|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
Campaign of James A. Reed (1928)
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Race
|
| Contributor | Chronicler |
| Last Edited | Chronicler May 04, 2023 06:04pm |
| Logged |
4
[Older]
|
| Category | News |
| Author | Chronicler |
| News Date | Saturday, August 31, 2013 12:00:00 PM UTC0:0 |
| Description | James A. Reed was one of three men who ran a nationwide campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1928. Although he had been a renegade Democratic Senator, Reed moved to embrace the Democratic organization during Coolidge's administration, but party leaders did not trust him. Reed was considered the foremost challenger to Alfred E. Smith prior to the convention, but he fared poorly. He then fumbled an attempt to form an anti-Smith coalition at the convention by changing his position on the 18th Amendment. In the end, he won only 52 delegate votes at the convention, placing third.
Background
Reed was originally elected to the Senate in 1910 as a progressive Democrat, although he gave the nominating speech placing Champ Clark in nomination for the presidency at the Democratic National Convention in 1912. During 1916, Reed was increasingly unhappy with the anti-German rhetoric used by President Wilson, which began to drive a wedge between the two men. Reed was a leader of the opposition to Wilson's domestic policies during the World War, the women's suffrage amendment, and the Prohibition amendment. After the Democrats lost control of the Senate in 1918, Reed became an independent Democrat, ignoring calls for party unity and generally angering the Democratic organization. He was a vocal opponent of ratification of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations. At the 1920 Democratic National Convention, party faithful punished him on the convention floor by stripping him of his status as a delegate. Some Missouri Democrats participated in this action, and the state party was badly divided for five years afterwards. Then in 1922, ex-President Wilson recruited a primary opponent to run against Reed; in the end, Reed won re-nomination and re-election [NYT 8/8/1926].
In 1925, Reed's rhetoric in speeches began to change. He became one of the leading Democratic opponents of President Coolidge, and his speeches increasingly impressed the party. When Coolidge inquired about US recognition of the World Court in 1925, Reed called on Democrats to oppose the move; he and Hiram Johnson spoke at length on the floor against the move, and after losing the vote, they held rallies in states to promote primary challenges against Senators who supported it [NYT 8/13/1925; 1/20, 2/22/1926]. In a speech to the Boot and Shoe Manufacturers, Reed stated that individual liberty was being sacrificed by the Coolidge administration, which he claimed was spying on citizens [NYT 1/20/1927].
Reed came to prominence when he was appointed chairman of a US Senate committee investigating campaign spending. The committee was particularly interested in the races in Pennsylvania and Illinois where the Republicans spent enormous amounts of money, and the committee succeeded in preventing the winners from assuming the seats [NYT 8/8/1926]. The committee held meetings in various cities around the nation. Reed was particularly interested in how the Ku Klux Klan and the Anti-Saloon League exercised undue influence over elections [NYT 10/16/1926]. On the last day of the Congress of 1925-1927, with no money authorized for the committee to continue its work, David Reed of Pennsylvania filibustered against James Reed of Missouri, and very little of the critical final items of business were considered [NYT 3/5/1927]. Some committee members gave their own money so that the investigation could continue [3/20/1927].
The Reed "Boom"
During the years 1880 to 1976, the period prior to an announcement of candidacy was called the "boom" period of a candidate. This was a time when supporters held rallies in favor of the candidate, and he would give policy speeches around the nation. "Booms" ended when the candidate announced, which was then called "throwing his hat in the ring."
The Reed boom for 1928 began on 8/31/1926 when Kansas City Democrats held a mass gathering and announced they would support Reed in 1928 [NYT 9/1/1926]. Reed had already announced that he would not run for a fourth term as US Senator, so if he lost the presidency, his political career would end [NYT 10/10/1926]. The state party held a dinner on 2/22/1927 to encourage his boom and to make sure that the party would finally be united behind him [NYT 2/23/1927]. The Reed campaign used an idea that was first used during the Clark campaign in 1912: supporters started a chain letter that was intended to draw out his support nationwide [NYT 4/10/1927].
An event that had important repercussions for Reed's presidential candidacy was the Sapiro-Ford trial of 1927. When Aaron Sapiro filed a libel suit against Henry Ford for charging him with being a leader of a Jewish banking conspiracy to control food prices, Ford hired Reed to defend him [NYT 3/1,5,12/1927]. After weeks of testimony, including several days of Reed grilling Sapiro on the stand, Sapiro dropped 54 of his original 141 libel counts [NYT 3/25/1927]. A month later, a juror gave an interview to a reporter, revealing details of the jury's early conclusions. The judge was incensed and was forced to declare a mistrial [NYT 4/22/1927]. Ford eventually apologized, and while the parties settled out of court, Sapiro said that he would not forgive Reed, who had collected $100,000 in fees "to defend bigotry" [NYT 7/21/1927]. By taking the case, Reed made unnecessary enemies and lost time that he should have devoted to establishing state organizations for his upcoming campaign. He was never able to recoup this lost time.
