RARE Letter & Doc Archive Charles Noyes Family 1880s Westport PA - POLITICS for Sale

On eBay Now...

RARE Letter & Doc Archive Charles Noyes Family 1880s Westport PA - POLITICS For Sale

When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

RARE Letter & Doc Archive Charles Noyes Family 1880s Westport PA - POLITICS:
$1200.00

RARE - IMPORTANT - Letter Archive
Political related Letters of the Well-known Noyes FamilyLetters to Charles R. Noyes, brother of Amos Noyes (PA Treasurer & Congressman)
Noyes, PA named after Amos35 Letters / Documents, + approx 12 ballots / relatedWestport, Clinton County, PA
& Surrounding areas
1880s

For offer, a rare opportunity to buy a fresh unresearched and unread archive! Fresh from an old prominent estate. Never offered on the market until now. Vintage, Old, Original - NOTa Reproduction - Guaranteed !!

This collection was recently purchased from an elderly woman who saved it for generations. It came with a much larger collection of letters pertaining to the lumbering business. Charles and Amos Noyes were well known and respected citizens, involved in many things, but most notably the lumber business. Both men are prominently represented in Clinton County histories. Charles was Postmaster of Westport for decades, and held various other positions. His brother, Amos, eventually became involved in politics, and served as a Congressman and Pennsylvania Treasurer. Amos died several years before Charles, and the majority of the items here are to Charles. All letters at TO Charles Noyes, regarding politics - mainly Democrat party. I have the other, much larger collection of letters dealing with the family business listed separately. Also, I will list a large group of postcards that came with this collection.

Archives such as this rarely come on the market, and this one gives a very good look into the politics of this area. I counted 35 letters / documents, plus about 12 ballots related items. Some letters are multiple pages, and I counted them as one letter. There are also some postal cover envelopes, which I did not count. I have not read most of this collection - I glimpsed here or there, but nearly all of them are unread, and I do not know all the content. These are also in no particular order. I just showed them as I found - some were inside the envelopes and taken out. The condition is very good overall.Fold marks and possibly a small rip here or there. Please see photos and scans for all details and condition. If you collect19thcentury Americana advertisement ad history, United States business, political parties, writing, correspondence, etc.this is a nice one for your paper or ephemera collection. Genealogy research importance as well. Combine shipping on multiple items purchased. 3164

The Renovo Record, Fri., Sept. 22, 1893.Died.Death of Charles R. Noyes.He Expired Yesterday Morning At His Home At Westport.His Loss to the Community an Irreparable One.Cancer The Immediate Cause of His Death.Charles R. Noyes died yesterday morning at his residence at Westport this county, after an illness of about six months. He was taken sick with rheumatism. He spent several weeks last spring at the famous Sizerville mineral springs, under the care of an eminent physician, in the hope of effecting a cure. When he returned to his home he was feeling better and with encouraging signs of relief.About four months ago a cancerous affection appeared over his right breast. He paid little attention to its presence until it began to cause him pain. His physicians advised him to to to Philadelphia at once for treatment. He did so but the physicians believing that death would result. They pronounced it Osteo Sarcoma, a form of cancer under the right collar bone extending above and below to the chest. He returned home very much disheartened, without the slightest hope of recovery.Mr. Noyes was born in Grafton Co., N. H., Jan. 5th, 1829 and died in the 65th year of his age. He received an education in the public schools and the Newberg Methodist Academy in Vermont. He came to Westport in 1850 and acted as clerk for his brother, Col. A. C. Noyes, until 1854, when he became partner in his business, in storekeeping, lumbering, building railroads, &c. After the Colonel’s death he moved his family into the old mansion, located at the mouth of Kettle Creek, where they still reside. Mr. Noyes was a well known democrat. He held the position of postmaster from 1854 to 1891. He filled nearly all the township offices, and several times was sent to Harrisburg to represent the democracy of the county in state convention. He was a candidate for county treasurer in 1890, but was defeated by the present treasurer, Hon. S. W. Caldwell.Mr. Noyes was married to Mary A. Herman, a daughter of Michael Herman, on July 45th 1865. Their children are Hattie, Martha, Edward, Nellie, Bessie, Hannah, and Daisy, all of whom are living.The death of Mr. Noyes, will be a great loss to the people of both Noyes and Leidy townships. He was kind and charitable, helping all with a liberal hand. Funeral services will take place at his late residence at 1 o’clock Saturday afternoon. Rev. John D. Cook will preach the funeral sermon. Interment at Noyes cemetery.
Amos Clark Noyes (September 17, 1818 – September 4, 1880) was an American politician and business owner. Born in Grafton County, New Hampshire, he later moved to Pennsylvania, where he served on the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and as Pennsylvania Treasurer (1877–1880).
BiographyAmos Clark Noyes was born on September 17, 1818, in Grafton County, New Hampshire. His ancestors were of Scotch-Irish descent. Noyes became a prominent and highly respected figure in the state of Pennsylvania.[1] Noyes was also a prominent landowner and noted lumberman in the vicinity of the West Branch of the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania.[citation needed]
Noyes was born to Rufus and Hannah Clark Noyes.[2] He taught school at the age of sixteen.[3] In 1847, he moved to Lockport, Pennsylvania, where he worked in the lumber business and was a dealer of general merchandise. He resided in Emporium, Cameron County, Pennsylvania for two years before relocating to Westport, Pennsylvania, in 1849, where he lived for many years and was known as “Square Timber Noyes.”[3] He served briefly as a colonel of militia in the run-up to the American Civil War, during which he was a prominent War Democrat.[4] As a contractor, Noyes was involved with the construction of the Clinton County Courthouse in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, which was built between 1867 and 1869.[5]
Noyes was nominated as the Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives by the legislative districts of Lycoming and Clinton (in 1862).[1] He served a total of five one-year terms in office, from 1863–1865 and 1871–1873.[6] In 1875, at the Democratic State Convention in Erie, Pennsylvania, Noyes was a major, albeit unsuccessful, candidate for the party nomination for governor.[2] He was elected to the office of Pennsylvania Treasurer and served from 1877 to 1880.[6]
Noyes Township in Clinton County was named after Amos Noyes.[1][7][8] The Col. A.C. Noyes Castle, Knights of the Eagle, named for Noyes, was instituted in 1890 in Westport, Pennsylvania, with 49 members.[9]
Personal lifeNoyes was married on July 30, 1854, to Rebecca J., daughter of Charles and Hannah (Saltman) Stewart. Rebecca was born on September 10, 1833, in Westport, Pennsylvania, and like her husband came from an old Scotch family.[4]
The funeral of Amos Noyes took place on September 7, 1880.[4]BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES.
HON. AMOS C. NOYES.
