University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1976 Party leadership fights in the House of Representatives : the causes of conflict, 1895-1955. Maureen Roberts Romans University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Romans, Maureen Roberts, "Party leadership fights in the House of Representatives : the causes of conflict, 1895-1955." (1976). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 1882. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/1882 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PARTY LEADERSHIP FIGHTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: THE CAUSES OF CONFLICT 1895 - 1955 A Dissertation Presented By MAUREEN ROBERTS ROMANS Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY April 1976 Political Science ii (c) Maureen Roberts Romans 1976 All Rights Reserved iii PARTY LEADERSHIP FIGHTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: THE CAUSES OF CONFLICT 1895 - 1955 A Dissertation Presented By MAUREEN ROBERTS ROMANS Approved as to style and content by: Glen Gordon, Chairman of Conmittee 'Barbara A. Hinckley, Member Geor^ Sulzngaf', Member joren Beth, Department Head Political Science Iv ABSTRACT Party Leadership Fights in the House of Representatives: The Causes of Conflict, 1895 to 1955 (April 1976) Maureen R. Romans, B.A. , Northwestern University M.A., University of Massachusetts, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts Directed by: Professor Glen Gordon Robert L. Peabody in his article "Party Leadership Change in the United States House of Representatives" hypothesizes that the Republi- cans in the House of Representatives were more prone to conflict be- tween 1955 and 1966 than the Democrats because they were 1) the minor- ity party, 2) had suffered a series of election defeats culminating in the 1958 and 1964 losses, 3) were a junior party, 4) were highly co- hesive in terms of region and ideology and therefore could afford the luxury of a leadership fight without sacrificing their unity on roll call votes, and 5) their leaders were not as skilled as Sam Rayburn and John McCorniack in keeping in touch with the rank-and-file. Other observers, however, have offered different hypotheses and variables to explain leadership change and conflict in Congress. Barbara A. Hinckley suggests that extensive membership turnover and changes in the regional and ideological composition of a party bring pressure for leadership change. Randall B. Ripley hypothesizes that party is a more important variable than majority or minority status because the Republicans have been rocked by more revolts than the Democrats since the 1910 power struggle over Speaker Joe Cannon. Charles 0. Jones thinks that the size of the Congressional party and the nuni^er of freshmen are important variables, and finally former Speaker Joe Martin argues that Presidential intervention can encourage leader- ship fights. This dissertation tests these hypotheses by examining intra- party leadership conflict in the House of Representatives from 1895 to 1955. Because the historical information about the contests is widely scattered and even believed lost by some political scientists, the fights have been recounted in detail and heavily footnoted for others doing research on past Congresses. The rest of the disserta- tion systematically analyzes the composition of each Congressional party in terms of 1) majority-minority status, 2) size, 3) election results, membership 4) turnover, 5) the number of freshmen, 6) the proportion of members with at least ten years seniority, 7) regional factions, and 8) where possible ideological factions. An important point is that all Congressional parties from 1895 to 1955 have been reconstructed regardless of whether a fight occurred in order to see if stable parties had different characteristics from combative parties The skill of the leaders and Presidential intervention have been con- sidered i.esidual variables that were used to explain deviant cases, but the accounts of the fights do discuss the President, lobbyists, and the personality of the competitors when relevant. Briefly, the findings show that in the Democratic party extensive membership turnover and changes in the regional and ideological vi alignments that bolstered the faction underrepresented in the leader- ship were most conducive to conflict. In the Republican party before 1933 ideological cleavages produced conflict. Afterward, rapid mem- bership turnover seemed most important in predicting a leadership clash. Two conditions that were not determinants of leadership con- flict between 1895 and 1955 were party and