v'wv THE DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE IN MICHIGAN'S UPPER PENINSULA A VOTING STUDY Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Janet M. Brooks 1966 THE DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE IN MICHIGAN‘S UPPER PENINSULA A VOTING STUDY By Janet M. Brooks A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Political Science 1966 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This voting study of Michigan's Upper Peninsula will hopefully provide some useful data to other political scientists. Unfortunately, as many such studies do, far more questions are raised than are answered. However, because of the nature of the data involved, and the limited resources at my disposal, I have had to restrict myself, in general, to the description of political behavior rather than its explanations. The counsel, guidance, and encouragement, I have received from my instructors in the Political Science Department at Michigan State University will always be appreciated. The members of my committee, Professor Robert Scigliano, Professor Joseph Schlesinger, and Professor Charles Press, have been most helpful. I especially have the great- est admiration and respect for my thesis committee chariman, Professor Robert Scigliano. To him I owe sincere thanks for the time he has so generously given to me in this work. In the revision, typing, proof-reading and duplicating of the original draft, I have received much help from my colleagues at Delta College. My thanks particularly to Richard Young, Mrs. Esther Klein, and Dr. Dan Kinsey; no less to Mrs. Evelyn Pfundt, and Robert Tinker. ii To my children who have waited patiently, but with wonder that Mother would ever finish writing her thesis, I acknowledge my debt to their affection and good humor. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS o o o o o o o o o o 0 ix INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapters I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . A Economic DeveIOpment . . . . . . . . 6 POpulation and Ethnic Dispersion . . . 11 Upper Peninsula Cities . . . . . . . 18 Employment, Land Use, and Education . . . 20 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . 22 II. UPPER PENINSULA DEMOCRATS: 18560192“ . . . 25 State-Wide EleCtionS o o o o o o o o 26 III. THE APPEARANCE OF PROTEST: 1924-193“ . . . 40 State-Wide Elections 9 o o o o o o 0 142 District Elections . . . . . . . . 50 County Officers: 192u_193u . . . . . 53 IV. DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES: 1936-1946 . . . . 55 State-Wide Elections . . . . . . . 56 District Elections 1936- 1945 . . . . . 63 County Officers: 1936-1946 . . . . . 68 V. UPPER PENINSULA DEMOCRACY WITH G. MENNEN WILLIAMS. 1948- 1958 . . . . . . . . 7O State-Wide Elections: 1948-1958 . . . . 71 District Elections: l9A8-l958 . . . . 78 County Officers: 1948-1958 . . . . . 82 iv VI. THE UPPER PENINSULA VOTES WITH MICHIGAN: 1.960-196“ o o o o g o o o State—Wide Elections: 1960—196“ District Elections: 1960-1964 County Officers: 1960—1964 . VII. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX . . . . . . . . Page 85 85 93 97 104 109 10. ll. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Ethnic dispersion of the U. P. pOpulation . . Population changes in the U.P. compared with the' state of Michigan: 1845—1960 . . . Ethnic groups and population count . . . Democratic percentage of the popular votes in presidential elections: Upper Peninsula com- pared with Lower Peninsula . . . . . . . Percentage of gubernatorial elections in which county‘s voters showed a Democratic majority: 1872v-189l-I o o o o o o o o o o 0 Percentage of gubernatorial elections in which there are Democratic majorities: 1888-189“ city compared with county . . . . . . Democratic percentage of the pOpular vote in the gubernatorial elections: l92A-l93A. Upper Peninsula compared with Lower Peninsula . Democratic response in gubernatorial elections: 192,4-19314 o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Democratic response from urban voters in the Upper Peninsula gubernatorial elections: 192A- 1934 O O 0 O I 0 O O O O O O O 0 Number of Democratic and Republican congressmen Upper Peninsula compared with Michigan: 1924- 1934 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Democratic percentage in presidential elections: 1936-1944 Upper Peninsula compared with Lower Peninsula . . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic response in presidential elections: 1936-1914“ 0 o o o o o o o o o 0 Democratic percentage of the popular vote in gubernatorial elections: l936-l9A6 Upper Peninsula compared with Lower Peninsula . . vi Page l3 l6 l9 27 33 35 47 A8 49 51 57 58 59 Table Page 14. Democratic response in gubernatorial elections: 1936—19U6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 15. Democratic response from urban voters in the Upper Peninsula gubernatorial elections: 1936- 19146 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 62 16. Percentage of Democratic state representatives, Upper Peninsula compared with Lower Peninsula . 67 17. Number of Democratic county officers: 1936- 19Ll6 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 69 18. Democratic percentage of the pOpular vote in presidential elections: Upper Peninsula com- pared with Lower Peninsula . . . . . . . 72 19. Democratic response in presidential elections: 19A8-l958 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7A 20. Democratic percentage of pOpular vote in gubernatorial elections: 19A8-1958 Upper Peninsula compared with Lower Peninsula . . . 75 21. Democratic response in gubernatorial elections: 19u8"1958 o o o o o o o o o o I o o 76 22. Democratic response in gubernatorial elections: 1948—1958 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 23. Michigan representatives in U.S. Congress: 19A8—1958 Ratio of Democrats to Republicans Upper Peninsula compared with Lower Peninsula . 79 24. Number of times Democratic received a majority in six elections for congressman: l9A8-1958 . 8O 25. Representation in state legislature: 19A8—l958 Ratio of Democrats to Republicans Upper Peninsula compared with Lower Peninsula . . . 82 26. Number of Democratic county officers: 19A8- 1958 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 83 27. Democratic percentage of the pOpular vote, presidential and gubernatorial elections: 1960-196“ 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 86 vii Table Page 28. Democratic response in presidential elections: 1960-1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 29. Democratic response in gubernatorial elections: 1960—1964 . . . . . . . . o . . . . 89 30. Democratic percentage of popular vote for state senator: 1960—1964 . . . . . . . . . 93 31. Democratic percentage of pOpular vote for state representative: 1960-196“ . . . . . . . 9A 32. Democratic majorities for county officers: :I.960"‘:L96l4 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 96 viii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration Page 1. Upper Peninsula of Michigan . . . . x 2. Ethnic dispersion in Upper Peninsula . 15 3. Presidential returns: 1856—1922 . . 29 A. Gubernatorial returns: 1856-1922 . . 31 ix 03 m0 3 mmoa H.103 8001 D GOMGW\D n. J\ 3a....” \«v . \ s s .. a. % mtc .,e a x. .r Ha mo...me GAR?! \llll\ m WM». A... a F... 3d >>m7m0T.. 3W? 06 U0 m mum. v a. w. . a 2 m. m . s. E. o 4, o w W . . e. mflmcdm Ellcvumd meHSmch ow . 0502.55 EOfing. INTRODUCTION The Upper Peninsula of Michigan is a fascinating area that has not yet come of age. Born in compromise, and nurtured in paternalism, it has been populated to a considerable extent by ethnic groups that have tended to isolate themselves from each other and from other outside influences. The voters of the Upper Peninsula, originally strongly Democratic, later supported Republican representation for decades, but with not quite the same timing or intensity as their fellow Michiganders in the lower Peninsula. This is a study of voting response in Michigan‘s Upper Peninsula from 1856 to 1964. It is based on election returns from this region for national, state, and county offices. The Upper Peninsula is viewed successively as a whole in relation to the state itself, as representative districts, in its countries as political subdivisions, and as economic regions. The electoral response of the larger cities is included so that their voting may be compared with that of the county of which the city is a part. To some extent this comparison will provide information on urban—rural voting differences. The election data used in this study are taken from the Michigan Manual, which has been published by the State of Michigan every two years since 18A1. Demographic data from United States Census reports are incorporated into this study on the premise that such information may help to better understand the election returns. Because economy and geography form a vital part of the environ- ment of any people, a survey of these variables is included as a significant portion of the first chapter. After a study of Michigan's social, political and economic history, the decision was made to break the 1856-1964 span into definite periods of voting reSponse. One such period may than be compared with another, and eventually the entire picture of Democratic voting response in the Upper Peninsula emerges. The method used to handle the data so as to measure and analyse voting response is as follows: Election re- turns for the Democratic candidate for a given office were assembled for a certain period of time. The election data from the district, county or city were measured as to number of Democratic majorities, number of times more Democratic than the Upper Peninsula, and number of times more Democratic than the Lower Peninsula. For example, in each instance that a county was found to have a Democratic majority in a particular elections, and a higher Democratic majority than the Upper Peninsula and/or the Lower Peninsula, it would receive one point. These upoints" were then counted for a given period of time for each of the fifteen Upper Peninsula counties. The resulting total of points is called a "score." On the basis of these scores, then, the counties can be ranked in descending order of this measure of Democratic response. Further, they may be compared with each other, with the Upper Peninsula and the Lower Peninsula. CHAPTER I HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The quest for the legendary Northwest Passage, gateway to the Orient, led French explorers to the wild and forbidding territory of the upper Great Lakes region—— known today as the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. This peninsula stretches 327 miles from the tip of Drummond Island on the east to its present boundary with Wisconsin in the extreme northwest. Excluding Isle Royale, it ex— tends 160 miles in a north-south direction from the northern tip of Keweenaw County to the southernmost boundary of Menominee County. A common land—boundary of more than 200 miles is shared with Wisconsin, but the greater part of the land mass (with 1,169 miles of shore— line) is bounded by Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Huron. The total land area includes 10,585,000 acres or 16,539 square miles. The Upper Peninsula, which is geographically a peninsula of Wisconsin rather than of Michigan, is physically isolated from the intensively developed portions of lower Michigan. This separation is further emphasized with the political center of the state, the capital at Lansing, being located in the southern half of the Lower Peninsula—~over 230 miles from the closest point (St. Ignace) in the Upper Peninsula. The northern peninsula was first explored and settled by the French, later negotiated for and claimed by the British, and finally came under legal jurisdicu tion of the newly—formed United States with the Treaty of Paris of 1783. The claim based on this treaty was finally honored in 1796, and this part of the Northwest Territory was thereafter successively renamed “Indiana Territory" and "Michigan Territory."1 The value of this relatively remote