Mary's Genealogy Blog: Kentucky Politics—Not For The Faint Of Heart

The 2000 Presidential election is now 7 years into our past and as time marches on, it slips further and further from our thoughts. It doesn’t seem like we will ever forget the TV coverage of election workers scrutinizing those punch cards in Florida, but eventually we will forget, and the term “hanging chad” will be just another piece of trivia. And who, even now, remembers that many blamed Ralph Nader for “throwing” the election to Bush by pulling those Green Party votes away from the Democrats?

I suppose the same fate has fallen to this political story that took place over 100 years ago in Kentucky. It is certainly one that, until recently, I was unfamiliar with and unless you are a student of Kentucky political history, I would guess that it is unknown to you also. This is a complicated story, and even more volatile than our 2000 Presidential election. Its events were covered daily in the New York Times and other papers across the country. I will attempt to tell you enough of the basics so that you can comprehend the drama, but please investigate further if you are interested because there is much more to the story. And yes, buried somewhere in this tale, is an ancestor.

The story really begins with the 1895 election of William Bradley as governor of Kentucky. Remarkably, he was the first Republican elected to that office in a state that was almost completely controlled by the Democratic Party. After the end of the Civil War, the state’s Democrats had pretty much split into two factions. There were the “Bourbon Democrats” who represented the bluegrass aristocracy and tended to favor the old southern plantation values and lifestyles. Then there were the “New Departure Democrats”, based in Louisville, who tended to be more progressive and aligned with the national party on many policies. But despite these differences, the two factions came together and always elected a Democrat as governor. In 1895, for various reasons that I won’t go into here, these two Democratic factions failed to close their ranks. Many of the “New Departure Democrats” aligned with William Bradley, the Republican candidate in that election, which resulted in Bradley’s victory. During Bradley’s term the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans controlled the House.

The next significant event in this story was the passage in 1898 of what became known as the Goebel Election Law. This law, passed even over Bradley’s veto, gave control of disputed elections to a three-man commission. Most viewed the law as the attempt of its sponsor, state senator William Goebel, to strengthen his own political power. Kentucky author and humorist Irvin Cobb described William Goebel as a “Mussolini of politics.” Cobb also said of Goebel “he loved power as drunkards love their bottle” and “would have waded through blood up to his armpits to have his own way.” Sounds like a prince of a man doesn’t he? Of course there are others who described him as a compassionate and dedicated reformer. Goebel was able to get his election law passed but there were many citizens from both political sides that were strongly opposed to the formation of this potentially partisan commission and the power they would have over elections. What is important to know here was that the Goebel Election Law helped fuel the fire of later discontent and mistrust of the political system.

The Democrats were determined more than ever to win the 1899 election and again gain control the governor’s position. The Democratic convention was held in June of 1899 at the Music Hall in Louisville. The race for the Democratic nomination for governor was between Goebel and two other candidates. There were back room agreements that were made and then broken, fights over contested delegates, and a good share of yelling and general chaos. The New York Times reported that it was “without a doubt the most uproarious and disorderly body of men ever gathered together for the transaction of political or other business.” In the end, Goebel secured the nomination, but many Democrats were disgusted with his conniving and dirty politics.

The state’s Republicans nominated William Taylor, the attorney general, as their candidate. He wasn’t particularly popular, but most didn’t think anyone had a chance against the Goebel political machine anyway. Some of disgruntled anti-Goebel Democrats got ex-governor John Y. Brown to run, and the People’s Party ran John Blair. So, it was a four-way race for governor.

The first results on Election Day seemed to show that Goebel and Taylor were in a dead heat, but in the final and “official” count, Taylor was given the majority and declared the winner. Without time for a quick breath, the Democrats began to challenge votes. One of their most ludicrous claims was the charge that many of the votes in the mountainous eastern counties (a Republican stronghold) were cast on tissue paper ballots. It was proposed that because they were not on legal weight paper, that they were thus invalid. The fight over the election returns lasted over a month and a half and the Goebel Democrats demanded that the state election board examine the results of the elections. Now, remember that Goebel Election Law I mentioned before? Yes, Goebel himself had set up that board of three.

Surprisingly, the election board, after examining the evidence, returned with a decision of two in favor of a Taylor win and one in favor of a Goebel win. According the board’s accounting, Taylor had won the election by only 3,000 or so votes. Goebel had essentially been defeated by the anti-Goebel votes that were cast by his fellow Democrats for Brown. The report of the election board seemed final and on December 12, 1899 Taylor was inaugurated as governor.

It would be too simple for the story to end here. Tune in next week for part two.
Link to part 2 of the story

- Mary