Among the names of the men who have been prom-inent in the State of Pennsylvania, who have heldpositions of great responsibility and honor, we findthe name of Hon. Amos C. Noyes. Born in GraftonCounty, N. H., Sept. 18, 1817, he grew to man\'s es-tate therein, developing into a manhood as firm in itsintegrity, as grand in its conceptions of noblenessaud generosity as the granite rocks of his nativeState. His ancestors, as set forth in the biographyof his brother Charles, were of Scotch-Irish descent,and resided in New Hampshire from its earliest set-tlement. Until he had attained his majority he wasoccupied in agricultural pursuits connected with hisfather\'s farm, acquiring meanwhile the rudiments of auseful and practical education. He was then activelyengaged for a few years in general mercantile pursuits,meeting with varying success. Removing to Em-porium, Cameron Co., Pa., in 1847, he occupied him-self in the lumbering trade.\' In this business hecontinued until his death, which occurred Sept. 3,1880. In 1849 he moved from Cameron County toWestport, in Clinton County, Pa., where he continuedto reside until his death. In the lumbering businesshe met with great and merited success. He was atthe head of the firm of Noyes, Bridgens & Co., whowere at that time the largest square-lumber dealers onthe West Brand), and for many years his time wasengrossed by the cares incident to so large and ex-tensive a business, also by a growing interest in themomentous public and political questions then agi-tating the country, and whicli culminated ultimatelyin the civil conflict. During the Rebellion he was anactive and warmly-interested LTnionist, and exerted(2 . &, J^
/
CHAPMAN TOWNSHIP.
589
himself to the utmost in aiding to uphold the rightsand honor of his State and country. In politics,Col. Noyes (taking that title from a militia colonelcywhich he held some years before) was a Democrat,and during the civil war a war Democrat. In 1862his legislative district, then composed of Clinton andLycoming Counties, nominated him as the Demo-cratic candidate for the House of Representatives.Hon. James Chatham was the Republican nomineefor re-election. The previous year Mr. Chatluim hadcarried the district by four hundred majority. ThisCol. Noyes not only reversed, but added twelve hun-dred to it, making a change of sixteen hundred votes.His term, for which he had made such a gallant fight,was filled with such honest fidelity to his section andState that he was ag.ain put forward by his friends forthe same position and was again elected. In 1864,observing the two consecutive term rule, he was nota candidate. In 1868 he was a Presidential elector onthe Democratic ticket.
In 1870 his legislative district, which had been bythe apportionment changed to embrace Clinton, Cam-eron, and McKean Counties, again nominated himfor the Legislature. Cameron was a RepublicanCounty, and gave Schofield, the Republican candidatefor Congress, forty-five majority, while it gave Col.Noyes three hundred and fifty-eight Democratic ma-jority, and he was for the third time elected. In 1871his district was again changed to comprise Clinton,Lycoming, and Sullivan Counties, and was entitledto two members, and Col. Noyes was one of thoseelected to represent this district. In 1872 he was forthe fifth time elected to the Legislature. While act-ing in this capacity he served on several prominentcommittees, viz., the Committee on Ways and Means,on Corporation and Education, besides others of lessmagnitude and importance. While engaged in theseresponsible positions he evidenced at all times andunder all circumstances the possession of many neededand admirable qualities. When the internecine strug-gle was at its fullest and most menacing developmenthe was bold and fearless in speech and action, whilehe labored incessantly to increase the means and re-sources of the government, and effectively denouncedthe trickery of faithless partisans and officials. Al-though devoted to the interests of his party, and anenergetic and able ally and leader, he always sternlyrefused to use his talents in serving it when conscien-tiously opposed to its measures and operations. In1875, at the Democratic State Convention held at Erie,Col. Noyes was one of the most prominent candidatesfor the office of Governor. After a warm contest ofmany ballotings between his friends, Bigler and Barr,a compromise was finally made by nominating JudgePershing. In 1877 he was nominated by the Demo-cratic State Convention as its candidate for Statetreasurer, to which office he was elected, and whichhe filled with credit to himself and his State. Hewas also a member of the Board of Public Charities,
and was tireless in his efforts to make that organiza-tion prompt and effectual in its workings. Generouslyinterested in all matters of progress, im])rovement,and philanthropy, he did much to ameliorate thecondition of the poorer classes in the section ofPennsylvania where he resided, and was alwaysready to co-operate vigorously in all charitable enter-prises. As an orator. Col, Noyes was curt, incisive,logical, and convincing, wliile his plain and unlaboreddelivery was forcible and impressive. He died in theprime of life, honored and esteemed by all who knewhim, and still missed by his friends and neighbors asfew men are. He was married July 30, 1854, to MissRebecca J., daughter of Charles and Hannah (Salt-man) Stewart. She was born Sept. 10, 183.3, in West-port, Pa., and came of an old and honorable Scotchfiimily. The funeral of Col. Noyes took place Sept.7, 1880. Rev. J. J. Pearce, an old and esteemed friend,preached the sermon, paying a glowing tribute to thememory of the deceased, and attesting to his moralworth and stainless character. After the sermon JohnS. Bailey, Esq., read a biographical sketch of his lifefrom boyhood to the time of his death. The bodywas then taken in charge by the Masonic order, andproceeded to the place of burial, which had been se-lected a few days before by the deceased. The hearsewas preceded by Renovo Lodge, No. 495, of which hewas a member. A number of other lodges were inthe procession, as were many of the most prominentmen in the State, and hundreds of the hardy lumber-men, who came many miles to attend the burial oftheir deceased friend. It was the largest funeral everheld in Northern Pennsylvania, and well attested thelove and respect felt for him by all classes.
CHARLES R. NOYES.Prominent among the representative families ofClinton County we find the name of Noyes. Theirancestors were Scotch-Irish, and came, it is supposed,from the north of Ireland, and settled prior to theRevolutionary war in the southern part of the Stateof New Hampshire, where Nathaniel Noyes (the firstof the family of whom definite knowledge is had)was born. Soon after the war for independence he,with his family, moved to Grafton County, N. H., wherehe bought a farm, on which he remained until hisdeath. His wife was Miss Mary Harriman, and tothem were born six sons and two daughters, all ofwhom grew to man and woman\'s estate. The seventhof these was Rufus, who was born in 1789. He grewto manhood in his native county, and, like his father,turned his attention to farming. He married MissHannah Clark, who was of English extraction. Theirchildren were Amos C, James C, Hannah M., RufusH., Charles R., and Jennie, all of whom are stillliving, except Amos C. and Rufus H. Mrs. Noyesdied in 1846, at the age of fifty-three, and in August,1862, Mr. Noyes was thrown from a load of hay and
590
HISTORY OF CLINTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.