region was un— knon except for the wealth of its furs and the persistent rumors of the existence of mineral deposits. The sleeping giant in this "howling wilderness" was the vast and fabulously rich deposit of minerals. In 1835 when the people of Michigan were framing a constitution in Detroit prior to admission into the Union, there was no thought of including the wild and geographically separate land to the north. The Upper Peninsula at this time was a part of Wisconsin Territory. The settlers had recently petitioned Congress to establish a new territory, the Territory of Huron, which would in— clude both the peOple west of Lake Michigan and those in 1The following general histories of Michigan have provided the sources for the summaries of Michigan history contained in this chapter: Willis F. Dunbar, Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State (Grand Rapids; W. B. Eerdmens Publishing Company, 1965); Milo Quaife and Sidney Glazer, Michigan: From Primitive Wilderness to Industrial Common- wealth (New York: Prentice-Hall, 19A8); F. Clever Bald, Michigan in Four Centuries (New York: Harper & Row, 195A). the northern peninsula. As the Michigan delegates were attempting to draw their state boundaries a hot diSpute arose with Ohio over a contested strip of land along Lake Erie; this dispute became known as “The Toledo War." A compromise was proposed by Congress in Washington: if the people of Michigan would surrender their claim to the disputed strip, they could have in exchange that part of Wisconsin Territory we now call the Upper Peninsula. This was finally agreed to by a rump session of Michigan's Convention of Assent in which Monroe County, holder of the disputed land, was not represented.2 With this much settled, Michigan was admitted into the Union in 1837. Economic Development The major points of interest for the Upper Peninsula in the 1840's were the discovery of iron ore, and a rush for copper which had long been known to exist there. Soon after Michigan's admission to statehood, discoveries of such mineral deposits were made by U.S. surveyors who were in the area to conduct land surveys and geological studies.3 The big iron deposits in Michigan are the 2History of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (published by The Western Historical Company, Chicago, 1883). p. 132. 3See Angus Murdoch, Boom Copper (New York: The Macmillan Company, 19A3), for a lively and vivid descrip— tion of early copper mining experiences, and Stewart Holbrook, Iron Brew (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1939) for an account of William Burt's discovery of U. P° iron ore. Marquette, Menominee and Gogebic Ranges, all located in the western half of the peninsula. The copper mines of Lake Superior are in Keweenaw Peninsula in Keweenaw, Houghton, and Ontonagon Counties. Of these only the Portage Lake district in Houghton County has been the really great contributor of copper wealth. Economic development came slowly after the dis— covery of these rich deposits of copper and iron in the mid—nineteenth century. The investment of conserva« tive Boston dollars eventually paid off in a boom era beginning in the 1860's and lasting until about 1918.” Copper and iron mining does not lend itself to individual prospecting, but requires heavy investments in mining equipment and facilities for handling, processing, and shipping. There were few small investors who survived, and by 1904 control of Michigan copper and iron produc« tion had reached a marked degree of concentration. Over 95 per cent of the copper industry‘s output was controlled by two large companies, and a similar situation existed in the iron industry. Of those who held the stock of companies producing this copper and iron wealth, hardly more than 10 per cent were residents of Michigan.5 By 4William B. Gates, Michigan Copper and Boston Dollars (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 19517, pp. 72—73. 5Murdoch, op. cit., p. 157 1904 on the Quincy (Portage Lake District) a vertical mine shaft ran straight down into the earth for more than a mile--a warning that it was becoming necessary to go too deep to mine COpper profitably. By 1900 there were about 15,000 workers in the COpper mines and another 15,000 in the iron mines. The peak in production came just before World War I, with total mining employment at about 30,000. Subsequently the mining industry declined, most seriously in copper. Decline resulted from the progressive exhaustion of the richer and more favorably located ore bodies and the discovery and development of competitive ores in other regions of the United States or in foreign 6 countries. Copper mining in the Upper Peninsula has now been reduced to a relatively minor role in the total copper industry, accounting for about six per cent of the national output in 1960.7 Like copper production, iron mining peaked just prior to World War I, and subsequent production levels drOpped only slightly below those of the peak years. Lumbering also brought people into the Upper Peninsula to the forest counties of Alger, Chippewa, Delta, 6Gates, op. cit., pp. 143—169. 7Opportunities for Economic Development in Michigan‘s Upper Peninsula, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, September, 1961, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1962, pp. 43—50. Luce, Mackinac, Menominee, and Schoolcraft—-all in the eastern half of the peninsula. Pine was logged first from 1870 to about 1920, when it was essentially cut out. Hardwood logging began seriously about 1910, and the main period ended before World War II. The general course of logging in the Upper Peninsula was destruc« tive and rapid, but less so than in the northern portion of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. The large wood-using industries of today practice the virtues of conservation. In recent years the overly—exploited forests have made an impressive recovery, and Opportunities exist for long—term expansion of the wood—using industries. An undesirable but important feature of the Upper Peninsula raw-timber production is that subsequent manufacture is done outside the region--most of the Upper Peninsula pulpwood, for example, going to Wisconsin mills.8 The lumber and logging industry in the Upper Peninsula has declined seriously since the 1930's, but the pulp and paper industry has sustained a large out— put. This industry has helped to cushion the economic difficulties occasioned by the decline of lumber and related industries in the region. It is important to be aware of the dominance of forest in the land—use pattern 8Opportunities for Economic Development in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, op. cit., p. 29. 10 of the Upper Peninsula. Eighty«nine per cent of the entire land surface is in forest, with every county having a predominance of forest cover. Menominee has the least (with 79 per cent), and Marquette the most (with 95 per cent).9 A number of factors militate against efforts to change the economic base for the area. The physical location and environment are not highly favorable to other forms of enterprise. Agricultural possibilities are sharply limited by poor soil and a short growing season. Manufacturers are deterred by the Upper Peninsula's great distance from dense consumer centers, by high fuel costs, and by the long, cold winters. The result has been out—migration or acceptance of unemploy— ment. The mining companies, with their early policy of discouraging other forms of industry from being estab— lished here,10 have not helped in this respect. A study conducted in 1961 by the Senate Committee on Public Works revealed that recreation has developed in the Upper Peninsula to an important position in the overall economy, although it is not large in terms of employment.11 Recreation as an industry in the Upper 91bid., pp. 43-50. 10Gates, op. cit., p. 166. 11Opportunities for Economic Development in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, p. 79. 11 Peninsula did not just happen, but is the result of a major concern in the economic policy of Michigan. The giant Mackinac Bridge is the result of a long— standing effort to tie together the two peninsulas, with the very real hope it would facilitate movement for tourists and other industries to bolster the Upper Peninsula economy as a whole. POpulation and Ethnic Dispersion English, Irish, and Germans very early began to arrive in the United States from abroad, driven from their homes by the gradual decline of the great Cornish mines, by the Irish potato famine, and by the revolutionary upheavals of the 1840's in mid-Europe. Many of these people learned of the mineral discoveries in the Upper Peninsula, and heavy in-migration began. They came first into the mineral counties and later into the forest counties. Not only did people come from Europe, but also from Canada, southern Michigan, New York, and other states. In the early years the mining companies encouraged this immigration to the extent of sending company representatives overseas to recruit men and their families. Swedes, Norwegians, Belgians, and Poles came in considerable numbers in the two decades beginning about 1880. The Finns, the largest nationality group in the Upper Peninsula, did not begin until late in the 19th century. Coming by the thousands to work in 12. the mines, many soon turned to a way of life they had known in their homeland—-farming and logging. These Finnish pioneers formed the backbone of agricultural develOpment in the Upper Peninsula. The very heavy migration of the Finns to the United States has been attributed primarily to crOp failures and oppression by the Russian government in their former homeland.l2 Except for decreased numbers because of out—migra— tion, the ethnic dispersion of the population through— out the Upper Peninsula has not changed to any signifi- cant extent since the turn of the century. Table 1 shows those counties in which an ethnic group has accounted since 1920 for ten per cent or more of the foreign-stock population, or ten per cent of the foreign— born population.13 Because ten per cent is the cut—off point in Table 1 showing ethinic dispersion, the existence of some national- ities is not evident. The Irish, in particular, were relatively few in number, but they entered Upper Peninsula politics soon after their arrival. Irish names of State legislators from the Upper Peninsula are found as early as 1862. Probably the first of these was J. Q. McKernan from the c0pper mining county of Houghton, who went to 12U. S. Senate, Committee of Public Works, 1961 report, 0p. cit., p. 5. l3The U. S. Census of POpulatiop, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 13 Table l.—-Ethnic dispersion of the U. P. popula— tion. a m H > s m a co :2: :3 CU >. H .C.‘ c °r-I «3 (D 9 rd m m U H a C1 CU H E s: r—1 4) O 3 c o h m m 03% O (U H (D c) 4-) CU :3 o o m w m H mud Alger x x Barage x x Chippewa x x x Delta x x x Dickinson x x x Gogebic x x x Houghton x x Iron x x x x Keweenaw x x Luce x x x Mackinac x x x Marquette x x Menominee x x x Ontonagon x Schoolcraft x x x Lansing as the district's Republican representative in 1862. Similarly, peOple coming from Scotland and Cornwall, England, have not constituted a large enough percentage of the population to appear on the table, but they were important forces in their work and in politics. Many of those elected to state or local office in the early years of Upper Peninsula politics had English or Scottish names.lu 1“The Memorial Record of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, (Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Company, 1895) is a biographi— cal source of those persons socially and politically prominent from about 1860 to 1890. 