No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 January 2013
Many political scientists and historians attribute the candidate-centered campaign, a defining characteristic of the modern American political system, to the appearance of the direct primary during the Progressive Era. During the nineteenth century, when the major parties selected their nominees in conventions, office seekers maintained a lower profile, and partisan-minded voters were not overly influenced by the personal characteristics of the candidates. Using California as a case study, this essay traces the emergence of a new breed of aggressive office seekers at the turn of the twentieth century. It looks specifically at the canvassing activities of would-be gubernatorial nominees in the weeks leading up to the state convention. In its heyday, the convention system marginalized elective office seekers. The multilayered convention system was too decentralized and complex to be manipulated in the interests any one candidate. Candidates began to exert more influence over the nomination process in the waning years of the nominating convention. The introduction of state regulation of party functions took control of the process out of the hands of local partisan clubs and cliques. Delegates began to be selected on the basis of their affiliation with a gubernatorial candidate. Conventions lost much of their deliberative character, and voting blocs emerged tied to particular candidates through the unit rule. By the time the direct primary appeared on the scene in 1909, the aggressive office seeker was already a fixture on the political landscape. In short, scholars have exaggerated the impact of the shift from indirect to direct nominations and have overlooked the implications of the regulation of political parties when the convention system was still in place. The direct primary was part of a long tradition of reform designed to serve the interests of the parties' office-seeking or office-holding contingent at the expense of the party organization.
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the thirty-fourth Social Science History Association conference in Long Beach, California (2009), where political scientist Ronald King furnished helpful commentary. The author would also like to thank the journal's anonymous reviewers for their contributions to improving the essay.
2 Nasaw, David, The Chief, The Life of William Randolph Hearst (Boston, 2000), 39–40Google Scholar; Redwood City Times and Gazette, July 1, 1882, 4; San Francisco Examiner, June 23, 1882, 1.
3 Los Angeles Times, June 11, 1882, 2; Redwood City Times and Gazette, July 1, 1882, 4.
4 The Mountain Democrat, June 10, 1882, 2; San Francisco Examiner, June 24, 1882, 3.
5 San Francisco Examiner, June 24, 1882, 3; Redwood City Times and Gazette, July 1, 1882, 4; Aug. 5, 1882, 4; Dobie, Edith, The Political Career of Stephen Mallory White: A Study of Party Activities under the Convention System (Stanford, CA, 1927), 63Google Scholar. One of Stoneman's unpopular acts was to appoint Hearst to a vacant U.S. Senate seat.
6 National Conference on the Practical Reform of Primary Elections, Proceedings of the National Conference on the Practical Reform of Primary Elections, January 20, 21, 1898 (Chicago, 1898), 11, 89. Bryce, James, The American Commonwealth (London, 1888), 1:100–10Google Scholar; Hempstead, Ernest A., “The Crawford County or Direct Primary System” in Proceedings of the Rochester Conference for Good City Government, ed. Woodruff, Clinton Rogers (Philadelphia, 1901), 197–217Google Scholar.
7 Ranney, Austin, Curing the Mischiefs of Faction: Party Reform in America (Berkeley, 1975), 124–25Google Scholar; Sproat, John G., The Best Men: Liberal Reformers in the Gilded Age (New York, 1968), 247–52Google Scholar; 277–78; Keller, Morton, America's Three Regimes, A New Political History (New York, 2007), 86Google Scholar; David M. Kennedy, “Throwing the Bums Out for 140 Years,” New York Times, Nov. 7, 2010, WK9; Silbey, Joel H., The American Political Nation, 1838–1893 (Stanford, CA, 1991), 59–70Google Scholar; Cherny, Robert W., American Politics in the Gilded Age, 1868–1900 (Wheeling, IL, 1997), 8–10Google Scholar.
8 Ranney, Curing the Mischiefs of Faction, 18; See also Klinghard, Daniel, The Nationalization of American Political Parties, 1880–1896 (New York, 2010), 144–234Google Scholar; Cherny, Politics in the Gilded Age, 132–33; McGerr, Michael E., The Decline of Popular Politics, The American North, 1865–1928 (New York, 1986), 171–73Google Scholar.
9 Reynolds, John F., The Demise of the American Convention System, 1880–1911 (New York, 2006).Google Scholar
10 Shefter, Martin, “Regional Receptivity to Reform: The Legacy of the Progressive Era,” Political Science Quarterly 98 (Autumn 1983): 459–83Google Scholar; Kleppner, Paul, “Voters and Parties in the Western States, 1876–1900,” Western Historical Quarterly 14 (Jan. 1983): 49–68.Google Scholar
11 Los Angeles Times, Aug. 27, 1886, 4; Sept. 2, 1882, 1; San Francisco Examiner, Sept. 2, 1886, 5.
12 Westbrook, Robert B., “Politics as Consumption: Managing the Modern American Election” in The Culture of Consumption: Critical Essays in American History, 1880–1980, ed. Fox, Richard Wightman and Lears, T. J. Jackson (New York, 1983), 154Google Scholar; Ethington, Philip J., “The Metropolis and Multicultural Ethics: Direct Democracy versus Deliberative Democracy in the Progressive Era” in Progressivism and the New Democracy, ed. Milkis, Sidney M. and Mileur, Jerome M. (Amherst, MA, 1999), 192.Google Scholar
13 San Francisco Call, June 5, 1879, 4.
14 George Cooper Pardee to John Zolner, July 20, 1906, folder “July 20–26,” box 34, George Cooper Pardee Papers, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.