killed. Charles R. Noyes, our subject, was born inGrafton, Jan. 5, 1829. He grew to manhood on thehome farm, going to the district school winters andtwo terms at the Newbury, Vt., Methodist Seminary.Arrived at maturity, he started out in life for himself,his first work being on a farm at twelve dollars permonth. In 1850, Mr. Noyes joined his brother Amos,who was keeping a general store in what is now West-port, Clinton Co., Pa. He clerked for his brotheruntil 1854, when he became a partner. In 1859 theypartly closed out the mercantile business, and wenext find the brothers grading and building themason-work for the bridges of nine miles of the Phila-delphia and Erie Railroad. Their contract was com-pleted in two years. The brothers then devoted theirenergies mainly to lumbering, which has been Mr.Noyes\' principal calling ever since. He has an in-terest in many thousand acres of pine lands. InCameron County the firm is known as the \" Hunt\'sRun Lumbering Company.\" In Clearfield and Clin-ton Counties he is one of the firm of Carskaddon &Co. at Three Run. He is also owner, or nearly so, ofthe Noyes\' mill near Westport, a water-mill which heruns about nine months in thfe year. Mr. Noyeshandles principally square timber, round logs, andsawed lumber, and in a skilled way as his successattests. He has always been a Democrat in politics,but never an office-holder, save in his township,where he has been school director for nine successiveyears, and has also been Westport\'s postmaster since1854. By his neighbors and associates he is spokenof as a business man of sound judgment and sterlingintegrity, and whose word is as good as his bond. July4, 1865, he was married to Mary A., daughter ofMichael and Christina Herman. She was born June6, 1842. Their children are Hattie, Martha, Edward,Nellie, Harry, Bessie, Hannah V., and Daisy.Westport is an unincorporated community in Clinton County, Pennsylvania, United States. It lies above the Susquehanna River, along Pennsylvania Route 120.
According to the Historical View of Clinton County, Pennsylvania by \"D. S. Maynard\", Westport, Pennsylvania in Noyes Township was formerly known as Kettle Creek.[1] This is also mentioned on The Clinton County Register & Recorders Office website and other sources.[2][3]
The first settlement at the mouth of Kettle Creek was in 1785, when the land was a part of Pine Creek Township, Northumberland County, Pennsylvania.[4]
The Kettle Creek post office was established circa 1847 or 1848, but was discontinued, leaving the present community of Westport without a Post Office for about a year. In 1850, a new post office was established, but the name Kettle Creek was already taken by a post office located at the head of the Creek, so the name \"Westport\" was already in use, hence the current name.[4]
The first bridge that spanned the creek at Westport, was erected by Clinton County in 1852. The first railroad bridge, which was only a few feet away, was built in 1859. Both bridges were swept almost simultaneously by a flood on March 17, 1865, which caused severe damage. However, both bridges were eventually replaced.[1]Noyes Township is a township in Clinton County, Pennsylvania, United States. The population was 333 at the 2020 census,[2] down from 357 in 2010.[3]
HistoryNoyes Township was cut off and formed from Chapman Township in 1875, and was named in honor of Colonel A. C. Noyes, the most prominent citizen residing within the limits of the area. The first settlement in the territory was made around the time of the Revolution, or shortly after, on the lower, north side and near the mouth of Kettle Creek.[4]
Adjacent countiesPotter County (north)Lycoming County (east)Union County (southeast)Centre County (south)Clearfield County (southwest)Cameron County (west)Nearby:
CityLock Haven (county seat)BoroughsAvisBeech CreekFlemingtonLogantonMill HallRenovoSouth RenovoTownshipsAllisonBald EagleBeech CreekPorterWayneWest KeatingWoodwardCensus-designated placesCensus-designated places are unincorporated communities designated by the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of compiling demographic data. They are not actual jurisdictions under Pennsylvania unincorporated communitiesCooks Democratic Party is one of the two major political parties of the United States political system and the oldest existing political party in that country. The Democratic party was founded in the 1830s and 1840s.[3][4][5] It is also the oldest voter-based political party in the world. The party has changed significantly during its nearly two centuries of existence.
Once known as the party of the \"common man,\" the early Democratic Party stood for individual rights and state sovereignty, and opposed banks and high tariffs. In the first decades of its existence, from 1832 to the mid-1850s (known as the Second Party System), under Presidents Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren and James K. Polk, the Democrats usually bested the opposition Whig Party by narrow margins.
Before the American Civil War the party supported or tolerated slavery; and after the war until the Great Depression the party opposed civil rights reforms in order to retain the support of Southern voters. During this second period (1865–1932), the opposing Republican Party, (organized in the mid-1850s from the ruins of the Whig Party and some other smaller splinter groups), was dominant in presidential politics. The Democrats elected only two Presidents during this period: Grover Cleveland (in 1884 and 1892) and Woodrow Wilson (in 1912 and 1916). Over the same period, the Democrats proved more competitive with the Republicans in Congressional politics, enjoying House of Representatives majorities (as in the 65th Congress) in 15 of the 36 Congresses elected, although only in five of these did they form the majority in the Senate. Furthermore, the Democratic Party was split between the Bourbon Democrats, representing Eastern business interests, and the agrarian party elements representing poor farmers in the South and West. The agrarian element, marching behind the slogan of free silver (i.e. in favor of inflation), captured the party in 1896 and nominated William Jennings Bryan in the 1896, 1900 and 1908 presidential elections, although he lost every time. Both Bryan and Wilson were leaders of the progressive movement in the United States (1890s–1920s) and opposed imperialistic expansion abroad while sponsoring liberal reforms at home despite supporting racism and discrimination against African Americans in government offices and elsewhere.
Starting with 32nd President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the party dominated during the Fifth Party System, which lasted from 1932 until about the 1970s. In response to the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression, the party employed liberal policies and programs with the New Deal coalition to combat financial crises and emergency bank closings, with policies continuing into World War II. The Party kept the White House after Roosevelt\'s death in April 1945, reelecting former Vice President Harry S. Truman in 1948. During this period, the Republican Party only elected one president (Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956) and was the minority in Congress all but twice (the exceptions being 1946 and 1952). Powerful committee chairmanships were awarded automatically on the basis of seniority, which gave power especially to long-serving Southerners. Important Democratic leaders during this time included Presidents Harry S. Truman (1945–1953), John F. Kennedy (1961–1963) and Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969). Republican Richard Nixon won the White House in 1968 and 1972, leading to the end of the New Deal era.