14 The map on the following page shows the location of the iron and copper mines of the Upper Peninsula and the ethnic dispersion of the foreign—stock population. The overseas heritage in the Upper Peninsula is pronounced. In many areas Finnish still is more commonly spoken, especially among the older residents, than is English. More often than not these peOple have settled among their own, retained their mother—tongue, and continued their accustomed way of living. The pattern is breaking down, but many of these groups still reside in towns or rural neighborhoods showing the cultural pattern of the dominant ethnic group.15 After 1845 when there were only two counties, Chippewa and Mackinac, the Upper Peninsula grew from a population of about 2,683 (the state had at that time a total pOpulation of about 305,000) to its peak in 1910 when, with a population of 325,628, it claimed 11.5 per cent of Michigan's population. Table 2, based on informa- tion from the U. S. Census Reports, traces the growth and loss of population in the Upper Peninsula. 15John F. Thaden, Ethnic Settlements in Rural Michigan, reprinted from Michigan Agricultural Station, Quarterly Bulletin, vol. 29, no. 2 (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1946). ‘Ic_:\\ \\ I. :3/ \I' x ‘ ’ x \ owcmm ’1' omfi>mofiosmom cmaampH smegma amasch memooomsm pmmm mamaumcmo I mmwcmm coeH Monaco 3.:mom I .pH I .hoc : .oam Ir cum-m II 0&0 mcoapmfi>omnnslmmlhmx my a .230 A .4 mm! .zE . u . . .IIIAH .160 H. 4 .U . 1 zwww ZGU 6.:0 .Qo . .Zdnv qfidn - ka _ 2....“ r .260. .zso gidefiooxom. oZoqmio .230 .336. Jr . .zu A z @054 9 Ad.) o \ .ooHo Av Imasoom on» no name nod 0H no>o wcH>m£ mmapflamcouum: n¥ cmwanoflz Mo Madmcflsmm LonDII.m opsmfim mo coamhmmmac oacflpm w W 3 2 ion» ZOLH .ZCJIII / I. .3 1” V idum iduml 05m. 0%.. A». .3". .2...» .2 .n. s s s p I) Zomd2o+20 Table 2.--P0pulation changes in the U. P. 1845—1960. 16 the State of Michigan: compared with Upper Peninsula Michigan Percent of Total 1845 2,683 302,521 1850 ———a 397,654 _-- 1860 20,838 749,113 3.2 1870 43,754 1,184,059 3.6 1880 85,025 1,636,937 5.1 1890 180,523 2,093,889 8.6 1900 260,860 2,420,982 10.7 1904 275,525 2,530,016 10.7 1910 325,628 2,810,172 11.5 1920 332,556 3,668,412 9.0 1930 319,000 4,842,325 6.5 1940 324,000 5,256,106 6.1 1950 302,000 6,372,009 4.7 1960 306,000 7,824,018 3.9 aCensus returns include 19 Lower Peninsula Counties The census report of 1904 indicated that over 10,000 people came to Houghton County alone during the 1890's from Finland, Austria, and Italy. In 1904, forty per cent of the people in the western half of the Upper Peninsula were foreign-born. The 1960 census report disclosed that the Upper Peninsula still has a foreign— stock pOpulation varying from twenty to thirty per cent in the eastern half of the peninsula to a high of thirty to forty per cent in the western half.16 ’16CQ Census Analypis: Congressional Districts of the United States (Washington D. C., Congressional Quarterly Service, 1964), pp. 1841—1844. 17 In the Upper Peninsula as a whole the population has remained essentially static from 1910 to the present. Studies of the individual counties and cities, however, help to pinpoint the areas of out—migration or in-migration from 1910 to 1964. Marquette, which registered an in— migration from 1950—1960, is the only county to have done so sine 1910. Luce, Chippewa, Mackinac, and Ontonagon had an out—migration of less than ten per cent; Schoolcraft, Delta, Menominee, Iron, Baraga, Houghton, and Keweenaw had an out-migration of ten to twenty per cent; and Dickinson, Alger, and Gogebic had an out—migration of twenty to thirty per cent.17 Most of the people who left the Upper Peninsula after 1910 did so to take advantage of the better wages, working conditions, and economy of the Detroit auto industry. The 1920 census clearly indicated the population loss. With the onset of the Depression of the 1930's people returned from the cities by the thousands to retrench and ride out the crisis in small—town security. As they reestablished residence requirements it is very likely that they cast their vote in primaries and general elections. What 17Larry A. Sjaastad, "Michigan & Population Growth in the Upper Midwest: 1930-1960," Upper Midwest Economic Study (University of Minnesota, 1962), pp. 19-20. 18 their response was compared with those who never left cannot be gleaned from aggregate voting totals.18 Upper Peninsula Cities There are eight pOpulation centers in the Upper Peninsula which have or have had a population of 10,000 or more. The voting response of these eight will be compared with the districts or counties of which they are a part. Table 3 gives some information about these cities, and population figures for the past seventy years may be found in the Appendix. Although the total Upper Peninsula population has declined continuously since World War 1, these cities do not reflect a similar decline because many Upper Peninsula residents have moved into these communities from outlying farms and mining towns. One of these eight never was a city, even though by 1890 it numbered just about 13,000 peOple, and reached its peak of almost 33,000 in 1910. Through these years, and until 1940, it had the largest population of any urban area in the Upper Peninsula. This was Calumet, in the heart of the c0pper mining country, where the Calumet and Hecla Mining Company's regional offices are located. For the 18"By June of 1933 there were an estimated 8,800 men unemployed in Houghton County, and in spite of the fact that the basic industry of the district was clearly a declining one, between 1930 and 1934 the population of the county actually increased by about 4,000 persons or eight per cent." (Gates, op. cit., p. 164). 19 Table 3.——Ethnic groups and population count. :u WWI-T City .— County Predominant Ethnic Groups +—- Population 1910 1960 v—r—r' Calumet Escanaba Iron Mountain Ironwood Ishpeming Marquette Menominee Saults Ste. Marie Houghton Delta Dickinson Gogebic Marquette Marquette Menominee Chippewa Finnish East European Finnish Italian Scandinavian Finnish Italian Scandinavian Finnish Italian Scandinavian Finnish Scandinavian Finnish Scandinavian Italian German Scandinavian Canadian Canadian Finnish 32,845 13,194 9,216 12,821 12,448 11,503 10,507 12,651 9,192 15,391 9,299 10,265 8,957 19,824 11,289 18,722 2O purposes of this study, Calumet will be classified as a city because of tis concentration of population. Of the eight cities Marquette and Sault Ste. Marie alone reflect natural increase in population since 1910. Escanaba has stayed between 13,000 and 15,000 in popula- tion, and the other have decreased steadily since 1910. The two cities with the greatest increase in population have both a state supported college and an Air Force base. These establishments demand services which in turn create a demand for labor. The general out—migration has left the Upper Peninsula with an aging population. This characteristic is seen also in the cities to the extent that there is a population loss. Calumet and Ironwood with the highest pOpulation loss have also the highest per cent of age 65 and over, whereas Sault Ste. Marie and Marquette which have experienced the largest population increase have close to the same per cent of their population age 65 and over as does the state as a whole. Employment, Land use, and Education Employment in the Upper Peninsula has reflected the declining activity of mining and lumbering. Since 1930 the employment problem has been described by the Michigan Employment Security Commission as "persistent and substan— tial." As the mining companies sank still deeper shafts and resorted to highly selective mining, the auto industry 21 in Detroit provided immediate employment for the thousands leaving the Upper Peninsula. People from the Upper Peninsula tended to settle together in the cities, and even today it is possible to find the "Little COpper County" in Detroit, Lansing, Flint, Milwaukee, and other large cities of the Midwest. The characteristic pattern of employment in the Upper Peninsula is one of a seasonal high in the summer followed by least employment through the winter months.19 Farming in the Upper Peninsula occupies 10.3 per cent of the pOpulation compared with 5.3 per cent in the state as a whole. Both the national and state governments have education and assistance programs designed to increase the productivity of Upper Peninsula farms, but farming is generally very poor.20 Sand and gravel production is an important extractive industry for all counties except Houghton, Iron and Luce. Marquette and Chippewa Counties are the largest producers with between one and two million tones anually. Manufactur- ing employment in the Upper Peninsula has declined from 19The 1962 U. 8. Senate report stated that about 17 per cent of the labor force is generally classified as unemployed. op cit., p. 9. 20This information in Employment, Land use, and Education istaken from the following sources: Earl J. Senninger, Jr., Atlas of Michigan, second edition (Flint Geographical Press, Flint, Michigan, 1964), and the monthly issues of the Labor Market Letter, Upper Peninsula, Michigan Employment Security Commission, Detroit, Michigan, and U. S. Senate report, 1962, 0p. cit. 22 21,4000 in 1950 to 14,900 in 1960. In 1960 14.5 per cent of the Upper Peninsula labor force was employed in manufacturing, compared with 33.2 per cent in the state. Pulpwood production and wood production and wood products rank as the most important manufactured items for the Upper Peninsula. Data for April, 1966, show the Upper Peninsula workers tend to have a longer work week than elsewhere in Michigan, and they also have substantially lower hourly earnings except in the pulp and paper industry. There are five schools of higher education in the Upper Peninsula. Northern Michigan University at Marquette; Michigan Technological University at Houghton, with a branch at the Sault offering the first two years of its program; Suomi College at Hancock, a Finnish Lutheran pre—seminary that also offers a two—year basic college curriculum to the public; Gogebic Community Colloge at Ironwood; and the relatively new Bay de Noc Community College is at Escanaba. Jordan Seminary, not serving the general public, is at Menominee. In addition, both Michigan State University and the University of Michigan have off-campus extension programs in the larger cities of the Upper Peninsula. Conclusion Modern advances in the techniques of communication and transportation have brought the still relatively dis— tant Upper Peninsula in much closer contact with the 23 politics and economy of the State itself. In its early history, the region attracted both peOple and Eastern dollars, and grew phenomenally with the exploitation of its vast natural resources. However, most of the wealth of this region was taken out of the state by those who invested in the mining and lumbering industries. A policy of benevolent paternalism was exercised, particularly by the c0pper mining companies. It was also part of company policy to discourage the introduction of other industries that might both compete in the labor market and demand a voice in policy making. These latter company efforts seem to have been most effective from about 1880 at the very earliest, until the Depression of the 1930's.21 With the decline of these extractive industries beginning after World War I, the pOpulation decreased correspondingly. However, the ethnic dispersion of the population has been predominantly urban, settled in neatly laid out mining company towns or more casual lumbering or fishing villages. Particularly since World War 11 both the Federal and state governments have made efforts to shore up the sagging economy. These have included studies to find more suitable agricultural uses of the land, forest conservation, develOpment of 21Gates, op. cit., pp. 72-73, and p. 111. 