15 George Heazelton to Henry H. Markham, Apr. 8, 1890, box 8, and E. O. Gerberding to Markham, May 19, 1890, box 7, Henry H. Markham Papers, Huntington Library, San Marino, CA.
16 Los Angeles Times, June 7, 1882, 2; William H. Mills to Henry Zenas Osborne, Feb. 12, 1898, box 7, Henry Zenas Osborne Papers, Huntington Library.
17 San Francisco Examiner, June 2, 1882, 3.
18 Los Angeles Times, Aug. 14, 1886, 4; Klinghard, Nationalization of Political Parties, 39; Green, George Walton, “Facts About the Caucus and the Primary,” North American Review, Sept. 1883, 257–69Google Scholar.
19 Los Angeles Times, Aug. 19, 1882, 4; Aug. 22, 1882, 4; San Francisco Examiner, June 2, 1882, 3.
20 Quoted in Los Angeles Times, Aug. 18, 1886, 2; Mountain Democrat, June 10, 1882, 2.
21 San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 21, 1886, 2; Easley, Ralph M., “The Sine Qua Non of Caucus Reform,” Review of Reviews, Sept. 1897, 322–24Google Scholar; Keller, Morton, Affairs of State: Public Life in Late Nineteenth-Century America (Cambridge, MA, 1977), 533–34.Google Scholar
22 Marin County Journal, June 15, 1882, 3; Aug. 10, 1882, 3.
23 San Francisco Chronicle, June 8, 1879; Aug. 28, 1886; Green, “Caucus and Primary.”
24 San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 16, 1898, 1. The roll call of delegates at the 1882 Republican State Convention listed sixty-seven men as proxies in a full delegation of 455 (or 14.7 percent). Republican Party of California, “Roll Call of the Republican State Convention, 1882,” Bancroft Library. The San Francisco Examiner reported a like percentage (13.0 percent) of proxies attending the 1894 Republican State Convention, June 20, 1894, 2.
25 Los Angeles Times, June 6, 1894, 4; San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 18, 1898, 1.
26 Ethnic, religious, and military affiliations were also recognized, but they were of secondary importance. San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 26, 1898, 1; San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 24, 1894, 2.
27 San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 19, 1890, 2; Aug. 28, 1902, 1.
28 San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 25, 1902, 3.
29 Arthur Judson Pillsbury, “Plans for Effective County Organization of the Republican Party in California,” (Tulare, CA, 1898), 17, Bancroft Library; Los Angeles Times, Aug. 5, 1902, 10.
30 Los Angeles Times, Aug. 22, 1886, 6; San Francisco Examiner, June 23, 1882, 3; June 24, 1882, 3.
31 San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 26, 1886, 5; June 18, 1894, 1.
32 The relevant laws can be found in California Statutes (1895), no. 181, pp. 207–18; (1897), no. 106, pp. 115–34; (1899), no. 46, pp. 47–56; (1901), no. 197, pp. 606–19.
33 California League of Republican Clubs, “Second Biennial Convention of the California League of Republican Clubs, Held in Los Angeles, April 27–28, 1900,” 28–29, California State Library, Sacramento. Klinghard, Nationalization of Political Parties, 66–97.
34 McGerr, Popular Politics, 180–81; Klinghard, Nationalization of Political Parties, 142–43.
35 Petersen, Eric Falk, “The Struggle for the Australian Ballot in California,” California Historical Quarterly 51 (Fall 1972): 227–43.Google Scholar
36 San Francisco Examiner, June 3, 1894, 9; Los Angeles Times, July 31, 1894, 4; Pillsbury, “Effective County Organization”; Bensel, Richard Franklin, The American Ballot Box in the Mid Nineteenth Century (New York, 2004), 14–16.Google Scholar
37 Excluded from the analysis is the vote for one delegate in the 73rd assembly district whose name was on both the Gage and Flint tickets.
38 San Francisco Examiner, June 18, 1894, 1; Pardee to J. Cal Ewing, July 20, 1906, folder “July 20–26,” box 34, Pardee Papers.
39 San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 27, 1902, 3.
40 San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 9, 1902, 6; Aug. 13, 1902, 4; Aug. 16, 1902, 1.
41 The law applied only to state delegates elected under the primary election law. A motion to apply this principle to the mostly rural delegates appointed outside the provisions of the law failed in 1902 but was in place by 1906. See San Francisco Examiner, Sept. 3, 1902, 4; Los Angeles Times, Aug. 27, 1906, 2.
