Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:07:31.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Did the Irish and German Voters Desert the Democrats in 1920? A Tentative Statistical Answer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

R. A. Burchell
R. A. Burchell
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has often been said that the desertion of disproportionately large numbers of Irish and German voters from the Democratic party in 1920 was a major factor in producing the Republican landslide of that year. Warren G. Harding certainly had a German-American father-in-law, had had pro-German sympathies before 1917, and as early as 1916 had been spoken of as a man whom the German-American community could support for the Presidency. The Democratic candidate was undoubtedly identified with Woodrow Wilson, who through his unwillingness to press for self-determination for Ireland could be said to have ‘alienated nearly all of Irish America’. But it is difficult, lacking knowledge as we do of the precise numbers of Irish and German voters who swung away from the Democrats, to feel that a final statement on the matter has been made, while those statements which have been made have not been finally convincing, even where based on statistical evidence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of American Studies , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , August 1972 , pp. 153 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for instance, Bagby, Wesley M., The Road to Normalcy: The Presidential Campaign and Election of 1920 (Baltimore, 1962), pp. 153–5Google Scholar; Bailey, Thomas A., Wilson and the Peacemakers (New York, 1947), p. 342Google ScholarBlum, John M. et al. , The National Experience (2nd edn., New York, 1968), p. 622Google Scholar; Link, Arthur S., American Epoch: A History of the United States since the 1890s (New York, 1955), pp. 248–9Google Scholar; Lubell, Samuel, The Future of American Politics (New York, 1952), pp. 135–8Google Scholar; Sinclair, Andrew, The Available Man: The Life Behind the Masks of Warren Gamaliel Harding (New York, 1965), p. 163Google Scholar; Sullivan, Mark, Our Times: The United States 1900–1925, VI, The Twenties (New York, 1935), pp. 117–18Google Scholar; Wittke, Carl, German-Americans and the World War (with Special Emphasis on Ohio's German-Language Press) (Columbus, Ohio, 1936), p. 209Google Scholar; Wittke, , The Irish in America (Baton Rouge, 1956), p. 291Google Scholar; Wittke, , ‘Ohio's German Language Press in the Campaign of 1920’, Procs. of M.V.H.A., 10, Pt. III (1920–1921), 468–80.Google Scholar

2 Wittke, , German-Americans and the World War, pp. 86, 93Google Scholar; Wittke, , ‘Ohio's German Language Press …’, p. 476.Google Scholar

3 Duff, John B., ‘The Versailles Treaty and the Irish Americans’, J.A.H., 55 (12 1968), 598.Google Scholar

4 Huthmacher, J. Joseph, Massachusetts People and Politics 1919–1933 (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), p. 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Loc. cit.

6 Ibid., p. 43.

7 Burner, David, ‘The Breakup of the Wilson Coalition of 1916’, Mid-Am., 45 (1963), 28–9, 32.Google Scholar

8 Ibid., p. 33.

9 Robinson, Edgar E., The Presidential Vote 1896–1932 (Stanford, 1934), p. 275Google Scholar

10 Burner, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

11 New York Times, 4 November 1920.

12 Freidel, Frank, Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Ordeal (Boston, 1954), p. 88 and noteGoogle Scholar. No figures are given to support this statement.

13 Karson, Marc, American Labour Unions and Politics, 1900–1918 (Carbondale, Ill., 1958), p. 88Google Scholar; Esslinger, Dean R., ‘American German and Irish Attitudes Toward Neutrality, 1914–1917; A Study of Catholic Minorities’, Cath.H.R. 53 (07 1967), 201, 207, 210–11, 212.Google Scholar

14 Link, , Wilson: Campaigns for Progressivism and Peace, 1916–1917 (Princeton, 1965), p. 161Google Scholar; Cuddy, Edward, ‘Irish-Americans and the 1916 Election: An Episode in Immigrant Adjustment’, Am.Q., 21 (Summer 1969), 236CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leary, William M. Jr, ‘Woodrow Wilson, Irish Americans, and the Election of 1916’, J.A.H., 54 (06 1967), 66, 71.Google Scholar

15 Cuddy, , ‘Irish-American Propagandists and American Neutrality 1914–1917’, Mid-Am., 40 (1967). 273.Google Scholar

16 New York Times, 9 November 1916.

17 Ibid., 12 November 1916; Link, , Campaigns for Progressivism and Peace, p. 161 and n. 137Google Scholar; Kerr, Thomas J. IV, ‘German-Americans and Neutrality in the 1916 Election’, Mid-Am., 43 (1961), 103–4.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., pp. 100–1; Link, , op. cit., p. 161Google Scholar; Wittke, , German-Americans and the World War, pp. 110–11.Google Scholar