23 politics and economy of the State itself. In its early history, the region attracted both peOple and Eastern dollars, and grew phenomenally with the exploitation of its vast natural resources. However, most of the wealth of this region was taken out of the state by those who invested in the mining and lumbering industries. A policy of benevolent paternalism was exercised, particularly by the copper mining companies. It was also part of company policy to discourage the introduction of other industries that might both compete in the labor market and demand a voice in policy making. These latter company efforts seem to have been most effective from about 1880 at the very earliest, until the Depression of the 1930's.21 With the decline of these extractive industries beginning after World War I, the pOpulation decreased correSpondingly. However, the ethnic dispersion of the population has been predominantly urban, settled in neatly laid out mining company towns or more casual lumbering or fishing villages. Particularly since World War II both the Federal and state governments have made efforts to shore up the sagging economy. These have included studies to find more suitable agricultural uses of the land, forest conservation, development of 21Gates, op. cit., pp. 72-73, and p. 111. 24 a pulp and wood—using industry, agricultural education programs,the installation of two Air Force bases, and development and advertisement of recreational and tourist facilities. With mines too deep to work profitably, the mining companies have turned to reclamation pro— jects and beneficiation processes to protect heavy investments in mining, transportation, and docking facilities. Based on the above information, the important determinants to consider, in trying to better understand the voting response of the Upper Peninsula electorate, are the relative seclusion of the region; the declining and aging pOpulation which is still somewhat conscious of ethnic differences within itself; a high foreign- stock population; a way of living conditioned by early mining company policies; an economy described for decades as poor but showing some slight signs of improvement; the high tourist rate which brings both money and out— siders into the peninsula; and residents who show a remarkable tendency to return in time of crisis or when retirement age is reached. CHAPTER II UPPER PENINSULA DEMOCRATS: 1856—1922 The very long period from 1856 to 1922, includes the years of initial exploitation of the mineral wealth, a decades—long boom era, heavy in—migration, and the appearance of economic decline and out—migration. This voting study begins with the 1856 presidential election—-the first election following the appearance of the Republican party—-because the Democratic response we are concerned with measuring has its most significant relevance when viewed in relation to the opposing Republican appeal. For the offices of President, Governor and United States Senator and Congressman the data are quite com— plete, but for other offices there is a lack of needed information. The biggest difficulty is the lack of party identification, making it necessary, therefore, to search various biographical sources to get this information for every candidate. Not included in this chapter, but used in the following chapters, is a survey of the voting for county officers° Here, again, the reason for later introduction is lack of party identifi- cation. 25 26 State—Wide Elections The appearance of the Republican party in 1854 was followed in Michigan by a complete rejection of Democratic candidates in both national and state elections. In 1856 the new Republican party's candidate, John C. Fremont, was given the stat's electoral college votes by a majority of Michigan's voters. For a period of seventy-six years, from 1856 to 1932, Michigan did not give these votes to a Democratic presidential candidate.1 A majority of the voters in the Upper Peninsula did not support the state wide choice in the four quadrennial elections beginning with 1856. Thus, a majority of Upper Peninsula voters were Democrats after 1856, repudiating Lincoln in 1860 and 1864, and Grant in 1868. As the following table shows, it is the election of 1872 which broke the Democratic majorities being returned by Upper Peninsula voters. In 1872, a split in the Republican party resulted in the appearance of the Liberal party, with Grant the candidate of the Republicans and Horace Greeley the candidate of the Liberals. In their national convention the Democrats finally settled on the choice of the Liberals, so that Greeley became a r V 1In 1892 a Michigan state law (Miner's Law) permitted a splitting of the state's electoral college delegates according to the pOpular vote received by each party's candidates in each congressional district. The result was that five of Michigan's total of fourteen electoral college votes went to the Democratic candidate, Cleveland. 27 coalition candidate. A disaffected number, calling themselves uregular Democrats“ chose as their national candidate a Mr. O'Conor.2 Table 4.—-Democratic percentage of the popular votes in presidential elections: Upper Peninsula compared with Lower Peninsula 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 Upper Peninsula __a 52.2 63.5 53.9 31.4b Lower Peninsula 42.0 42.2 46.Q 42.7 36.0 Michigan 42.0 42.3 46.5 43.0 36.0 aMarquette County alone reported: 49.3% for the Democratic candidate. bThis percentage is for the Liberal-Democrat candidate, Horace Greeley. The "regular" Democratic candidate, O'Conor, received 3.2% of the U. P. vote, but less than 1.0% from the rest of Michigan. The graph on p. 29 records O'Conor's share of the total vote. A number of authors claim that the mining companies formed the welcoming committees for newcomers, and also saw to it that these new employees learned to vote Republican.3 This may be so, just as immigrants arriving on the East Coast were met and tutored by Democratic 2The Michigan Manual for 1873—74 lists an O'Conor as the Democratic candidate. The Detroit Free Press of November 6, 1872, (XXXVIII, no. 73), p. 1, reports the popular vote for O'Conor from counties in Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana, and Connecticut. No available sources revealed O'Conor's first names. 3Gates, Op. cit., pp. 72-73, 104; 11-113, Murdoch, op. cit., pp. 153-155, 157; and Martin, 0 . cit., pp. 39—40. 28 party workers. But the election returns show only that Upper Peninsula voters shifted their party position in the 1872 election. In 1872, the mining companies were industrially young and fairly numerous. It is hard to know how much persuasion they could and did exert on their employees. In the years from 1872 to 1924, except for the election of 1888, Upper Peninsula voters gave a smaller percentage of their votes to each Democratic presidential candidate than did Michigan as a whole. The graph on the following page compares the voting returns of the Upper Peninsula with the Lower Peninsula in quadrennial elections from 1856 to 1924. It is readily apparent that Upper Peninsula voters were later than voters in the rest of Michigan in shifting away from Democratic majorities, but when they did swing to the Republican party they gave larger majorities. 0f the six counties organized and showing voting returns for the elections from 1856 to 1872, three, Houghton, Keweenaw, and Mackinac, had Democratic majorities in every presidential election; Chippewa and Menominee had one, and Marquette none. After 1872 the economically big mining counties not only had no Democratic majorities, but showed some of the lowest Democratic percentages of all Upper Peninsula counties. Moreover, Democratic per— centages from voters in these counties tended to decline 29 __l920 .mmmalmmma "mcoapomao Hwapcmpflmmsa Ca opo> H¢pOp map mo mommpcmohoq oapmmooEoQtl.m mhswfim -_1916 _.1912 ._1908 -.l904 -.1900 __1896 3.1892 —-1888 — 1884 -*1880 --1876 2 7 8 l r — ~ 1868 1864 —~l860 d 1856 cub MHSmCHQmm .Hm304H II.II.II_||.I.|Imasmcacmm some: 30 with each succeeding election. Two relatively poor mining counties, Baraga and Ontonagon, had occasional Democratic majorities from 1876 to 1900. The most consistently Democratic were the voters at the far eastern end of the peninsula in Mackinac County. They had Democratic majorities in 4 of the 14 elections from 1876 to 1924, and were only .2 per cent short of a majority in 1896 when Bryan Opposed McKinley. The office of governor is also filled in a statee wide election. No governor of Michigan has been a native of the Upper Peninsula. However, Chase Osborn, Republican governor from 1911-1913, was a resident of Sault Ste. Marie from the time he was twenty-seven years old until his death.“ Upper Peninsula residents have always claimed him as their own.5 The graph on the following page compares voting returns from the Upper and Lower Peninsula in state- wide elections for the office of governor. From 1856 to 1922, only slightly different voting behavior is seen here “Bald, op. cit., pp. 339—341. 5From the 1886 election to the 1904 election, a total of 10 elections, four U.P. residents won the office of Lt. Governor for a total of 7 terms. No U.P. resident has since held that office. Stephen B. Sarashon remarks on this in his doctoral thesis, The Regulation of Parties and Nominations in Michigan (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, Inc., 1953), p. 69. He claims that U.P. Republicans maintained their political connections with the state Republican party in return for patronage and a claim to the office of Lt. Governor. In fact, he says, they came to regard it as a traditional prerogative. Lower Peninsula Upper Peninsula——n—-—_____ 31 r1922 11920 ”1918 "1916 ,1914 ”1912 +1910 11908 _l906 +1904 _1902 +1900 1.1898 41896 “1894 “1892 _1890 +1888 ”1886 "1884 71882 "1800 “1878 _1876 “1874 ,1872 "1870 “1868 _1866 “1864 “1862 _1860 "1858 _1856 35.. l5 T» Figure 4.——Democratic percentages of the total vote in gubernatorial elections: 1856e1922. 32 as compared with presidential elections. Prior to 1872, Upper Peninsula voters returned Democratic majorities for all gubernatorial candidates. After 1872 only one Democratic candidate-—in l874—-received a majority. Democratic percentages for the office of governor in the U.P. roughly paralleled voting in the rest of Michigan, but in every election it was less. Four times in this period Michigan Democrats won the office for their candidate: in 1882 with Begole, a Fusion Democrat; in 1890 with Winans; and twice with Ferris, in 1912 and 1914. For none of these was there a Democratic majority from the Upper Peninsula.6 In every election from 1856 through 1872 all the counties organized at the time showed majorities for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate. Then, for a period of twenty years, beginning with the 1874 election, Democratic strength gradually waned. After 1894, and for the remainder of this period, no Upper Peninsula county showed a Democratic majority for this office, except for 6Ferris' personal pOpularity is quite evident in that, although he did not run ahead of his party, he was able to increase his popular vote in the following term. The Democratic percentage in U.P. voting leaped from 24.6 per cent for Hemans in 1910 to 40.8 per cent for Ferris in 1912. The following election he increased it to 44.5 per cent--in spite of, or because of, the fact that he had sent the state militia into the COpper County to suppress riots and violence resulting from efforts to unionize the miners. The mining counties had about 39.2 per cent of the total U.P. pOpulation. Houghton County, scene of most of the disorder, gave him a 55.9 per cent majority in 1914, compared with 21.6 per cent in 1912. 33 a brief showing in 1912 and 1914. The following table shows the varying Democratic strength in the counties. Table 5.