Reed made a long campaign swing through the West and South in mid-1927. The stated purpose was to allow him to visit his sister in Portland, Oregon. From there, he gave speeches in CA, NM, TX, LA, GA, and VA [NYT 5/30/1927]. During this trip, Reed's call for a special session of Congress to authorize money for relief to victims of the Mississippi River flood was ignored, so Reed called for a Flood Board to oversee relief [NYT 6/10/1927]. While addressing a joint session of the Georgia legislature, Reed responded to a claim by the Coolidge administration that the prosperity was the result of his administration's policies. Reed stated that the prosperity was the result of the Federal Reserve; he said that Coolidge could not claim credit because the government did not create wealth [NYT 7/13/1927].
During the fall of 1927, Reed was forced to spend time defending his agricultural policies. He had voted against the McNary-Haugen bill, which passed Congress but was vetoed by Coolidge. Reed gave several speeches in the fall of 1927, arguing that farmers would benefit more from tariff reform than the "false remedy" of McNary-Haugen. This was a particular problem in Kansas, where former Gov. Jonathan Davis supported Reed and faced a real challenge with agricultural Democrats [NYT 9/1/1927]. Reed made several campaign swings through Kansas making his case [NYT 9/6, 20/1927].
The Reed Candidacy
Reed announced his candidacy for President in Sedalia, Missouri, on 10/12/1927. An estimated 13,000 Democrats came to hear his announcement. His speech, which was described as the "best speech of his career" by reporters, outlined decisions of the Harding and Coolidge administrations that Reed opposed. Reed summed up by saying "The times are ripe, and rotten ripe, for a change." He called for "an honest administration of government" that would place "the interests of our country and our people" first [NYT 10/13/1927]. Reed eventually established his national headquarters in DC, and at that time, the only other national Democratic campaign was that of Alfred E. Smith [NYT 1/26/1928].
Reed's strategy was to spend as little as possible and to concentrate on giving speeches. Altogether, his campaign only spent $1,500. It was becoming increasingly clear that Smith had wrapped up the northeast and much of the Old Northwest, so Reed concentrated on the West and South. He made another swing through these states in the late winter. Reed and Smith first battled in Arizona, where Smith won the state convention and swept all delegates. The New York Times published an estimate of delegates on 4/4, which showed that Smith had won 244 delegates at that point to 36 for Reed (Missouri) and 28 for George (Georgia). Ironically, Reed won the Wisconsin primary but had no delegates running, so Smith won the delegates [NYT 4/4, 5/2/1928].
Throughout the winter and spring of 1928, Democratic leaders nationwide heard complaints from party faithful about Smith. While Smith continued to perform well, it was always possible that he would not be able to pass the 2/3 mark at the national convention. Reed ran a campaign that complemented Smith, hoping that if the convention met an impasse that Smith's delegates would swing to him. In Oklahoma, Smith and Reed supporters won control of the state convention over Klan delegates and appointed an uncommitted Smith/Reed slate [NYT 4/11/1928].
In state after state, however, local Democrats complained that Reed had not fully supported Wilson; at that time, Democrats had a similar view of Wilson to the view that Republicans generally have of Donald Trump. Reed's underperformance in the conventions is difficult to fully document, but he clearly tanked in the primaries. Smith crushed him in California, Oregon, and West Virginia. In Oregon, he even placed third behind Walsh, who had already withdrawn from the race. The time had passed for Reed to withdraw, but he wanted to make one last effort at the national convention.
Reed at the Democratic National Convention, 1928
Reed's traditional mistrust of the Democratic organization was revealed again at the convention. He was the first candidate to set up a headquarters in Houston [NYT 6/20]. No longer friendly to Smith, Reed claimed that he and the favorite sons had more than a third of the delegates and could prevent a Smith nomination. As the convention began, Reed was working on a scheme to have one of his Missouri delegates withdraw; Reed would be chosen as a replacement delegate and give a major speech on the platform and win more delegate support [NYT 6/20].
A group of Southern Democrats met before the convention to discuss how they could prevent a Smith nomination. They were wary of Reed because he did not support enforcement of prohibition. Reed sent them a message that prohibition was the law of the land, so if elected president he would enforce it [NYT 6/25]. This reversal of his long-held beliefs just to win a handful of Southern delegates smacked of desperation, not of leadership, and in fact it tarnished his reputation among party faithful on both sides of the issue.
When the convention came to the presidential balloting, Reed asked Charles M. Howell of Missouri to place his name in nomination. Howell described Reed as "the iron man of the nation's Democracy." Following his speech, the Missouri delegation began a procession that was followed by only three delegations: FL, OK, and NE. When the balloting took place, Reed won only 48 votes. During the shifts, four delegates from Kansas shifted to him, which is remarkable because usually delegates shift to the winner, not the candidate who placed third. After the vote, Reed was allowed to address the convention and call for party unity. |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