majority-minority status. vil ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to Dr. Glen Gordon, the chairman of my committee, who has spent an inordinate amount of time untangling the bureaucratic problems that have befallen this dissertation in addition to reading and criticizing a very long manuscript. My very special thanks go to Dr. Barbara Hinckley of the University of Wisconsin, who has enthusiastically assisted this project at every stage from its inception in a reading course I took with her at the University of Massachusetts in 1968-1969 through the final draft. I would never have undertaken this dissertation without her unfailing encouragement and thoughtful advise. I also wish to thank Dr. George Sulzner for taking on the chores of third reader at a very late date. I would also like to thank Mrs. Madeline Gross for the long hours she spent typing this dissertation and for the patience she displayed in working with such a dif f icult-to-handle manuscript. My greatest debt is to my family--to my husband, Neil Romans, to my parents, Gloria and Charles Roberts, and to my son, David, who have supported and encouraged me in every possible way through a long and sometimes trying four years of research and writing. Finally, my thanks go to my cousin and lawyer Roger Hauser, who freely and gener- ously aided me in cutting through the red tape that ensnarled this project during its last months. viil TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION ^ II. DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP CONTESTS, 1895 to 1931 ... 20 III. CONFLICT IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, 1895 to 1955 . 99 IV. LEADERSHIP CHANGE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY 1931 to 1955 192 V. CONFLICT IN THE REPUBLICAN HIERARCHY, 1931 to 1955 247 VI. CONCLUSION 293 BIBLIOGRAPHY 323 Ix LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER II PAGE TABLE 1. Democratic Leadership Selection, 1895-1911 38 2. Democratic Contests and Size of Party, 1895-1911 .... 41 3. Democratic Election Results, 1895-1909 42 4. Democratic Contests and Membership Change, 1895-1911 . 44 5. Democratic Contests and Seniority, 1895-1911 46 6. Democratic Contests and Regional Factions, 1895-1911 . 47 7. Democratic Leadership Selection, 1911-1919 61 8. Democratic Election Results, 1911-1919 64 9. Membership Change in the Democratic Party, 1911-1919 . 65 10. Comparison of Freshmen Members in Democratic Party 1895-1911 66 11. Seniority in the Democratic Party, 1911-1919 67 12. Regionalism within the Democratic Party, 1911-1919 ... 68 Senior 13. Democrats Classified by Region, 1911-1919 .... 69 14. Democratic Leadership Selection, 1919-1931 83 15. Democratic Contests and Size of Party, 1919-1931 .... 86 16. Democratic Contests and Election Results, 1919-1931 . 87 17. Democratic Contests and Membership Change, 1919-1931 . 88 18. Democratic Contests and Seniority, 1919-1931 89 19. Democratic Contests and Regionalism, 1919-1931 91 j X LIST OF TABLES (continued) CHAPTER III PAGE TABLE 1. Republican Leadership Selection, 1895-1911 123 2. Republican Contests and Party Size, 1895-1911 . 125 3. Republican Election Results, 1895-1911 127 4. Republican Contests and Membership Change, 1895-1911 . 128 5. Republican Contests and Seniority, 1895-1911 129 6. Republican Contests and Regional Factions, 1895-1911 . 132 7. Republican Contests and the Growth of the Progressives 1901-1911 7 . .'134 8. Republican Leadership Selection, 1911-1919 145 Republican 9. Contests and Party Size, 1911-1919 .... 149 10. Republican Election Results, 1911-1919 150 11. Republican Contests and Membership Change, 1911-1919 . 151 12. Republican Contests and Seniority, 1911-1919 151 13. Republican Contests and Regional Factions, 1911-1919 . 153 14. Republican Contests and Ideological Factions, 1911-1919 153 15. Republican Leadership Selection, 1919-1931 173 16. Republican Contests and Party Size, 1919-1931 .... 177 17. Republican Election Results, 1919-1931 178 18. Republican Contests and Membership Change, 1919-1931 . 179 19. Republican Contests and Seniority, 1919-1931 180 20. Republican Contests and Regional Factions, 1919-1931 . 181 21. Republican Contests and the Progressives, 1919-1931 . 182 22. Factionalism and Leadership Conflict in the Republican Party, 1895-1931 189 xi LIST OF TABLES (continued) CMPTER IV PAGE TABLE Democratic 1. Leadership Selection, 1931-1941 208 Party 2. Size and Democratic Conflict, 1931-1941 214 3. Democratic Election Returns, 1931-1941 215 4. Democratic Conflict and Membership Change, 1931-1941 . 216 5. Membership Change in the Democratic Party, 1919-1941 . 217 6. Democratic