—-Percentage of gubernatorial elections in which county's voters showed a Democratic majority: 1872-1894. Mackinac 1a 100% Delta 1 .09% Alger l .0% Baraga m/l 72 Houghton m .09 Dickinson m .0 Ontonagon m 63 Iron m .09 Gogebic m .0 Chippewa l 36 Marquette m .09 Keweenaw m .0 Schoolcraft 1 27 Menominee 1 .09 Luce l .0 aThe letters "m" and "1" after the name of the county indicate mining or lumbering. In 1912 and 1914 only Mackinac, of the three strongest counties in the above table, had gubernatorial majorities in both elections. Alger County, however, with no Democratic majorities from 1872 to 1895, had Democratic majorities in 1912 and 1914. Similar Democratic strength was evident in the six presidential elections held from 1872 to 1894--the same period covered in Table 5. Mackinac and Baraga had Democratic majorities in all six elections, and Ontonagon had such majorities in three of these elections. All other counties had no Democratic majorities. To locate more accurately the bases of Democratic strength for the period to 1924, the voting of urban pOpulations in the Upper Peninsula is given for gubernator- ial elections, and is then compared with its county and 34 the Upper Peninsula as a whole. Selected for such study are those cities of the Upper Peninsula which at any time in their history had a pOpulation of 10,000 or more.7 For these cities reliable voting data are available only from 1888, so this becomes the cut-off date. The election of 1894 is used as a terminal point because for cities, as for counties, it marks the end of Democratic majorities for all elective offices referred to here. On the basis of the number of times a city had Democratic gubernatorial majorities, the Democratic strength in the cities may be measured and then compared with a similar measurement of Democratic strength in its county. Table 6 makes this comparison. None of the three strongest Democratic counties, as shown in Table 6, had urban pOpulations of 10,000 or more. The three cities with a score of 50 per cent or more are much more Democratic than their counties. Escanaba, Marquette, and Menominee may be said to consti— tute bases of Democratic strength prior to 1896. In one of several populations studies, John F. Thaden found that for all of Michigan the greatest variety 7Beginning with the development of the mining in- dustry the Upper Peninsula has had a relatively large proportion of urban population and a comparatively small proportion of its total pOpulation in rural farm areas. John F. Thaden, Intrastate Migration in Michigan: 1935- 1940. (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1941), p. 12. 35 Table 6.--Percentage of gubernatorial elections in which there are Democratic majorities: 1888—1894 City compared with County. County City County's Per Cent City's Per Cent Chippewa Sault Ste. Marie .0 25.0 Delta Escanaba 25.0 75.0 Dickinson Iron Mountain .0 .0 Gogebic Ironwood .0 .0 Houghton Calumet .0 .0 Marquette Ishpeming .0 .0 Marquette Marquette .0 50.0 Menominee Menominee .0 75.0 of ethnic groups is to be found in Menominee County, and Marquette and Delta are among those with the second largest number of ethnic groups.8 However, ethnic variety seems to be a poor explanation for difference in voting behavior. The cities of Ishpeming, and Marquette in Marquette County are very similar in ethnic complexion, but Marquette was far more Democratic than Ishpeming. Furthermore, for the counties in which these cities are located, Professor Thaden finds between eights and twelve different ethnic groups. In other words, all eight have a large number of different ethnic groups, but only three have Democratic cities. 8John F. Thaden, Ethnic Settlements in Rural Michigan. (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1943), p. 110. 36 District Elections: 1856sl922 Congressional and state senatorial and representative districts are changed over periods of time by the state legislature. It is rather difficult, therefore, to make comparisons among districts when such re—districting has occurred. To relieve this problem to some extent, not only will district majorities be noted, but the voting returns from counties will also be used. The advantage in doing this is that counties are political subdivisions with boundaries that remain fixed. Much of the data given before 1880 are incomplete, so there are unavoidable gaps in the survey of voting for these offices. Returns are sometimes incomplete, or the returns from several counties are totaled, and this further blurs the picture. Even as late as 1932 party affiliation is seldom indicated. In the 1860's the six counties of the Upper Peninsula were divided into two congressional districts, the Fourth and the Sixth, with each of these districts including between 22 and 24 Lower Peninsula counties. The congress- men sent to Washington were Republican. The same was true through the 1870's and the 1880's when the whole of the Upper Peninsula plus seventeen Lower Peninsula counties made up the Ninth Congressional District. In 1883 all of the Upper Peninsula plus some Lower Peninsula counties made up the Eleventh district, and in 1893 the Upper Peninsula alone comprised the Twelfth district. In 1913 the Upper 37 Peninsula was again divided into two districts, the Eleventh and the Twelfth, but the latter now included seven Lower Peninsula counties. This districting re— mained until 1964. The Upper Peninsula sent no Democratic congress- man to Washington for the entire period from 1856 to 1924, as far as can be ascertained. Before 1872 Keweenaw, Marquette, Houghton, Ontonagon and Mackinac had Democratic majorities in congressional elections, but it was not enough to swing the district vote to a majority for any Democratic candidate. As in presidential and gubernatorial elections, the Democratic majorities were in Keweenaw, Houghton, and Mackinac counties. A majority of Marquette County voters were splitting their ticket before 1872, because they had no such majority in both presidential and gubernatorial elections. After 1872 all Upper Peninsula counties, except Mackinac, consistently shunned Democratic congressmen. As in the state-wide elections, a majority of Mackinac voters were Democratic until the election of 1898. The election data for the offices of state senator and state representative are incomplete and unclear for the elections held in the 1800's. It appears that from 1860 to 1924 only two state senators from the Upper Peninsula were Democrats. The first was Peter White, elected in 1874 to represent the 32nd state senatorial district, which 38 included all counties of the Upper Peninsula except the very Democratic Mackinac. In 1890, the second Democratic state senator was elected. George Sharp was chosen by the 30th district which included Luce, Chippewa, School— craft, Delta, Mackinac and Menominee counties. All except Mackinac had returned Republican majorities in the elections since 1874. In 1890 Democrats experienced a brief period of state-wide popularity. The Upper Peninsula reflected this when it sent Sharp to Lansing. The Democrats gained control of the governorship, and they secured majorities in both the state house and senate. Neither of the other two Upper Peninsula state senatorial districts, however, had Democratic majorities in 1890. The central and western counties were much less Democratic than the counties at the eastern end of the peninsula. Because of the extreme difficulty in determining party affiliation, state representatives chosen by Upper Peninsula voters prior to the 1872 Republican party split are not included. In 1872 the Upper Peninsula was divided into four state representative districts; these were gradually increased to a maximum of twelve in 1912, and remained so for the rest of this 1856—1924 period. One, but more often two, state representatives came from the Upper Peninsula from 1872 through 1912.9 Chippewa sent a total of 5; 9See Appendix, Table No. 8. 39 Marquette, 4; Ontonagon, Menominee and Houghton, 3; Gogebic, 2; and Keweenaw, 1. After 1912 Upper Peninsula state representative districts, with few exceptions, had no Democrats even running in the general elections. The few exceptions were in Marquette‘s first, Chippewa, Dickinson, Ontonagon and Menominee districts. These had Democrats seeking the office occasionally, but not winning. Upper Peninsula voters had Democratic majorities for both presidential and gubernatorial candidates until the Republican party split of 1872, whereas Michigan as a whole had made the break with the Democratic party immediately after the appearance of the Republicans in 1854. Until the turn of the century Mackinac County voters served, with those in Ontonagon and Baraga as close runners— up, as a base of Democratic strength. Generally speaking, urban pOpulations were no more strongly Democratic than their counties or the Upper Peninsula as a whole. The cities of Escanaba, Marquette and Menominee were the most Democratic. CHAPTER III THE APPEARANCE OF PROTEST: 1924—1934 Upper Peninsula residents had been leaving in increas- ing numbers for the past decade, and by 1924 the out- migration was depleting the population by the thousands. Were it not for this modifying factor, Upper Peninsula residents, particularly in the heavily populated mining counties, would have experienced increasing unemployment. The mining industry remained the primary source of income and employment, but it had reached its peak prior to World War I. Throughout the region businesses were slowing in response to the static condition of the industry.1 The pattern of Democratic response revealed in the last chapter was altered by the 1924 quadrennial elections. At first glance the 1920's would seem to be a period of Republican ascendency in both the Upper Peninsula and the state as a whole. A closer look at the data may provide evidence to support the hypothesis that among the Upper Peninsula voters a minority protest was being voiced. Otherwise, the period was one of very large Republican majorities for candidates seeking state or national offices. lGates, op. cit., p. 143. 40 41 With the onset of the Depression in 1930, the out— migration that had begun prior to World War I was tempo— rarily reversed. It was easier and safer to be destitute in the Upper Peninsula than in the city. Former residents returned by the thousands in the early 1930's, but only temporarily. Whenever the job situation looked a bit hopeful, they'd take a chance and try again in the cities. In respect to voting requirements, some of those who came and went during the hard years of the 1930's were legally no longer Michigan residents, and certainly not local residents. But most of those who returned soon regained a place in their old communities of families and friends——ties which generally had never been greatly distrubed.2 It is possible only to speculate what impact these urban—experienced citizens had upon Upper Peninsula elections, or to what extent they may have influenced the voting of residents who had never left. New occupations, new friends, and new problems had been found in urban resettlement. Had these people retained their traditional Republican ways after they moved to their jobs in the cities? Did they change their political party when they 2Evidence to support this statement may be found in the fact that, once in the city, Upper Peninsula residents tended to settle together, form their "Upper Peninsula Club," or settle in a "Little Copper Country." 42 found a new way of life and a new occupation? It is hard to know, from this remote position, how soon they voted upon returning to the Upper Peninsula, how they voted, and to what extent they influenced the voting of family and friends. In the 1932 elections voters throughout the nation and in Michigan shifted allegiance to the Democratic party. What, however, was the response in the strongly Republican Upper Peninsula to the pulls of the Democratic appeal? Was there more immediate and greater response from counties that had remained Democratic for some time after the 1872 break? Did the Democrats find more support in the heavily pOpulated western mining counties than in the lightly populated eastern lumbering—fishing counties? Did U.P. voters see a difference between county offices and state or national offices? Were the cities more or less Democratic than their counties or the Upper Peninsula as a whole? Was the Upper Peninsula more or less Democratic than the rest of Michigan? These are the questions which must be answered to determine when and to what extent there was a change in party affiliation, and whether or not an early protest vote developed into a Democratic majority. State—Wide Elections The 1920's are frequently described as years of Republican ascendency; to some extent this is true. Republican majorities for all elective offices were of 43 land—slide proportions, and the Democratic percentages of the vote hit alletime lows. This is the picture that emerges in comparison of the two—party vote. But when the total vote is exposed, Upper Peninsula voters are seen in a new perspective. In 1924 the Independent Progressive party candidate, Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, received 22 per cent of the total Upper Peninsula vote. When this percentage is compared with the 8.1 per cent received by the Democrats, the Progressive support assumes a new significance. Also, for the first time since 1872 Republican strength in the Upper Peninsula was proportionately less than in Michigan as a whole. The voting returns in the 1924 presidential election are as follows: - Independent 1924: ' Democrats Republicans Progressives Upper Peninsula 8.1% 69.9% 22.0% Lower Peninsula 15.4 75.9 9.5 Michigan 13.1 75.9 11.0 The Independent Progressive party represented a disaffected element of the Republican party--it was a protest movement in the Midwest.3 If, therefore, LaFollette is viewed as a protest candidate, then Upper Peninsula voters were registering a protest, albeit a 3John H. Fenton, Midwest Politics (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1966), p. 6. 