42 Democrats unanimously elected their gubernatorial nominees in 1898 and 1906. In those years the vote on governor was substituted by the first recorded roll call in each convention: resolving a contested delegation dispute from San Francisco in 1898 and selecting the temporary convention chair in 1906. In Graphs 1 and 2, the county is the unit of analysis except in populous San Francisco and Los Angeles, where delegates were elected by assembly district in 1902 and 1906. Tiny Alpine County, represented by a single delegate, is not included in the analysis.
43 After 1898, counties containing more than one assembly district elected delegates by district rather than countywide.
44 The Republican vote in 1898 was on the selection of temporary chair. After the Gage forces won this contest his rivals dropped out, and he was nominated unanimously.
45 San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 18, 1898, 1; June 21, 1894, 1.
46 The correlations are based on the percentage of a county delegation's vote for the candidate with the most votes at the end of the first roll call or in procedural matters the more numerous “aye” or “nay” vote. A drawback to the procedure is that it treats large and small counties as the same. This distortion is diminished after 1898 when the state's two main urban counties were divided up into assembly districts.
47 The newspapers usually did not publish a county-by-county record of the voting on minor state offices, and the handful listed here are all that can be found in the major newspapers. Most of the time, no roll call was required when it came to selecting a lesser state official. About two-thirds of the time nominees for lieutenant governor, treasurer, comptroller, attorney general, superintendant of public instruction, and secretary of state were approved by acclamation or in noncompetitive roll calls where the winner took two-thirds or more of the vote.
48 Morning Call (San Francisco), Aug. 25, 1886, 1; San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 26, 1902, 2; San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 5, 1906, 5.
49 Los Angeles Times, June 19, 1894, 1; San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 9, 1898, 1; Aug. 27, 1906, 4.
50 Bullough, William A., The Blind Boss and His City, Christopher Augustine Buckley and Nineteenth Century San Francisco (Berkeley, 1979)Google Scholar. Petersen, Eric Falk, “The End of an Era: California's Gubernatorial Election of 1894,” Pacific Historical Review 38 (May 1969): 146.Google Scholar
51 Cherny, Gilded Age, 10; Calhoun, Charles W., “The Political Culture: Public Life and the Conduct of Politics” in The Gilded Age, Essays on the Origins of Modern America, ed. Calhoun, Charles W. (Wilmington, DE, 1996), 200Google Scholar; Walsh, James P., “Abe Ruef Was No Boss: Machine Politics, Reform, and San Francisco,” California Historical Quarterly 51 (Spring 1972): 3–16Google Scholar; Silbey, American Political Nation, 123.
52 See, for example, Frank Miller to Daniel M. Burns, Aug. 6, 1898, folder 3, box 2; unknown to “Frank,” July 9, 1898, folder 56, box 2, Daniel M. Burns Papers, Bancroft Library.
53 San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 23, 1898, 1.
54 Los Angeles Times, Sept 8, 1906, 3; Sept. 13, 1906, 4.
55 The state senate and assembly bickered over whether the provision should apply to U.S. senators, but no one spoke up in defense of the status quo. Hichborn, Franklin, Story of the Session of the California Legislature of 1909 (San Francisco, 1909), 68–120.Google Scholar
56 San Francisco Examiner, Feb 12, 1909, 1.
57 Tulare County Times, Aug. 5, 1886; Los Angeles Times, Aug 5, 1902, 4. On the spread of the Crawford County plan, Ware, Alan, The American Direct Primary: Party Institutionalization and Transformation in the North (Cambridge, 2002), 62Google Scholar; Dallinger, Frederick W., Nominations for Elective Office in the United States (New York, 1903), 127.Google Scholar
58 Lower, Richard Coke, A Bloc of One: The Political Career of Hiram W. Johnson (Stanford, CA, 1993), 22.Google Scholar
59 Reynolds, Convention System, 229–30; Lovejoy, Allen Fraser, Robert M. La Follette and the Establishment of the Direct Primary in Wisconsin, 1890–1904 (New Haven, 1941), 43–54Google Scholar; Holli, Melvin G., “Mayor Pingree Campaigns for the Governorship,” Michigan History 57 (Summer 1973): 151–73Google Scholar; Pegram, Thomas R., Partisans and Progressives: Private Interest and Public Policy in Illinois, 1870–1922 (Urbana, 1992), 156.Google Scholar
60 McCormick, Richard P., The Presidential Game: The Origins of American Presidential Politics (New York, 1982)Google Scholar.
61 Bogue, Allan G. et al. , “Members of the House of Representatives and the Process of Modernization, 1789–1960,” Journal of American History 63 (Sept. 1976): 291–305Google Scholar; Cox, Gary W. and Morgenstern, Scott, “The Increasing Advantage of Incumbency in the U. S. States,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 18 (Nov. 1993): 495–514.Google Scholar
62 Burnham, Walter Dean, “The Changing Shape of the American Political Universe,” American Political Science Review 59 (March 1965): 7–28Google Scholar; Silbey, American Political Nation, 224–36; McGerr, Popular Politics; Westbrook, “Politics as Consumption.”
63 Aldrich, John H., Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America (Chicago, 1995), 4.Google Scholar