitative analysis of statics.

Moore, Edmund. A Catholic Runs for President. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1956. Moore was the Department Chair of the University of Connecticut for over 26 years. His book serves as a detailed account of Smith’s Catholic resistance throughout his Campaign for President. The book provides illustrations that were used in this paper.

Rice , Arnold . The Ku Klux Klan In American Politics. Washington D.C. : Public Affairs Press , 1962. Rice’s book provides a compressive look at the KKK throughout American History. Rice Holds a Ph.D. in history from Indiana University. The book evaluates the role that the Klan has played in American Politics.

Smallwood, Frank . The Other Candidates. Hanover : University Press of New England, 1983. Frank Smallwood was a Professor of Government at Dartmouth College. His book is a comprehensive look at the different third party candidates in American History. The book is well researched and balanced. Articles

"Al Smith And "The Shadow Of Tammany"." The Literary Digest, 22 October 1927, 1-3. The Literary Digest reported on Col. Theodore Roosevelt’s speech that accused Al Smith of being associated with the corruption of the traditional Tammany Hall. The Magazine Hadwal 13

article focuses on the response of the Roosevelt’s speech by newspaper editors across the nation. News Papers

New York Times "Washington Sees 1928 Field Open." The New York Times. (Aug 3 1927): 1-2. “An Irrepressible Issue.” The New York Times. Ed. ( Feb 3 1928): 22 “Smith Replies to M’Adoo on Dry Law as Binding on State” (Feb 3 1928) :1-2 “Democratcs, 35 To 1, Uphold Robinson Against Heflin” (Jan 20 1928): 1-2 The New York Times articles serve as primary sources. They are a measurement of the public’s opinion and attitudes towards the several key election issues. The New York Times in the 1928 election appears to have a slight bias towards the Republican Party.

Electronic Findings

Henderson , Jason, Brent Gloy, and Michael Boehlje . “The Federal Reserve of Kansas City,” Agriculture's Boom-Bust Cycles: Is This Time Different?. Last modified 2011. Accessed November 5, 2012. http://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/11q4HendersonGloyBoehlje.pdf. This Federal Reserve Report documents the agriculture problems of the 1920’s in a non-bias way. The purpose of the report is to discuss modern day Agricultural practices. However, the authors discuss problems within throughout the entire twentieth century.

Cengage, “New York Campaign Speech by Herbert Hoover 1928,” Proposals now Menacing This System. http://college.cengage.com/history/ayers_primary_sources/newyorkcampaign_hoover1928.htm (accessed 18 October 2012) The Cengage Page is a collection of Hoover’s New York addresses. The Cengage webpage sources Stanford University Press as a citation of the pages contents.

Mill Center University of Virginia, “American President: A Reference Resource,” The Campaign and Election of 1928. http://millercenter.org/president/hoover/essays/biography/3(accessed 19 October 2012) The Mill Center is a nonprofit organization that is tied to the University of Virginia. The online article provides an account and an analysis of Hoover’s Campaign planks in both the 1928 and 1932 election.

PBS, "Regulation - Public Vs. Privet Power: from FDR to Today." Last modified 2012. Accessed November 5, 2012. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/regulation/timeline.html. This PBS article outlines the energy issues the United States faced in the 1920’s through modern times. It address the monopolies and the policies (mainly through FDR) that were passed that overall helped the American energy consumer.

Powerpoint Presentation on the Life and Times of Herbert Hoove.18 slides, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum, http://www.hoover.archives.gov/students/ This Power Point presentation gives quick facts on President Hoover’s early life. The presentation is maintained by the Hoover Library. It contains 18 slides which highlight Hoover’s major accomplishments and his background.

Hadwal 14

Republican Party Platforms: "Republican Party Platform of 1928," June 12, 1928. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29637. The American Presidency Project is an internet resource archive that claims to have over 100,000 articles. The article of the party platform is a replication of the actual Republican Party Platform of 1928.

Simkin, John. “William Z. Foster” http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAfosterW.htm#mainbody (accessed 17 October 2012) Simkin operates “Spartacus Educational” which is an internet resource designed to enable learning. In the article William Z Foster, Simkin provides a comprehensive look at the American Communist Party and its major developments throughout the 1920s.