44 minority one. The protest was also well hidden by very large Republican majorities and minimal Democratic response. The prevalence and strength of the protest vote can best be seen by examining the electoral vote at the county level. In 13 of the 15 Upper Peninsula counties LaFollette polled more votes than did the Democratic candidate, John Davis. In Delta County LaFollette's platform received its greatest support, getting 44 per cent of the total vote, whereas the Democrats with Davis received only 4.8 per cent. Menominee with 32.0 per cent and Iron with 27.0 per cent of the total vote were next strongest. In Mackinac County, the Democratic stronghold of the Upper Peninsula, the voters did not subscribe to the proposals of the Independent Progressives. Rather, they gave the Democrats the highest percentage of all Upper Peninsula counties. The 1928 presidential election bears witness to a rising protest from Upper Peninsula voters who were faced with the twin problems of a declining economy, and the out-migration of young and able workers. Again, the protest came from a minority of U.P. voters, but it now appeared as an increased Democratic response-—greater than in the state as a whole. A new pattern was being set, with voting returns as follows: 45 1928: Democrats Republicans Upper Peninsula 37.0% 63.0% Lower Peninsula 28.2 71.8 Michigan 29.1 70.9 At the county level in 1928 Menominee and Delta voters were almost 50 per cent Democratic; Dickinson and Mackinac Democrats polled over 40 per cent of the vote. Compared with the 1920 election, all counties increased their Democratic strength from 10 to 30 percentage points. Except for Mackinac, Democratic strength was strongest in counties centrally located, and it was weakest in the western mining counties. In the Upper Peninsula the 1920‘s, therefore, appear as a period of mild but increasing protest, the voters no longer less Democratic than the state as a whole. However, when the Democrats finally offered a strong reform and protest candidate in 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, there was no majority follow—through from Upper Peninsula voters as a whole. The voting returns for the 1932 presidential election are as follows: 1932: Democratic Republican Upper Peninsula 47.5% 52.5% Lower Peninsula 52.7 47.3 Michigan 52.4 47.6 In state—wide voting Franklin Roosevelt won his majority, but he did not carry the Upper Peninsula. However, 46 Democratic strength was increasing, and U. P. voters were more Democratic than they had been in any presidential election since 1872. In relation to the state itself, however, they were back in their traditional position of being less Democratic. Delta, Dickinson, Mackinac and Menominee, the counties which showed early protest support in 1924, followed by a near Democratic majority in 1928, now returned Democratic majorities. Alger, another centrally located forest county, returned its first Democratic majority. Election data and the platforms on which they ran, provide little evidence to support a belief that from 1924 through 1934 Democratic gubernatorial candidates were reform or portest candidates, as were LaFollette and Smith.” The Democrat running in five of the six elections from 1924 through 1934, was William A. Comstock. Although he has been characterized as being an Al Smith Democrat, he headed the conservative faction of the state Democratic party.5 As Table 7 shows, Upper Peninsula voters seem to have been oriented more to the national than to the state party. “Stephen B. Sarasohn, The Regulation of Parties and Nominations in Michigan (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1942), pp. 173-179. 5Stephen B. and Vera H. Sarasohn, Political Party Patterns in Michigan (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1957), pp. 25, 46. 47 Table 7.--Democratic percentage of the pOpular vote in presidential and gubernatorial elections: 1924—1934. Upper Peninsula compared with Lower Peninsula. T w—r Election Presidential Gubernatorial Year U.P. Mich. L.P. U.P. Mich. L.P. 1924 8.1 13.1 15.4 12.9 29.5 30.8 1926 29.6 36.0 37.6 1928 37.0 29.1 28.2 32.8 21.1 29.3 1930 20.7 42.5 44.0 1932 47.5 52.4 52.7 47.7 56.0 55.5 1934 50.6 46.7 45.3 When Michigan elected Comstock in 1932 there was no corresponding majority from the Upper Peninsula. But in 1934 U.P. voters gave a majority to a new Democratic gubernatorial candidate, but now no majority came from the state itself. The early protest vote which had been building toward an increasing Democratic percentage now came through in an off—year election. In gubernatorial, as in presidential elections, on the basis of the number of Democratic majorities and the number of times more Democratic the Upper Peninsula is than the state itself, the Upper Peninsula is less Democratic than Michigan in the 1924—1934 period. The most Democratic of all Upper Peninsula counties, in respect to the gubernatorial elections held from 1924 through 1934, were Alger, Mackinac and Menominee. This is on the basis of the number of Democratic majorities, and the number of times the county was more Democratic 48 than the Upper Peninsula and/or the Lower Peninsula. The following table provides this information for all counties in decreasing order of their Democratic strength for this period.6 Table 8.——Democratic response in gubernatorial elections: 1924—1934. More Dem. More Dem. Dem. County Than U.P. Than L.P. Majority Scorea Alger 5 4 2 ll Mackinac 5 5 1 ll Menominee 6 3 2 11 Delta 6 l 2 9 Dickinson 3 3 2 8 Gogebic l 2 l 4 Iron 1 2 1 4 Ontonagon 3 l 0 4 Chippewa 3 0 0 3 Houghton 1 2 0 3 Schoolcraft 2 l 0 3 Luce 2 0 0 2 Marquette 1 l 0 2 Baraga 1 0 0 1 Keweenaw 0 0 0 0 aThis "score" is simply a total of the number of times, in a given period, a county had Democratic majorities, and was more Democratic than either the U.P. or Michigan. fi- 6As explained in the Introduction, Democratic strength is measured here on the following bases: number of Democratic majorities in a given election; number of times a county or city is more Democratic than the U.P. and/or Michigan; number of times a city is more Demo- cratic than its county; number of times the U.P. is more Democratic than Michigan; number of times U.P. has Democratic majorities compared with Michigan. A single point is given for each instance, when earned. The "score" is the total of these points. The higher the score, therefore, the greater the degree of relative Democratic strength. 49 Of the three counties found to be most Democratic, only Delta and Menominee have cities included in this study. On the basis of the same comparisons that were used to determine Democratic strength in the counties, we find that the voters in the cities of Escanaba (Delta County) and Menominee (Menominee County) were the most Democratic of the eight. The following table provides comparative information for all eight cities. Table 9.-—Democratic response from urban voters in the U.P. Gubernatorial Elections: 1924—1934. -v v v Y J O O O H *1 -H +3 43 P m m m L.m a a 04-) O O 0 0C 00 O. H 8:: En. EFL +>>3 mo <1) . Q) . «34.) Go a: GA hH c>a m >. a): Q)C 0)C <30 h 4.). PM $ch $4M Sn 0 ‘A or: can can did 0 0 EB SIC—i SB 921 m Escanaba 5 6 5 2 l8 Menominee 5 5 4 3 l7 Marquette 4 4 l 0 9 Sault Ste. Marie 2 4 l 0 7 Iron Mountain 0 2 l 2 5 Calumet 0 O l 0 l Ironwood 0 0 0 0 0 Ishpeming 0 0 0 0 0 fifi—v On the basis of the number of Democratic majorities, Escanaba, Iron Mountain and Menominee were more Democratic than both the Upper Peninsula and Michigan, which had one majority only. Marquette was the most Democratic of the mining cities, and in four of the six election was SQ. more Democratic than its county. Three cities in mining counties--Ironwood, Calumet and Ishpeming--had no Demo— cratic majorities, and were never more Democratic than their county, the Upper Peninsula, or the rest of Michigan. When the city is viewed as urban, and the county as rural non-farm, then in the Upper Peninsula the rural vote is more Democratic than the urban vote. District Elections Though Democratic response for U. S. Congressional candidates slipped to its lowest in the years from 1922 through 1930, there was some sign of a protest vote in the 1928 election. The eastern 11th district was some- what more Democratic than was the western 12th district. In the former there was at least a hint of two-party politics for this period, for in every election year except 1930 a Democratic Congressional candidate took his turn at offering the voters a choice. In the mining district a Democrat ran in only three of the six elections. Apparently encouraged by the appearance of Al Smith, there were Democrats running in both districts in 1928, and both polled better than 30 per cent of the vote. Neither district had a Democratic candidate in 1930. In Upper Peninsula voting Roosevelt's coat tails were a help to Congressional candidates, where they had not been for gubernatorial candidates. The Democratic response came from the eastern district containing the 51 the counties and cities that had expressed an early protest vote, and had then followed with Democratic majorities in 1932. In 1934, Upper Peninsula voters in both Congressional districts formed Democratic majorities, but there was no corresponding Democratic response from Lower Peninsula voters. The following table illustrates the difference in Democratic response at the congressional level between. the Upper Peninsula and the rest of Michigan.7 Table 10.—-Number of Democratic and Republican Congress- men Upper Peninsula compared with Lower Peninsula: 1924-1934. Year Upper Peninsula Lower Peninsula Dem. Repub. % Dem. Dem. Repub. % Dem. 1924 0 2 0.0% O 11 0.0% 1926 0 2 0.0 0 11 0.0 1928 0 2 0.0 0 11 0.0 1930 0 2 0.0 0 11 0.0 1932 l 1 50.0 9 6 60.0 1934 2 0 100.0 4 11 26.0 In the 1934 election the Upper Peninsula became 100 per cent Democratic in congressional representation, com- pared with 35 per cent for the entire Michigan 7Democratic percentage of the vote for congressional candidates is contained in the Appendix. 