Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-08-07
The Political Mill
Detecting Democrats:
How Are They Foring?
Punishment of 'Eisencruts'
Moy Not Be Hard, After All
By Gould Lincoln

the regular Democratic candidates for
major Office are followed by disciplinary
retaliation. So it is natural that con-
siderable interest centers in what is
happening this year to the Eisenhower
Democrats of 1852.
Up to date. the amount of retaliation
against them has been of minor pro-
portions, compared. for example, to what
happened after five Southern States
States of the "solid South"-gave their
electoral votes to Republican Herbert
Hoover and against Alfred E. Smith,
then New York Governor and presi-
Dental candidate of the Democratic
Party. Within couple of years follow
ing the Smith debacle, those leading
Democrats in the South who openly,
or even covertly supported Mr.. Hoover
and helped elect him President had
practically all been cut down. This was
true in the cases of the late Senator
Simmons of North Carolina and SEN
ator Hefiin of Alabama. It was true in
Texas, where Tom Love, Democratic
leader in those days, had gone all out
against Mr.. Smith and for Mr.. Hoover.
History Repeats-Almost.
The 1928 campaign. waged on relig-
ious grounds and one of the ugliest the
country has experienced. resulted in Mr..
Hoover carrying Florida, North Caro-.
lima, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.
With the exception of North Carolina,
these same States were carried two
years ago by the Republican presi-
dental nominee. Gen. Dwight D. Eisen-
hover. Instead of the religious issue,
the race issue was substituted, although
that issue was sometimes hidden in
violent attacks on former President Tru-
man, closely identified with Adlai Ste
venson. the Democratic candidate for
President. Indeed, before the campaign
was over, Mr.. Stevenson had accepted
all OF the Truman program and doc
trlne, including a federal compulsory
FEPC.
In Texas and Virginia particularly
did outstanding party leaders declare
their opposition to Gov. Stevenson. Gov.
ShiverS of Texas and Senator Price
Daniel, then candidate for the Senate,
both went all the way, urging the
voters to support Gen. Eisenhower. In
Virginia, Senator Byrd and former Gov.
Tuck took the position they could not
support Gov. Stevenson, because he had
aligned himself with Mr.. Truman and
his program. They made their state
ments openly-and effectively. But they
did not come out for Gen. Eisenhower.
The recent Texas primary, in which
Gov. ShiverS was q candidate for d
third-term nomination for Governor,
showed the ferment of party regularity
was clearly working.
Forced Into Runoff.
Gov. Shivers was forced into a run
off primary with his leading opponent.
1t takes place August %. Political Lead
ers and observers differ as to the prob
able outcome. Gov. Shivers led his
opponent by some 1900 votes, but be-
cause of votes cast for other candidates
failed to obtain a majority of the total
vote. If he loses in the runoff, once
again party regulars will declare his
defeat just retaliation for his desertion
OF the Democratic presidential candi-
date. There's more to the race than that
issue, however. Gov. Shivers is trying
for an unprecedented third term as
Governor. Also, several serious local
issues have been raised against him.
In that same Texas primary which
Gov. Shivers failed to carry, Repre-
sentative Lucas, a Stevenson supporter.
was defeated for denomination. Repre-
sentative Regain, who did not campaign
for Gen. Eisenhower, but was suspected
of voting for him, lost by 154 votes-and
he is conteSting the election. Three
other Democratic Representatives from
the Lone Star State voluntarily retired
one of whom, at least, was counted as
an Eisenhower supporter. Should Gov.
ShiVers win the gubernatorial nomina-
ton. Eisenhower Democrats of the 1852
variety will breathe more freely.
In Virginia, nothing has been done
effectively to unhorse the Democratic
Party's principal leader. Senator Harry
Byrd. Former Gov. Tuck was elected
to the House, and is running for re-
election without opposition. Neverthe-
less, even in Virginia, a certain sore
ness or resentment has cropped out
against the Democratic leaders because
they would not go along with Gov.
Stevenson. Senator Byrd has never
declared himself in support of Re-
publican presidential candidate-he did
not two years ago. His attack on Gov.
Stevenson, however, had it's effect, and
SO did that of Mr.. Tuck. Some harsh
words have been said about both men,
because the 1852 campaign resulted not
only in giving Virginia's votes to Gen.
Eisenhower, but because it brought also
the election of three Republicans to
the House of Representatives. In 1928,
Senator Byrd was Governor of the
State, He worked hard for the cleo
ton of Al Smith, While he was
strongly opposed to policies of the late
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Mr.. Truman,
he never came out in support of their
Republican opponents.
Byrd Easy Victor.
He was overwhelmingly renominated
and reelected to the Senate in the 1852
general election. In two other Southern
States, where large votes were cast for
Eisenhower although not sufficient to
give him their electoral votes, Louisiana
and South Carolina, the Governors
who supported the Republican candi-
date are not under attack from the
electorate this year. Gov. Byrnes of
South Carolina, under the State con-
stitution, was ineligible to succeed him.
self as Governor and so did not run.
Gov. Kennon of Louisiana serves until
May. 1856.
Despite their disappointment because
OF the anti-segregation decision handed
down by Chief Justice Warren, APP
pointee of Eisenhower, there are still
Democrats in the South who think