Lecture

Turner, Leland. In Class lecture witnessed by author, 30 October 2012. Notes Taken. In author’s possession. Dr. Turner lectured on the 1928 election stating that the election was a distinctive shifting point between rural America and the emerging urban culture what would soon dominate the nations politics. Turner’s account serves as a primary source. i Allan J. Lichtmann, Prejudice and the Old Politics(Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina Press,1979.), 17. ii Edmund A. Moore, A Catholic Runs for President. (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1956). 3,9,11. iii Lichtmann, 40. iv Ibid., 42. v Ibid., 10. vi Powerpoint Presentation on the Life and Times of Herbert Hoove.18 slides, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum, http://www.hoover.archives.gov/students/. vii Lichtmann, 11, 12. viii Kendrick A. Clements,The Life of Herbert Hoover Imperfect Visionary. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.), 3, 6, 24, 51, 53, 58, 103. ix Moore, 23. xLichtmann, 10. xiIbid., 12. xii “Washington Sees 1928 Field Open,” New York Times, 3 August 1927. xiii “Wife Opposed Another Term,” New York Times, 3 August 1927. xiv “Press Takes Diverse Views of President’s Action” New York Times, 3 August 1927. xv Ibid., 398. xvi Ibid., 398. xvii Ibid., 401. xviii Ibid., 401.

Hadwal 15

xix Ibid., 402. xx Ibid., 403. xxi Ibid., 409. xxii Ibid., 409. xxiii Gehard Peters and John T. Woolley, Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1928, June 12, 1928. Online. The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29637. xxiv Ibid., 400. xxv Lichtmann, 80. xxvi Christopher M. Finan, Alfred E. Smith The Happy Warrior (New York: Hill and Wang, 2002) , 5 xxvii Lichtmann, 80. xxviii The Democratic National Committee, Campaign Addresses of Governor Alfred E. Smith 1928 (Albany: J.B. Lyon Company, 1929), 14. xxix Frank Smallwood, The Other Candidates Third Parties in Presidential Elections (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1983), 55. xxx CQ Press, Presidential elections 1789-2004(Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 2005), 144. xxxi Smallwood, 79. xxxii John Simkin, “William Z. Foster” http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAfosterW.htm#mainbody (accessed 17 October 2012). xxxiii CQ Press, 144. xxxiv Smallwood, 29. xxxv Ibid., 32. xxxvi CQ Press, 144. xxxvii The Democratic National Committee, 28. xxxviii Ibid., 29. xxxix Ibid., 30 . xl Ibid., 33. xli Jason Henderson, Brent Gloy, Michael Bohehlje, “Agriculture’s Boom-Bust Cycles: Is This Time Different?” 2011 http://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/11q4HendersonGloyBoehlje.pdf (accessed 25 October 2012) Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. xlii The Democratic National Committee, 38. xliii Ibid., 37.

Hadwal 16

xliv Mill Center – University of Virginia, “American President: A Reference Resource,” The Campaign and Election of 1928. http://millercenter.org/president/hoover/essays/biography/3(accessed 19 October 2012). xlv Clements, 342. xlvi Ibid, 342. xlvii Dr. Leland Turner, In Class Lecture (10-30-2012). xlviii Moore, 27. xlix The Democratic National Committee, 61. l Ibid., 64. li PBS, “Frontline,” Regulation Public vs. Privet Power: From FDR to Today, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/regulation/timeline.html (accessed 18 October 2012). lii Cengage, “New York Campaign Speech by Herbert Hoover 1928,” Proposals now Menacing This System. http://college.cengage.com/history/ayers_primary_sources/newyorkcampaign_hoover1928.htm (accessed 18 October 2012). liii Clements, 123. liv Ibid., 123. lv Ibid., 411. lvi Lichtmann, 178. lvii Ibid., 179. lviii Ibid., 180. lix Ibid., 158. lx Moore, 109. lxi Lichtmann, 59. lxii Ibid., 62. lxiii Ibid., 62. lxiv The Democratic National Committee,13. lxv Ibid., 13. lxvi Ibid., 15. lxvii Ibid., 12. lxviii “Smith Replies to M’Adoo On Dry Law As Binding On State,” New York Times, 3 February 1928. lxix This article was on the front page of the New York Times in large bolded italics meant to grab the readers’ attention. lxx “Smith Replies to M’Adoo On Dry Law As Binding On State,” The New York Times, 3 February 1928. lxxi The Democratic National Committee, 55. lxxii Clements, 404. Hadwal 17

lxxiii “Al Smith And “The Shadow Of Tammany,” The Literary Digest 22 October 1927. 1-3 lxxiv The Literary Digest, 1. lxxv Ibid., 1. lxxvi Ibid., 1. lxxvii The Democratic National Committee, 46. lxxviii Ibid., 48. lxxix Ibid., 21. lxxx Rice, 79-80. lxxxi The Democratic National Committee, 27. lxxxii Ibid., 27. lxxxiii Ibid., 27. lxxxiv Arnold S. Rice, The Ku Klux Klan In American Politics (Washington DC: Public Affairs Press), 87. lxxxv Rice, 87-88. lxxxvi Ibid., 89. lxxxvii “Democrats, 35 To 1, Uphold Robinson Against Heflin,” New York Times, 20 January 1928. lxxxviii Lichtmann, 64. lxxxix Clements, 419. xc Moore, 127. xci CQ Press, 144.