52 delegation.8 When Frank Hook secured the seat four counties gave him Democratic majorities: Dickinson, Gogebic, Houghton and Iron. The four other counties in the district, Baraga, Keweenaw, Marquette and Ontonagon were more Democratic than they had been since 1872, but had percentages less than a majority. At the congressional level, the 11th district had made the shift in 1932, and returned the incumbent, Prentiss Brown, in 1934. Upper Peninsula voters had 11 state representatives in the 1924 to 1934 period. The Democratic party in Michigan had reached its nadir four year prior to this period when it held no seats in the state house in 1920; however, five held seats in 1922. One of these was Martin Bradley from the Menominee state representative district. Then, in 1923 the Republican controlled Michigan legislature redistricted itself. The Upper Peninsula lost one of its seats in the House, and Bradley lost to a Republican (Oberderffer) in the 1924 election. This Republican redistricting served to quash the appearance of Democratic protest, and proved temporarily effective. Neither Bradley nor his four fellow Democrats in the House 8In this election the veteran Republican Congressman W. Frank James met his defeat with Frank Hook's challenge. James had been representing the 12th District since 1914. In 1932 not one of the eight mining counties of this dis- trict gave a majority to the Democratic challenger, Levi Rice. 53 were reelected in the election following the redis— tricting. However, Bradley, and a fellow Democrat from the Lower Peninsula, secured majorities in 1926, 1928, and 1930. From 1924 through 1932 Upper Peninsula Republican candidates for the state senate frequently polled 100 per cent of the vote in all three senatorial districts. The 32nd district at the far western end of the peninsula, containing Baraga, Houghton, Keweenaw and Ontonagon counties, was the only one of the three in which the Democrats offered a candidate for the seat from 1924 through 1934. However, in 1934 the 30th and the 3lst finally returned Democratic majorities. There was no majority in the 32nd, in spite of the early appearance of Democratic candidates. County Officers: 1924—1934 A more complete picture of Democratic strength and its pattern of growth in the Upper Peninsula may be found by determining whom the voters were choosing for their county officers.9 These are partisan elections, and lend themselves to identification and measurement. The county officers referred to are the following: prosectuing attorney, sheriff, clerk, treasurer, and 9The elections for these officers will continue to be held in November, but the 1963 state constitution provides for four-year terms instead of two—year terms, as in the past. 54 register of deeds. Election data for Michigan county officers are available in the Michigan Manual, but party affiliation is not indicated prior to 1936. Because of the great difficulty in useing election data which do not show party affiliation, county elections were not included in the 1856 to 1922 period. A number of county officers changed party affiliation just before either the 1934 or the 1936 elections.10 The election of 1932 has therefore been selected as the cutoff point in the following survey of the voting for county officers. There were few Democratic county officers elected in 1932 and 1934. Alger and Delta had possibly three Democrats each in 1932, and Baraga, Gogebic, Mackinac and Ontonagon each had one Democrat-—making a total of about 11 in the whole Upper Peninsula. Fewer Democrats-- 6 at the most for the whole U.P.--were elected in 1934. However, 3 Democrats gained office in Dickinson, one of the heavily populated mining counties. 10The county sheriffs seem to have been the first to change party labels. CHAPTER IV DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES: 1936—1946 In Upper Peninsula voting the interval from 1924 through 1934 was a time of protest that developed into Democratic majorities. The following period opens with increased Democratic majorities for both the presidential and the gubernatorial candidates. In statewide voting the Democratic response is quite uneven, alternating between wins and losses. For the nation, recovery from Great Depression grew out of Roosevelt‘s economic reforms and the rearmament demand's preceding American involvement in World War II. The economy of the Upper Peninsula responded with an increase in iron and COpper production, but this region was no longer a major supplier for industry in the United States, and there was no in—migration of people. The region‘s percentage of the state population began to drOp again, and by 1940 the U. S. Census revealed that the Upper Peninsula now had 6.1 per cent of Michigan‘s total population, compared with 6.5 per cent in 1930. In 1936 the number of people on welfare rolls remained high, varying between 20 and 40 per cent, but decreasing as we became more involved in the war. 55 56 State-Wide Elections In the 1936 election Franklin Roosevelt received record majority support from the nation, and from Michigan as well. Upper Peninsula voters accorded him an even greater percentage of the vote, and their first Democratic majority since 1872. In 1940 Roosevelt broke presidential precedent and ran for a third term. Michigan voters returned to their traditional Republican majorities, but not Upper Peninsula voters. Roosevelt and his social wel— fare system had taken over the position formerly held by the mining companies, and Upper Peninsula voters saw no reason to repudiate him. In 1944 Roosevelt received a majority in state-wide voting, but not from Lower Peninsula voters alone. It was the added support from U. P. voters that gave him the state‘s entire electoral college vote. In presidential elections the 1936 through 1946 period is one of Democratic ascendency for Upper Peninsula voters. Table 11 gives Democratic percentages, and these reveal a new pattern of Democratic response. In the presidential elections, voters in Alger, Delta, Dickinson, Gogebic, and Marquette counties were the most Democratic in the Upper Peninsula. In the three elections within this period——l936, 1940, and l944--they had Democratic majorities, and in every election were more Democratic than either the Upper Peninsula or Michigan. Democratic strength in the Upper Peninsula was no longer moving from the central 57 Table ll.--Democratic percentage in presidential elections: 1936—1944 Upper Peninsula compared with the Lower Peninsula. 1936 1940 1944 Upper Peninsula 58.7% 53.2% 53.8% Lower Peninsula 56.0 48.2 49.9 Michigan 56.3 49.5 50.2 T . - .1. .s' _ . < r _ . .vwr _ T into the eastern counties, but westward into the iron mining counties of Gogebic and Marquette. Moreover, Mackinac County, long a stronghold of Democratic voters, now joined Chippewa, Luce and Keweenaw as the least Democratic in the Upper Peninsula. For the first time in its history, Houghton County had higher Democratic returns than Mackinac, but was still less Democratic than nine of the fifteen counties. Table 12 ranks the counties in order of de- creasing Democratic strength. The Upper Peninsula, it may be noted, returned Democratic majorities in all three elections, but Michigan had done so only in 1936 and 1944. ' In the 1936 state—wide election for the governorship, the Democrats recouped earlier losses with their New Deal candidate, Frank Murphy. However, he could do no better than William A. Comstock had done in 1932 and 1934, and he also lost in the following election.l Democratic lMichigan had Democratic governors in 1932, 1936 and 1940--coinciding with Roosevelt's elections. In all in- stances the Democratic gubernatorial candidates ran ahead of their party. 58 Table 12.--Democratic response in presidential elections: 1936-1944 No. of Dem. County Majorities Times More Times More Dem. Dem. Than U.P. Than L.P. Scorea ‘V‘vf ‘1’ Alger Delta Dickinson Gogebic Marquette Iron Menominee Ontonagon Schoolcraft Houghton Baraga Chippewa Keweenaw Luce Mackinac HHHHNNwwNNwwwww r OOOOOOOOHNWWWWUU OOOOOHHNI’UUOUOWLMLMUU l—‘HHF—‘NthU'INWKOKOKDKO dissent and bitterness were at least superficially soothed with Murray D. Van Wagoner‘s win in 1940, but for the re- mainder of the 1936—1946 period Democratic percentages from state—wide voting dipped close to 1920 levels. In gubernatorial elections Upper Peninsula voters almost duplicated the pattern that emerged with the sruvey of presidential voting: Compared with Michigan as a whole they were late in making but were more Democratic voters handed majorities 1938, and to Van Wagoner the shift to Democratic majorities, after the shift. Upper Peninsula to Frank Murphy in 1936 and in 1940. 59- There seems to be little doubt that Van wagoner's administration of the highway program did much to main- tain Democratic support among U.P. voters.2 However, the support he gained did not stay with him when he sought a second term in the governorship. Neither the Upper Peninsula nor Michigan gave him a majority. The 1942 election took place in World War II, and it is possible that the fears and uncertainties of war drove U.P. voters into the familiar arms of the Republican party. Democratic percentages of the popular vote in gubernatorial voting are given in the following table. Table 13.-—Democratic percentage of the popular vote in gubernatorial elections: 1936-1946 Upper Peninsula com- pared with the Lower Peninsula. - —- 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 Upper Peninsula 55.7% 53.1% 55.0% 47.8% 46.8% 47.6% Lower Peninsula 50.6 46.4 52.7 46.6 44.6 38.0 Michigan 51.0 47.0 53.1 46.7 44.8 38.3 The pattern of voting in the counties and in the cities in gubernatorial elections was very much like the pattern in presidential elections. The centrally located 2Van Wagoner was first elected as State Highway Commissioner in the Democratic victories of 1932, but re- ceived no majority from U.P. voters at the time. His highway program, a federal—state program under the aegis of the New Deal, did much to ease unemployment in the U.P., and drew vast areas of the region closer together with a network of roads. His personal popularity was considerable, but it wasn‘t enough to keep him in office and preclude Republican victories during World War II. 60 counties remained the most Democratic in the U.P., but the movement eastward ceased, and Democratic majorities appeared more frequently now in the western mining counties. The voters in Alger, Delta and Gogebic counties returned majorities for the Democratic guberna— torial candidates in all six elections from 1936 through 1946, and in every election were more Democratic than the U.P. or Michigan. Iron, Houghton, and Baraga were still the least Democratic of the mining counties, but they were more Democratic than the forest counties at the eastern end of the peninsula—-Chippewa, Mackinac and Luce. Keweenaw County, at the northern tip of the Keweenaw peninsula, continued to be strongly Republican. It was out of step with its neighbors who were becoming more Democratic with each succeeding election.3 Table 14 ranks the counties in decreasing order of Democratic strength, as measured by the number of Democratic majorities, and the number of times the county is more Democratic than either the Upper Peninsula or Michigan. Table 15 measures Democratic response in U.P. cities in gubernatorial elections from 1936 through 1946—- 3Always sparsely populated, Keweenaw County has had the lowest per capita income of all Michigan counties; about 40 per cent of the population is foreign-stock. Near Keweenaw's southern county line is the village of Calumet (Houghton County). This urban area is the least Democratic of the cities in gubernatorial response, and until 1940 it was the most heavily populated urban area in the Upper Peninsula. 61 Table 14.-—Democratic response in gubernatorial elections: 1936-1946. Times More Times More No. of Dem. Dem. Dem. County Majorities Than U. P. Than L. P. Score Alger 6 6 6 18 Delta 6 6 6 18 Gogebic 6 6 6 18 Dickinson 6 5 6. 17 Marquette 4 4 5 l3 Houghton 3 l 6 10 Keweenaw 3 3 4 10 Ontonagon 3 2 5 10 Menominee 3 2 4 9 Iron 2 0 5 7 Schoolcraft 2 l 4 7 Baraga 1 l l 3 Chippewa l 0 0 l Mackinac 0 0 l . l Luce 0 0 0 0 62 a total of six elections. The score that is included mid—way in the table includes only those factors that are used in measuring Democratic strength in the counties. Thus, the score tallied by the city may be compared with that of any of the counties, which may be found in Table 14. Table 15.--Democratic reSponse from urban voters in the U.P. Gubernatorial elections: 1936-1946. L5. 2:» o 0’ L4.) 04.) S S Q 212 m m 1 5 3 Q t: 0 ago 9 .0 (DO So: a) m m 5 00.) ‘4. ‘4' yq-‘m c: QH om om OH as p 2’ 2:. 5"" “a MH :3 a Lwa MB on m m (1) .(DL: 0 >. o a): a): a £10 . H 0:6 «4;: *4: 0 set (no 0 22 5&4 BB m .2: sun Ironwood 6 4 6 16 ‘ 6 0 Menominee 4 5 6 l5 . 3 6 Escanaba 4 5 5 14 , 6 0 Iron Mountain 3 3 3 9 [ 6 0 Ishpeming 3 l 5 9 y 4 0 Marquette 3 1 3 7 4 0 Sault Ste. Marie 2 O l 3 ' 1 6 Calumet 0 0 0 0 . 