Democrats have won six out of the last twelve presidential elections, winning in the presidential elections of 1976 (with 39th President Jimmy Carter, 1977–1981), 1992 and 1996 (with 42nd President Bill Clinton, 1993–2001), 2008 and 2012 (with 44th President Barack Obama, 2009–2017), and 2020 (with 46th President Joe offeren, 2021–present). Democrats have also won the popular vote in 2000 and 2016, but lost the Electoral College in both elections (with candidates Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, respectively). These were two of the four presidential elections in which Democrats won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College, the others being the presidential elections in 1876 and 1888.Foundation: 1820–1828The modern Democratic Party emerged in the late 1820s from former factions of the Democratic-Republican Party, which had largely collapsed by 1824.[citation needed] It was built by Martin Van Buren, who assembled a cadre of politicians in every state behind war hero Andrew Jackson of Tennessee.[6][7] The pattern and speed of formation differed from state to state.[8] By the mid-1830s almost all the state Democratic parties were uniform.[9]
Jacksonian ascendancy: 1829–1840Presidency of Andrew Jackson (1829–1837)Main articles: Jacksonian democracy and Presidency of Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson, founder of the Democratic Party and the first president it elected.
1837 cartoon shows the Democratic Party as donkeyThe spirit of Jacksonian democracy animated the party from the early 1830s to the 1850s, shaping the Second Party System, with the Whig Party as the main opposition. After the disappearance of the Federalists after 1815 and the Era of Good Feelings (1816–1824), there was a hiatus of weakly organized personal factions until about 1828–1832, when the modern Democratic Party emerged along with its rival, the Whigs. The new Democratic Party became a coalition of farmers, city-dwelling laborers and Irish Catholics.[10] Both parties worked hard to build grassroots organizations and maximize the turnout of voters, which often reached 80 percent or 90 percent of eligible voters. Both parties used patronage extensively to finance their operations, which included emerging big city political machines as well as national networks of newspapers.[11]
Behind the party platforms, acceptance speeches of candidates, editorials, pamphlets and stump speeches, there was a widespread consensus of political values among Democrats. As a textbook coauthored by Mary Beth Norton explains:
The Democrats represented a wide range of views but shared a fundamental commitment to the Jeffersonian concept of an agrarian society. They viewed the central government as the enemy of individual liberty. The 1824 \"corrupt bargain\" had strengthened their suspicion of Washington politics. [...] Jacksonians feared the concentration of economic and political power. They believed that government intervention in the economy benefited special-interest groups and created corporate monopolies that favored the rich. They sought to restore the independence of the individual – the artisan and the ordinary farmer – by ending federal support of banks and corporations and restricting the use of paper currency, which they distrusted. Their definition of the proper role of government tended to be negative, and Jackson\'s political power was largely expressed in negative acts. He exercised the veto more than all previous presidents combined. Jackson and his supporters also opposed reform as a movement. Reformers eager to turn their programs into legislation called for a more active government. But Democrats tended to oppose programs like educational reform and the establishment of a public school system....Nor did Jackson share reformers\' humanitarian concerns. He had no sympathy for American Indians, initiating the removal of the Cherokees along the Trail of Tears.[12]
The party was weakest in New England, but strong everywhere else and won most national elections thanks to strength in New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia (by far the most populous states at the time) and the American frontier. Democrats opposed elites and aristocrats, the Bank of the United States and the whiggish modernizing programs that would build up industry at the expense of the yeoman or independent small farmer.[13]
The party was known for its populism.[14] Historian Frank Towers has specified an important ideological divide:
Democrats stood for the \'sovereignty of the people\' as expressed in popular demonstrations, constitutional conventions, and majority rule as a general principle of governing, whereas Whigs advocated the rule of law, written and unchanging constitutions, and protections for minority interests against majority tyranny.[15]
At its inception, the Democratic Party was the party of the \"common man\". It opposed the abolition of slavery.[16]
From 1828 to 1848, banking and tariffs were the central domestic policy issues. Democrats strongly favored—and Whigs opposed—expansion to new farm lands, as typified by their expulsion of eastern American Indians and acquisition of vast amounts of new land in the West after 1846. The party favored the war with Mexico and opposed anti-immigrant nativism. In the 1830s, the Locofocos in New York City were radically democratic, anti-monopoly and were proponents of hard money and free trade.[17][18] Their chief spokesman was William Leggett. At this time, labor unions were few and some were loosely affiliated with the party.[19]
Presidency of Martin Van Buren (1837–1841)Main article: Presidency of Martin Van Buren
Martin Van BurenThe Presidency of Martin Van Buren was hobbled by a long economic depression called the Panic of 1837. The presidency promoted hard money based on gold and silver, an independent federal treasury, a reduced role for the government in the economy, and a liberal policy for the sale of public lands to encourage settlement; they opposed high tariffs to encourage industry. The Jackson policies were kept, such as Indian removal and the Trail of Tears.[20] Van Buren personally disliked slavery but he kept the slaveholder\'s rights intact. Nevertheless, he was distrusted across the South.[21]
The 1840 Democratic convention was the first at which the party adopted a platform. Delegates reaffirmed their belief that the Constitution was the primary guide for each state\'s political affairs. To them, this meant that all roles of the federal government not specifically defined fell to each respective state government, including such responsibilities as debt created by local projects. Decentralized power and states\' rights pervaded each and every resolution adopted at the convention, including those on slavery, taxes, and the possibility of a central bank.[22][23] Regarding slavery, the Convention adopted the following resolution:
Resolved, That congress has no power under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of every thing appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution: that all efforts of the abolitionists or others, made to induce congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political institutions.[24]
Harrison and Tyler (1841–1845)The Panic of 1837 led to Van Buren and the Democrats\' drop in popularity. The Whigs nominated William Henry Harrison as their candidate for the 1840 presidential race. Harrison won as the first president of the Whigs. However, he died in office a month later and was succeeded by his Vice President John Tyler. Tyler had recently left the Democrats for the Whigs and thus his beliefs did not align much with the Whig Party. During his presidency, he vetoed most of the key Whig bills. The Whigs disowned him. This allowed for the Democrats to retake power in 1845.