19 Wittke, , loc. cit.Google Scholar; Bonadio, Felice A., ‘The Failure of German Propaganda in the United States, 1914–1917’, Mid-Am., 41 (1959), 40–57Google Scholar; Cuddy, , ‘Irish-Americans and the 1916 Election…’, pp. 236, 239–41, 243.Google Scholar

20 New York Times Magazine, 19 November 1916, p. 3. It would not be accurate to say that the question of what happened to the Irish and German vote in 1916 has been finally solved. Little statistical work seems to have been done on the matter, though Leary has investigated the first-generation Irish vote in vital areas. His figures, however, suffer from failing to take the second-generation into account, although there is no reason to suppose that in doing so he would need to alter his conclusions. But to be quite fair to the authorities whose statistical work on the 1920 election has been rejected, it is a little unfortunate that it is necessary to take as correct the largely statistically unsupported assertions of what was the case in 1916. It is clearly possible to argue that two standards of judgement are being used here, one for the 1916 election and another for the 1920 election. But against this it can be said that Leary's figures seem incontrovertible, and also, though it may not be totally wise to admit it, it is necessary for the argument of this article that there be no swing from the Democrats among the Irish and Germans in 1916.

21 The method used to establish these figures is described in the Appendix.

22 Robinson, , Presidential Vote, p. 21.Google Scholar

23 See also Slossom, Preston W., The Great Crusade and After 1914–1928 (New York, 1931), p. 91Google Scholar, which speaks of 1920 as showing a ‘nadir of interest in American politics’, and Huthmacher, , Massachusetts People and Politics, p. 44.Google Scholar

24 New York Times, 3 November 1920.

25 Burner, , ‘Breakup of the Wilson Coalition…’, p. 27.Google Scholar

26 Margulies, H. F., ‘The Election of 1920 in Wisconsin: The Return to “Normalcy” Reappraised’, Wis.Mag. of Hist., 38 (1957), 18.Google Scholar

27 Livermore, S., ‘The Sectional Issue in the 1918 Congressional Election’, M.V.H.R. (1948). 29–60.Google Scholar

28 Burner, , op. cit., p. 28.Google Scholar

29 Bagby, Wesley M., ‘Woodrow Wilson, a Third Term and the Solemn Referendum’, A.H.R., 60 (04 1955), 567–75Google Scholar; Burner, , op. cit., p. 29Google Scholar; Huthmacher, , Massachusetts People and Politics, p. 45Google Scholar; Sullivan, , Our Times, pp. 125–7.Google Scholar

30 Hennings, Robert E., ‘California Democratic Politics in the Period of Republican Ascendancy’, Pac.H.R., 31 (08 1962), 268 and note.Google Scholar

31 The swing can be turned into a percentage from figures in Robinson, , Presidential Vote, pp. 145–50, 177–85, 226–7, 247–56 275–80, 292–9, 308–13.Google Scholar

32 Figures available in U.S. Bureau of the Census, Fourteenth Census…1920 (Washington, 1922), iii, pp. 123, 270–2, 455–6, 565–6, 701, 793–4, 883Google Scholar. There were too few Irish- and German-born in Cumberland, Gallatin, Hamilton, Hardin, Johnson and Pope counties, Illinois, and in Fulton, Juniata, Snyder and Union counties, Pennsylvania, to be included in the census figures and so these counties have had to be left out of further calculations.

33 Figures in Fourteenth Census…, ii, pp. 194, 210, 226, 234, 248, 254, 260.

34 Fourteenth Census…, ii, pp. 812, 813, 817.

35 Fourteenth Census…, ii, p. 891.

36 Ibid., ii, pp. 711, 712, 713, 715, 762, 902–3; iii, pp. 123, 270–2, 455–6, 565–6, 701, 793–4, 883, 902–3.

37 Ibid., iii, p. 123; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Twelfth Census of the United States…1900 (Washington, 1901), i, p. 739.Google Scholar

38 Ibid., i, p. 759; Fourteenth Census…, iii, p. 456.

39 Fourteenth Census…, ii, pp. 194, 210, 226, 234, 248, 254, 260.

40 Calculations about registered electorates would have to take into account the complicating factor that states like Illinois, California, Ohio and New York had different registration systems for differing densities of population. See Harris, Joseph P., Registration of Voters in the United States (Washington, 1929), especially pp. 93–8.Google Scholar

41 Figures in Fourteenth Census…, iii, pp. 112–17, 251–60, 443–4, 551–61, 684–9, 776–83, 859–65.