Evening star., 1944-05-29

develop m e n Us
have done con- 0A AsUDk
siderable to Frank \. Kent.
make this jubilation appear prema-
ture and unfounded. One Of these,
of course, was the action Of the
South Carolina convention in ad-
journing wIelout naming electors,
the avowed purpose being to wait
until after the national convention
nominates its ticket and adopts its
platform.
The plain threat is that in the
event Of Mr.. Roosevelt's renomina-
ton on an unpalatable platform,
electors will be named who will be
free to vote against the Democratic
nominee or not to vote at all.
A second development came few
days ago when the Texas Demo-
cratic convention refused to indorse
the Roosevelt candidacy and named
q set of delegates and electors who
are opposed to the fourth term, and
the electors may be free to vote
against Mr.. Roosevelt In the elec-
toral college.
Should the Roosevelt machine at
Chicago turn down the regularly
chosen Texas delegates and seat
the delegates of the pro- Roosevelt
boilers, as it easily may, the loss of
the Texas electoral vote of % will
be highly probable.
Significant Figures.
But more significant than the
South Carolina and Texas actions
are the official Florida primary
figures which have Just become
available. Leaving aside Senator
Pepper, who, though backed by the
full weight of the national admins
tration, got bare 81 per cent of
the vote, the really notable thing
was the vote cast for Senator Harry
F. Byrd Of Virginia for the presi-
dental nomination.
Before the primaries q national
poll estimated that Senator Byrd's
delegates would receive less than 8
per cent OF the vote. As Senator
Byrd had no organization, as no
money was spent for him, as he had
declared himself not q candidate
and as he had expressed disapproval
OF the use OF his name in the primar-
les and done what he could to dis
courage support-in view Of these
things, plus the conceded strength
OF the machine behind Mr.. Roose-
velt, this 8 per cent estimate did
not seem unreasonable
What happened? Senator Byrd
got 4o per cent Of the total vote.
The highest Roosevelt delegate at
large received 11s,427 votes; the
highest Byrd delegate received
92,751.
In two districts Byrd delegates
were elected over Roosevelt dele
gates. In the I'd, Mrs. r. T..
Mooney, pledged to Byrd, got 1910
votes; the top Roosevelt delegate
MES. e. O. Reeder-got 17,672. In
the 6th district two Byrd delegates
were chosen-Russell Friz2ell, with
8,703 votes, and Ruth Wedgeworth,
with o,7S4 votes. The top Roosevelt
delegate got It'll. One Byrd dele
gate at large was elected.
Thus, four out of Florida's IA
delegates, or nearly one-third, are
pledged to Byrd. Under the cir
cumstances, that. perhaps, is as
extraordinary vote as has been
cast anywhere in the country for
a long time, Senator Byrd is the
outstanding anti-New Deal Demo-
crat, but he has no illusions about
the Byrd-for-President movement.
He does not intend to permit his
own State to present his name and
everywhere has done what he could
to explain to his supporters that
the movement was futile, did not
have his approval and embarrassed
him.
Yet, in Florida, without a speech
or a dollar or an organization he
got As per cent of the vote as
against the Presidents S. per cent.
Those who think there is no anti
Roosevelt sentiment in the South
and that the revolt" is phony
might ponder those figures for
Byrd in Florida, along with Texas
anu oouCn Caroilna.
Mississippi to Come.
And there is another interesting
Southern State about to hold its
convention-Mississippi. On June
8 the Mississippi Democrats meet,
and those in best position to know
are quite confident they will follow
the Texas example of electing anti
fourth-term delegates and the South
Carolina example of postponing the
naming of electors.
Finally, there is Virginia. GER
tain to send an irreconcilable anti
fourth-term delegation. Take all
these things and talk of the col
lapse" of the opposition in the
South seems absurd. That section
is more deeply stirred than since
1928, when four Southern States
went Republican.
1t may be that Mr.. Roosevelt will
carry them all again, but there is
no such certainty as existed in 1895
and 1910. Though the strength of
the label may again hold it in
line, the truth is the South is pretty
thoroughly fed up with the Roose-
velts. pretty sick of the coddling
OF the Negro voters, their SUBJ
servience to the labor bosses and
OF the whole New Deal Socialistic
trend.
Nowhere is there more resent
ment against the CIO-Communist
prominence in the fourth-term
campaign than in the South. No
where are the radicals who favor
4 "T.l1 N-I~