Presidency of James K. Polk (1845–1849)Main article: Presidency of James K. PolkForeign policy was a major issue in the 1840s as war threatened with Mexico over Texas and with Britain over Oregon. Democrats strongly supported Manifest Destiny and most Whigs strongly opposed it. The 1844 election was a showdown, with the Democrat James K. Polk narrowly defeating Whig Henry Clay on the Texas issue.[25]
John Mack Faragher\'s analysis of the political polarization between the parties is:
Most Democrats were wholehearted supporters of expansion, whereas many Whigs (especially in the North) were opposed. Whigs welcomed most of the changes wrought by industrialization but advocated strong government policies that would guide growth and development within the country\'s existing boundaries; they feared (correctly) that expansion raised a contentious issue the extension of slavery to the territories. On the other hand, many Democrats feared industrialization the Whigs welcomed....For many Democrats, the answer to the nation\'s social ills was to continue to follow Thomas Jefferson\'s vision of establishing agriculture in the new territories in order to counterbalance industrialization.[26]
Free Soil splitIn 1848 a major innovation was the creation of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to coordinate state activities in the presidential contest. Senator Lewis Cass, who held many offices over the years, lost to General Zachary Taylor of the Whigs. A major cause of the defeat was that the new Free Soil Party, which opposed slavery expansion, split the Democratic vote, particularly in New York, where the electoral votes went to Taylor.[27] The Free Soil Party attracted Democrats and some Whigs which had considerable support in the Northeast. The primary doctrine was a warning that rich slave owners would move into new territories such as Nebraska and buy up the best lands and work them with slaves. To protect the white farmer it was essential therefore to keep the soil \"free\"—that is without slavery. In 1852, the free soil movement was much smaller, and consisted primarily of former members of the Liberty Party and some abolitionists, it hedged on the question of full equality. The majority wanted some form of racial separation to allow space for black activism, without alienating the overwhelming northern opposition to equal rights for black men.[28]
Taylor and Fillmore (1849–1853)Following the death of President Taylor, Democrats in Congress led by Stephen Douglas passed the Compromise of 1850 designed to avoid civil war by putting the slavery issue to rest while resolving issues involving territories gained following the War with Mexico. However, in state after state the Democrats gained small but permanent advantages over the Whig Party, which finally collapsed in 1852, fatally weakened by division on slavery and nativism. The fragmented opposition could not stop the election of Democrats Franklin Pierce in 1852 and James Buchanan in 1856.[29]
The presidencies of Franklin Pierce (1853–1857) and James Buchanan (1857–1861)Main articles: Presidency of Franklin Pierce and Presidency of James Buchanan
August Belmont: DNC Chair for 12 years during and after the Civil warThe eight years during which Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan held the presidency were disasters; historians agree that they rank as among the worst presidents. The Party increasingly split along regional lines on the issue of slavery in the territories. When the new Republican Party formed in 1854, many anti-slavery (\"Free Soil\") Democrats in the North switched over and joined it. In 1860 two Democrats ran for president and the United States was moving rapidly toward civil war.[30]
Young AmericaThe 1840s and 1850s were the heyday of a new faction of young Democrats called \"Young America\". Led by Stephen A. Douglas, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce and New York financier August Belmont, this faction explains, broke with the agrarian and strict constructionist orthodoxies of the past and embraced commerce, technology, regulation, reform and internationalism. The movement attracted a circle of outstanding writers, including William Cullen Bryant, George Bancroft, Herman Melville and Nathaniel Hawthorne. They sought independence from European standards of high culture and wanted to demonstrate the excellence and exceptionalism of America\'s own literary tradition.[31]
In economic policy, Young America saw the necessity of a modern infrastructure with railroads, canals, telegraphs, turnpikes and harbors. They endorsed the \"market revolution\" and promoted capitalism. They called for Congressional land grants to the states, which allowed Democrats to claim that internal improvements were locally rather than federally sponsored. Young America claimed that modernization would perpetuate the agrarian vision of Jeffersonian democracy by allowing yeomen farmers to sell their products and therefore to prosper. They tied internal improvements to free trade, while accepted moderate tariffs as a necessary source of government revenue. They supported the Independent Treasury (the Jacksonian alternative to the Second Bank of the United States) not as a scheme to quash the special privilege of the Whiggish monied elite, but as a device to spread prosperity to all Americans.[32]
Breakdown of the Second Party System (1854–1859)Sectional confrontations escalated during the 1850s, the Democratic Party split between North and South grew deeper. The conflict was papered over at the 1852 and 1856 conventions by selecting men who had little involvement in sectionalism, but they made matters worse. Historian Roy F. Nichols explains why Franklin Pierce was not up to the challenges a Democratic president had to face:
As a national political leader Pierce was an accident. He was honest and tenacious of his views but, as he made up his mind with difficulty and often reversed himself before making a final decision, he gave a general impression of instability. Kind, courteous, generous, he attracted many individuals, but his attempts to satisfy all factions failed and made him many enemies. In carrying out his principles of strict construction he was most in accord with Southerners, who generally had the letter of the law on their side. He failed utterly to realize the depth and the sincerity of Northern feeling against the South and was bewildered at the general flouting of the law and the Constitution, as he described it, by the people of his own New England. At no time did he catch the popular imagination. His inability to cope with the difficult problems that arose early in his administration caused him to lose the respect of great numbers, especially in the North, and his few successes failed to restore public confidence. He was an inexperienced man, suddenly called to assume a tremendous responsibility, who honestly tried to do his best without adequate training or temperamental fitness.[33]In 1854, Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois—a key Democratic leader in the Senate—pushed the Kansas–Nebraska Act through Congress. President Franklin Pierce signed the bill into law in 1854.[34][35][36] The Act opened Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory to a decision by the residents on whether slavery would be legal or not. Previously it had been illegal there. Thus the new law implicitly repealed the prohibition on slavery in territory north of 36° 30′ latitude that had been part of the Missouri Compromise of 1820.[35][37] Supporters and enemies of slavery poured into Kansas to vote slavery up or down. The armed conflict was Bleeding Kansas and it shook the nation. A major re-alignment took place among voters and politicians. The Whig Party fell apart and the new Republican Party was founded in opposition to the expansion of slavery and to the Kansas–Nebraska Act. The new party had little support in the South, but it soon became a majority in the North by pulling together former Whigs and former Free Soil Democrats.[38][39]
North and South pull apartSee also: 1860 United States presidential election, Southern Democrats, and Northern Democratic PartyThe crisis for the Democratic Party came in the late 1850s as Democrats increasingly rejected national policies demanded by the Southern Democrats. The demands were to support slavery outside the South. Southerners insisted that full equality for their region required the government to acknowledge the legitimacy of slavery outside the South. The Southern demands included a fugitive slave law to recapture runaway slaves; opening Kansas to slavery; forcing a pro-slavery constitution on Kansas; acquire Cuba (where slavery already existed); accepting the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court; and adopting a federal slave code to protect slavery in the territories. President Buchanan went along with these demands, but Douglas refused and proved a much better politician than Buchanan, though the bitter battle lasted for years and permanently alienated the Northern and Southern wings.[40]
When the new Republican Party formed in 1854 on the basis of refusing to tolerate the expansion of slavery into the territories, many northern Democrats (especially Free Soilers from 1848) joined it. The formation of the new short-lived Know-Nothing Party allowed the Democrats to win the presidential election of 1856.[38] Buchanan, a Northern \"Doughface\" (his base of support was in the pro-slavery South), split the party on the issue of slavery in Kansas when he attempted to pass a federal slave code as demanded by the South. Most Democrats in the North rallied to Senator Douglas, who preached \"Popular Sovereignty\" and believed that a Federal slave code would be undemocratic.[41]To vote for Stephen A. Douglas in Virginia, a man deposited the ticket issued by the party in the official ballot boxIn 1860, the Democrats split over the choice of a successor to President Buchanan along Northern and Southern lines.[42] Some Southern Democratic delegates followed the lead of the Fire-Eaters by walking out of the Democratic National Convention at Charleston\'s Institute Hall in April 1860. They were later joined by those who, once again led by the Fire-Eaters, left the Baltimore Convention the following June when the convention rejected a resolution supporting extending slavery into territories whose voters did not want it. The Southern Democrats, also referred to as Seceders, nominated John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, the pro-slavery incumbent vice president, for president and General Joseph Lane, former governor of Oregon, for vice president.[43] The Northern Democrats proceeded to nominate Douglas of Illinois for president and former governor of Georgia Herschel Vespasian Johnson for vice president, while some southern Democrats joined the Constitutional Union Party, backing former Senator John Bell of Tennessee for president and politician Edward Everett of Massachusetts for vice president. This fracturing of the Democratic Party left it powerless.
Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected the 16th president of the United States. Douglas campaigned across the country calling for unity and came in second in the popular vote, but carried only Missouri and New Jersey. Breckinridge carried 11 slave states, coming in second in the Electoral vote, but third in the popular vote.[43]
Presidency of Abraham Lincoln (1861–1865)Civil WarDuring the Civil War, Northern Democrats divided into two factions: the War Democrats, who supported the military policies of President Lincoln; and the Copperheads, who strongly opposed them. In the South party politics ended in the Confederacy. The political leadership, mindful of the fierce divisions in antebellum American politics and with a pressing need for unity, rejected organized political parties as inimical to good governance and as being especially unwise in wartime. Consequently, the Democratic Party halted all operations during the life of the Confederacy (1861–1865).[44]
Partisanship flourished in the North and strengthened the Lincoln Administration as Republicans automatically rallied behind it. After the attack on Fort Sumter, Douglas rallied Northern Democrats behind the Union, but when Douglas died the party lacked an outstanding figure in the North and by 1862 an anti-war peace element was gaining strength. The most intense anti-war elements were the Copperheads.[44] The Democratic Party did well in the 1862 congressional elections, but in 1864 it nominated General George McClellan (a War Democrat) on a peace platform and lost badly because many War Democrats bolted to National Union candidate Abraham Lincoln. Many former Douglas Democrats became Republicans, especially soldiers such as generals Ulysses S. Grant and John A. Logan.[45]
Presidency of Andrew Johnson (1865–1869)Main article: Presidency of Andrew Johnson
Thomas Nast\'s January 1870 depiction of the Democratic donkeyIn the 1866 elections, the Radical Republicans won two-thirds majorities in Congress and took control of national affairs. The large Republican majorities made Congressional Democrats helpless, though they unanimously opposed the Radicals\' Reconstruction policies. The Senate passed the 14th Amendment by a vote of 33 to 11 with every Democratic senator opposed.[46] Realizing that the old issues were holding it back, the Democrats tried a \"New Departure\" that downplayed the War and stressed such issues as stopping corruption and white supremacy, which it wholeheartedly supported.
President Johnson, elected on the fusion Union Party ticket, did not rejoin the Democratic party, but Democrats in Congress supported him and voted against his impeachment in 1868. After his term ended in 1869 he rejoined the Democrats.
Republican interlude 1869–1885Main articles: Reconstruction era and RedeemersWar hero Ulysses S. Grant led the Republicans to landslides in 1868 and 1872.[47]
When a major economic depression hit the United States with the Panic of 1873, the Democratic party made major gains across the country, took full control of the South, and took control of Congress.
The Democrats lost consecutive presidential elections from 1860 through 1880, nevertheless Democrats have won the popular vote in 1876. Although the races after 1872 were very close they did not win the presidency until 1884. The party was weakened by its record of opposition to the war, but nevertheless benefited from White Southerners\' resentment of Reconstruction and consequent hostility to the Republican Party. The nationwide depression of 1873 allowed the Democrats to retake control of the House in the 1874 Democratic landslide.[48]
The Redeemers gave the Democrats control of every Southern state (by the Compromise of 1877), but the disenfranchisement of blacks took place (1880–1900). From 1880 to 1960, the \"Solid South\" voted Democratic in presidential elections (except 1928). After 1900, a victory in a Democratic primary was \"tantamount to election\" because the Republican Party was so weak in the South.[49]
The politicized cowboy imageHeather Cox Richardson argues for a political dimension to the cowboy image in the 1870s and 1880s,:[50]
The timing of the cattle industry’s growth meant that cowboy imagery grew to have extraordinary power. Entangled in the vicious politics of the postwar years, Democrats, especially those in the old Confederacy, imagined the West as a land untouched by Republican politicians they hated. They developed an image of the cowboys as men who worked hard, played hard, lived by a code of honor, protected themselves, and asked nothing of the government. In the hands of Democratic newspaper editors, the realities of cowboy life -- the poverty, the danger, the debilitating hours -- became romantic. Cowboys embodied virtues Democrats believed Republicans were destroying by creating a behemoth government catering to lazy ex-slaves. By the 1860s, cattle drives were a feature of the plains landscape, and Democrats had made cowboys a symbol of rugged individual independence, something they insisted Republicans were destroying.
Cleveland, Harrison, Cleveland (1885–1897)Main article: Presidencies of Grover ClevelandAfter being out of office since 1861, the Democrats won the popular vote in three consecutive elections, and the electoral vote (and thus the White House) in 1884 and 1892.
The first presidency of Grover Cleveland (1885–1889)Main article: Presidencies of Grover Cleveland § First presidency (1885–1889)Although Republicans continued to control the White House until 1884, the Democrats remained competitive (especially in the mid-Atlantic and lower Midwest) and controlled the House of Representatives for most of that period. In the election of 1884, Grover Cleveland, the reforming Democratic Governor of New York, won the Presidency, a feat he repeated in 1892, having lost in the election of 1888.[51]Typewriters were new in 1893 and this Gillam cartoon from Puck shows that Grover Cleveland can not get the Democratic \"machine\" to work as the keys (key politicians) will not respond to his effortsCleveland was the leader of the Bourbon Democrats. They represented business interests, supported banking and railroad goals, promoted laissez-faire capitalism, opposed imperialism and U.S. overseas expansion, opposed the annexation of Hawaii, fought for the gold standard and opposed Bimetallism. They strongly supported reform movements such as Civil Service Reform and opposed corruption of city bosses, leading the fight against the Tweed Ring.[52]
The leading Bourbons included Samuel J. Tilden, David Bennett Hill and William C. Whitney of New York, Arthur Pue Gorman of Maryland, Thomas F. Bayard of Delaware, Henry M. Mathews and William L. Wilson of West Virginia, John Griffin Carlisle of Kentucky, William F. Vilas of Wisconsin, J. Sterling Morton of Nebraska, John M. Palmer of Illinois, Horace Boies of Iowa, Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar of Mississippi and railroad builder James J. Hill of Minnesota. A prominent intellectual was Woodrow Wilson.[53]
Republican Benjamin Harrison won a narrow victory in 1888. The party pushed through a large agenda, and raised the McKinley Tariff and federal spending so high it was used against them as Democrats scored a landslide in the 1890 elections. Harrison was easily defeated for reelection in 1892 by Cleveland.
The second presidency of Grover Cleveland (1893–1897)Main article: Presidencies of Grover Cleveland § Second presidency (1893–1897)The Bourbons were in power when the Panic of 1893 hit and they took the blame. The party polarized between the pro-gold pro-business Cleveland faction and the anti-business silverites in the West and South. A fierce struggle inside the party ensued, with catastrophic losses for both the Bourbon and agrarian factions in 1894, leading to the showdown in 1896.[54] Just before the 1894 election, President Cleveland was warned by an advisor:
We are on the eve of very dark night, unless a return of commercial prosperity relieves popular discontent with what they believe Democratic incompetence to make laws, and consequently with Democratic Administrations anywhere and everywhere.[55]Aided by the deep nationwide economic depression that lasted from 1893 to 1897, the Republicans won their biggest landslide ever, taking full control of the House. The Democrats lost nearly all their seats in the Northeast. The third party Populists also were ruined. However, Cleveland\'s silverite enemies gained control of the Democratic Party in state after state, including full control in Illinois and Michigan and made major gains in Ohio, Indiana, Iowa and other states. Wisconsin and Massachusetts were two of the few states that remained under the control of Cleveland\'s allies.[56]
The rise and fall of William Jennings BryanThe opposition Democrats were close to controlling two-thirds of the vote at the 1896 national convention, which they needed to nominate their own candidate. However, they were not united and had no national leader, as Illinois governor John Peter Altgeld had been born in Germany and was ineligible to be nominated for president.[57]
However, a young (35 years old) upstart, Congressman William Jennings Bryan made the magnificent \"cross of gold\" speech, which brought the crowd at the convention to its feet and got him the nomination. He would lose the election, but remained the Democratic hero and was renominated and lost again in 1900 and a third time in 1908.Free silver movementMain article: Free silver
William Jennings Bryan at age 36 was the youngest candidate, October 1896Grover Cleveland led the party faction of conservative, pro-business Bourbon Democrats, but as the depression of 1893 deepened his enemies multiplied. At the 1896 convention, the silverite-agrarian faction repudiated the President and nominated the crusading orator William Jennings Bryan on a platform of free coinage of silver. The idea was that minting silver coins would flood the economy with cash and end the depression. Cleveland supporters formed the National Democratic Party (Gold Democrats), which attracted politicians and intellectuals (including Woodrow Wilson and Frederick Jackson Turner) who refused to vote Republican.[58]
Bryan, an overnight sensation because of his \"Cross of Gold\" speech, waged a new-style crusade against the supporters of the gold standard. Criss-crossing the Midwest and East by special train – he was the first candidate since 1860 to go on the road – he gave over 500 speeches to audiences in the millions. In St. Louis he gave 36 speeches to workingmen\'s audiences across the city, all in one day. Most Democratic newspapers were hostile toward Bryan, but he seized control of the media by making the news every day as he hurled thunderbolts against Eastern monied interests.[59]
The rural folk in the South and Midwest were ecstatic, showing an enthusiasm never before seen, but ethnic Democrats (especially Germans and Irish) were alarmed and frightened by Bryan. The middle classes, businessmen, newspaper editors, factory workers, railroad workers and prosperous farmers generally rejected Bryan\'s crusade. Republican William McKinley promised a return to prosperity based on the gold standard, support for industry, railroads and banks and pluralism that would enable every group to move ahead.[59]
Although Bryan lost the election in a landslide, he did win the hearts and minds of a majority of Democrats, as shown by his renomination in 1900 and 1908. As late as 1924, the Democrats put his brother Charles W. Bryan on their national ticket.[60] The victory of the Republican Party in the election of 1896 marked the start of the \"Progressive Era\", which lasted from 1896 to 1932, in which the Republican Party usually was dominant.[61]
The GOP Presidencies of McKinley (1897–1901), Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909) and Taft (1909–1913)The 1896 election marked a political realignment in which the Republican Party controlled the presidency for 28 of 36 years. The Republicans dominated most of the Northeast and Midwest and half the West. Bryan, with a base in the South and Plains states, was strong enough to get the nomination in 1900 (losing to William McKinley) and 1908 (losing to William Howard Taft). Theodore Roosevelt dominated the first decade of the century and to the annoyance of Democrats \"stole\" the trust issue by crusading against trusts.[62]
With Bryan taking a hiatus and Teddy Roosevelt the most popular president since Lincoln, the conservatives who controlled the convention in 1904, nominated the little-known Alton B. Parker before succumbing to Roosevelt\'s landslide.
Religious divisions were sharply drawn.[63] Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists in the North were closely linked to the Republican Party. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats gaining more support from the lower classes and Republicans more support from the upper classes.[64]
Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools, became matters of contention because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50 percent of voters were pietistic Protestants (Methodists, Scandinavian Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Disciples of Christ) who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking.[63]
Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, Episcopalians and German Lutherans) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referendums heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (repealed in 1932), serving as a major issue between the wet Democrats and the dry Republicans.[63]
1908: \"Yet another farewell tour\"With the wildly popular President Roosevelt sticking to his promise to step down after seven and a half years, and his chosen successor, War Secretary William Howard Taft somewhat popular as well, the Democratic Party gave Bryan the nomination for a third time. He was again defeated. The Democrats held together while the Republican Party bitterly split between the Roosevelt-oriented progressives and the Taft-oriented conservatives. Taft defeated Roosevelt for the 1912 nomination, but Roosevelt ran as a third-party candidate. That split the GOP vote so that the Democrats were inevitably the winners, electing their first Democratic president and fully Democratic Congress in 20 years.[65]
Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress, with their base among poor farmers and the working class, generally supported Progressive Era reforms, such as antitrust, regulation of railroads, direct election of Senators, the income tax, the restriction of child labor, and the Federal Reserve system.[66][67]
Presidency of Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921)Main article: Presidency of Woodrow Wilson
Thomas Woodrow WilsonTaking advantage of a deep split in the Republican Party, the Democrats took control of the House in 1910 and elected the intellectual reformer Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and 1916.[68] Wilson successfully led Congress to a series of progressive laws, including a reduced tariff, stronger antitrust laws, new programs for farmers, hours-and-pay benefits for railroad workers and the outlawing of child labor (which was reversed by the Supreme Court).[69]
Wilson tolerated the segregation of the federal Civil Service by Southern cabinet members. Furthermore, bipartisan constitutional amendments for prohibition and women\'s suffrage were passed in his second term. In effect, Wilson laid to rest the issues of tariffs, money and antitrust that had dominated politics for 40 years.[69]
Wilson oversaw the U.S. role in World War I and helped write the Versailles Treaty, which included the League of Nations. However, in 1919 Wilson\'s political skills faltered and suddenly everything turned sour. The Senate rejected Versailles and the League, a nationwide wave of violent, unsuccessful strikes and race riots caused unrest and Wilson\'s health collapsed.[70]
The Democrats lost by a landslide in 1920, doing especially poorly in the cities, where the German-Americans deserted the ticket; and the Irish Catholics, who dominated the party apparatus, were unable to garner traction for the party in this election cycle.[71]
The Roaring Twenties: Democratic defeatsThe entire decade saw the Democrats as an ineffective minority in Congress and as a weak force in most Northern states.[72]
After the massive defeat in 1920, the Democrats recovered most of their lost territory in the Congressional elections of 1922. They especially recovered in the border states, as well as the industrial cities, where the Irish and German element returned to that party. In addition, there was growing support among the more recent immigrants, who had become more Americanized. Many ethnic families now had a veteran in their midst, and paid closer attention to national issues, such as the question of a bonus for veterans. There was also an expression of annoyance with the federal prohibition of beer and wine, and the closing of most saloons.[73][74]
Culture conflict and Al Smith (1924–1928)At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, a resolution denouncing the Ku Klux Klan was introduced by Catholic and liberal forces allied with Al Smith and Oscar W. Underwood in order to embarrass the front-runner, William Gibbs McAdoo. After much debate, the resolution failed by a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides in 1924 and 1928.[75] However, Al Smith did build a strong Catholic base in the big cities in 1928 and Franklin D. Roosevelt\'s election as Governor of New York that year brought a new leader to center stage.[76]
The internal battles and repeated defeats left the party discouraged and demoralized. To a considerable extent, the challenge of restoring morale was the province of historian Claude Bowers. His histories of the Democratic Party in its formative years from the 1790s to the 1830s helped shape the party\'s self-image as a powerful force against monopoly and privilege. In his enormously popular books Party Battles of the Jackson Period (1922) and Jefferson and Hamilton: The Struggle for Democracy in America (1925) he argued for the political and moral superiority of the Democratic Party since the days of Jefferson versus the almost un-American faults of the Federalist Party, the Whig Party, and the Republican Party, as bastions of aristocracy. Jefferson and Hamilton especially impressed his friend Franklin D Roosevelt. It inspired Roosevelt when he became president to build a great monument to the party\'s founder in the national capital, the Jefferson Memorial. According to Historian Merrill D. Peterson, the book conveyed:
the myth of the Democratic Party masterfully re-created, a fresh awareness of the elemental differences between the parties, and ideology with which they might make sense of the two often senseless conflicts of the present, and a feeling for the importance of dynamic leadership. The book was a mirror for Democrats.[77]
The Great Depression and a Second World War: Democratic hegemony (1930–1953)Main articles: Great Depression in the United States, New Deal, and New Deal coalitionThe Great Depression marred Hoover\'s term as the Democratic Party made large gains in the 1930 congressional elections and garnered a landslide win in 1932.
Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–1945)Main article: Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt
Franklin D. Roosevelt, the longest-serving president of the United States (1933–1945)The stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression set the stage for a more progressive government and Franklin D. Roosevelt won a landslide victory in the election of 1932, campaigning on a platform of \"Relief, Recovery, and Reform\", that is relief of unemployment and rural distress, recovery of the economy back to normal and long-term structural reforms to prevent a repetition of the Depression. This came to be termed \"The New Deal\" after a phrase in Roosevelt\'s acceptance speech.[78]
The Democrats also swept to large majorities in both houses of Congress and among state governors. Roosevelt altered the nature of the party, away from laissez-faire capitalism and towards an ideology of economic regulation and insurance against hardship. Two old words took on new meanings: \"liberal\" now meant a supporter of the New Deal while \"conservative\" meant an opponent.[79]
Conservative Democrats were outraged and led by Al Smith they formed the American Liberty League in 1934 and counterattacked. They failed and either retired from politics or joined the Republican Party. A few of them, such as Dean Acheson, found their way back to the Democratic Party.[80]
The 1933 programs, called \"the First New Deal\" by historians, represented a broad consensus. Roosevelt tried to reach out to business and labor, farmers and consumers, cities and countryside. However, by 1934 he was moving toward a more confrontational policy. After making gains in state governorships and in Congress, in 1934 Roosevelt embarked on an ambitious legislative program that came to be called \"The Second New Deal\". It was characterized by building up labor unions, nationalizing welfare by the WPA, setting up Social Security, imposing more regulations on business (especially transportation and communications) and raising taxes on business profits.[81]
Roosevelt\'s New Deal programs focused on job creation through public works projects as well as on social welfare programs such as Social Security. It also included sweeping reforms to the banking system, work regulation, transportation, communications and stock markets, as well as attempts to regulate prices. His policies soon paid off by uniting a diverse coalition of Democratic voters called the New Deal coalition, which included labor unions, liberals, minorities (most significantly, Catholics and Jews) and liberal white Southerners. This united voter base allowed Democrats to be elected to Congress and the presidency for much of the next 30 years.[82]
The Second termAfter a triumphant re-election in 1936, he announced plans to enlarge the Supreme Court, which tended to oppose his New Deal, by five new members. A firestorm of opposition erupted, led by his own Vice President John Nance Garner. Roosevelt was defeated by an alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats, who formed a conservative coalition that managed to block nearly all liberal legislation (only a minimum wage law got through). Annoyed by the conservative wing of his own party, Roosevelt made an attempt to rid himself of it and in 1938 he actively campaigned against five incumbent conservative Democratic senators, though all five senators won re-election.[83]
The PartyUnder Roosevelt, the Democratic Party became identified more closely with modern liberalism, which included the promotion of social welfare, labor unions, civil rights and the regulation of business, as well as support for farmers and promotion of ethnic leaders. The opponents, who stressed long-term growth and support for entrepreneurship and low taxes, now started calling themselves \"conservatives\".[84]