3 0 The factors of Democratic response that are given after the scores are provided as a source of comparative information, but are not included in the score. On the basis of the number of Democratic majorities, only Sault Ste. Marie and Menominee were more Democratic than their counties. All other cities had fewer Democratic 63 majorities than their counties. However, Escanaba, Iron- wood and Menominee were all more Democratic than the U.P. itself, and all urban areas, except Calumet and Sault Ste. Maries, were more Democratic than the rest of Michigan. Voters in most urban areas in the U.P. are still less Democratic than voters in out-country areas. The city of Menominee is the only one that shows the usual urban—rural Split, in that it is far more Democratic than the rural county itself. District Elections: 1936-1946 Democrats in the 11th Congressional District at the eastern end of the U.P., enjoyed a brief period of con- trol from 1932 through 1936 that ended with the 1938 election. Luecke lost the seat he gained in 1936, and for the remainder of this period Democratic strength at the congressional level dropped with each succeeding election. In 1946, the Democratic challenger to Republican Fred Bradley, who had held the seat since 1938, received only 33.9 per cent of the pOpular vote. Alger and Delta, the two most Democratic counties in presidential and gubernatorial elections, were in the 11th Congressional District with Chippewa, Luce, Mackinac, Menominee and Schoolcraft. Alger and Delta alone gave majorities to the Democratic candidates in five of the six elections in this period. 64 The western 12th Congressional District became a swing district in the 1936 to 1946 period, with voters alternating between Republican and Democratic representa- tion."l Democrat Frank Hook had successfully wrested the seat from William James in 1934, and in 1936 he retained control.5 In 1938 Republican John Bennett took over James‘ position of challenger, but did not gain the seat until 1942. Hook regained the seat in 1944, only to lose it in 1946. Dickinson, Gogebic and Marquette were the counties in the 12th Congressional District which had Democratic majorities until the 1946 election. Thus, in congressional elections, as in presidential and gubernatorial elections, there was increasing Democratic response in the mining counties, but a corresponding loss in the eastern counties. The central counties tended to increase their Democratic percentage of the vote. ‘ Voters in the 30th state senatorial district chose Democratic representation until the 1944 election, but voters in Alger and Delta counties cast Democratic majorities in all except the 1946 election.6 In 1946 “William James had held the seat, often with no opposition, since 1920. 512th Congressional District: Baraga, Dickinson, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Keweenaw, Marquette and Ontonagon. These also constitute all the iron and copper mining counties. 6The 30th state senatorial district: Alger, Chippewa, Delta, Luce, Mackinac, Menominee and Schoolcraft. 65 no Democrat from this district ran in the general election for state senator. Voters in the 30th state senatorial district chose Democratic representation in 4 of the 6 elections—- 1936 through 1944. Democratic strength slipped away rapidly, and in the 1946 election no Democrat ran for this district's seat in the state senate. The total vote cast for the Republican candidate, Girbach, was about the same as polled by Republican candidates in the preceeding election years of this period. The 31st state senatorial district contains the iron mining counties, and voters here were the most Democratic in the entire peninsula.7 They, like the voters in the 30th, had returned their first Democratic majorities in the 1934 election. In the following five elections they chose Democratic candidates four times. Unlike the 30th, a Democrat was running in the 31st in 1946; but the Democratic incumbent, Hampton, lost to Republican Cloon, who had been running since 1938. The 32nd state senatorial district, which contained the cOpper mining counties, first chose Democratic representation in 1936. Democrat Shea upset the Republican incumbent, Heidkamp, who had held the seat since 1928. 7The 3lst state senatorial district: Dickinson, Gogebic, Iron and Marquette counties. ' 66 Shea was reelected in 1938 with a slightly increased majority, but lost to Republican Birk in 1940. For only two of the six terms did voters in the copper counties choose Democrats. Voters in the 32nd were the least Democratic of the three districts. Surpris- ingly, this had been the only district from which a Democrat ran in both 1928 and 1932. No sustained Democratic response carried through in the 1936 to 1946 period. Between 1924 and 1942 the Upper Peninsula had eleven state representatives, the districting remaining in effect until 1943. In that year, the state legisla— ture reduced the Upper Peninsula's share of representa- tives to eight. In 1932 there had been only two Democratic state representatives from the Upper Peninsula, but by 1936 the number had increased to nine. Table 16 shows the rise and fall of Democratic strength in the Upper Peninsula measured by the number of Democrats sent to the state House in the six elections from 1936 through 1946.8 In all elections Upper Peninsula voters were more Demo— cratic than the rest of Michigan,having a larger prOportion of Democrats in the state House in each term. 8The number of Democrats elected in each term is given as a per cent in order to make comparison more accurate, because the number of representative does not remain the same. 67 Table l6.——Percentage of Democratic state representatives, Upper Peninsula compared with Lower Peninsula 1936-1946 a ,,—, w , . ‘V v.— 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 Upper Peninsula 91.0% 54.5% 54.5% 27.0% 50.0% 12.5% Lower Peninsula 66.2 23.5 29.2 25.8 32.6 4.3 Michigan 60.0 27.0 32.0 26.0 34.0 5.0 The sharp drOp in 1942, as indicated in the above table, was in line with the minority position of the Democrats in statewide elections. The entire Republican state ticket was elected that year, and this was also the year in which Republican John Bennett unseated Congress— man Frank Hook in the U.P.‘s 12th District. In elections for state representatives the Democratic response was slightly different from what was evident in presidential and gubernatOrial elections. Alger and Delta districts returned Democratic majorities in 6 elections and Gogebic district in 5. These voters were similarly Democratic in all other elections. The surprises were with voters in Houghton, Marquette and Menominee districts. Houghton had a total of 5 Democratic state representatives, and Marquette a total of 4, out of a possible 6. Both were Democratic at the state represen— tative level than they were at presidential, gubernatorial or congressional levels. Menominee district, which had been showing increasing Democratic strength in all elections, 68 sent a Democratic representative only twice, and was less Democratic at this level than at others. County Officers: 1936-1946 The 1936—1946 period opens with a considerable in- crease in the number of Democrats winning offices at the county level. Seventy-five elective offices in the 15 counties, (5 in each county), are used in this study. Forty of these offices were held by Democrats in 1936. After the peak in 1936, the number of Democratic county officers decreased gradually. By 1946 there were only 26 Democratic county officers in the U.P. This decline in Democratic response was not evident in all counties. Table 17 gives, in decreasing order, the number of Democratic county officers elected in each county. In 1936 when Upper Peninsula voters chose the 'largest number of Democratic county officers, the least Democratic were the voters in the eastern forest counties, and in Menominee and Keweenaw. Delta and Alger counties were the most Democratic throughout the entire period. Voters in the iron mining counties of Marquette and Gogebic made a stronger shift towards Democracy at the county level than did the most heavily pOpulated copper mining county, Houghton. All counties tended to maintain, through the 1946 elections, the proportion of Democratic county officers they had in 1936. 69 Table 17.-—Number of Democratic county officers: 1936- 1946. County 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 Total Delta 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 Alger 5 5 5 5 4 29 Gogebic 5 4 4 3 4 4 21 Marquette 5 3 4 2 4 3 21 Houghton 2 4 3 2 3 2 l6 Mackinac 3 3 3 l 1 l4 Ontonagon 3 2 2 2 2 2 13 Dickinson 5 2 2 l 2 O 12 Baraga l 2 l 2 2 2 10 Iron 2 1 1 2 l l 8 Keweenaw 1 0 O 2 2 2 7 Luce l l 1 0 0 0 3 Schoolcraft 1 0 0 0 0 0 l Menominee 1 O 0 0 0 0 l Chippewa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dem. per cent of U.P. total 53.0% 43.0% 41.0% 38.0% 41.0% 35.0% CHAPTER V UPPER PENINSULA DEMOCRACY WITH G. MENNEN WILLIAMS: 1948-1958 These are the famed "Williams Years" when Michigan voters chose to have the same Democratic governor for six successive terms. Some who looked to the immediate future claimed that Michigan was now on its way to be— coming a predominantly Democratic state—-if only its rural-dominated legislature would provide for an equit-: able apportionment of legislative and Congressional seats. It is significant that throughout his entire years as governor, Williams never once enjoyed a Democratic majority in either house of his state's legislature. The 1950 Census, taken in the second term of Williams' administration, disclosed a sharp drop in the Upper Peninsula‘s proportion of the state's pOpulation. In 1940 the U.P. had had 6.1 per cent of the state‘s population, but by 1950 it had dropped to 4.7 per cent. The total population of the U.P. had dropped by 22,000 to a low of 302,000. Urban areas increased in population, but at the expense of the counties. Of the eight cities, three, Iron Mountain, Ironwood and Calumet, suffered rather severe decrease in population: Iron Mountain decreased by 12.6 per cent; Ironwood decreased 14.2 per 70 71 cent; and Calumet decreased 18.0 per cent. The re— maining cities showed varying degrees of increase: Sault Ste. Marie, 13.0 per cent; Menominee, 9.0 per cent; Marquette, 8.0 per cent; and Escanaba, 2.3 per cent. The median income for Upper Peninsula residents remained considerably less than for Michigan as a whole: $2,189 as compared with $3,195. Unemployment for these years remained well above the state‘s level. Menominee and Chippewa Counties tended to have the lowest unemploy— ment rates in the U.P.-—only slightly higher than in Michigan as a whole. Seven counties regularly had 10.0 per cent or more of the labor force unemployed. All counties in the Upper Peninsula had a larger proportion of persons over 65 years old than did Michigan. Houghton, Iron, Keweenaw and Ontonagon ranged between 10.4 per cent and 13.0 per cent in this respect—«compared with 7.2 per cent for Michigan——and these also had the highest unemploy- ment rates of all Upper Peninsula counties. State—Wide Elections: 1948-1958 As elsewhere in the nation, Michigan voters awoke the morning after the 1948 elections astonished to find that what had been predicted as highly improbable had happened. President Truman upset the expected win of Thomas E. Dewey, and Michigan had its counterpart in the gubernatorial election with Williams‘ victory. Williams had run ahead of his party as he was to do in the next 72 five elections. Truman did not carry the state, so the coattails showing were Williams‘. The 1948 election promised a Democratic resurgence in the state. In the presidential elections of 1948 and 1952 Upper Peninsula voters joined with those in the rest of Michigan in returning majorities first for Dewey and then for Eisenhower. As is evident in Table 18, this ticketesplitting at the presidentialvgubernatorial levels was maintained for the elections of this period by voters in both the Upper Peninsula and elsewhere in Michigan. Table 18.——Democratic percentage of the popular vote in presidential elections: Upper Peninsula compared with the Lower Peninsula. 4’ w v. v—r w w—v M *1 l m 1948 1952 1956 Upper Peninsula 48.4 44.5 43.1 Lower Peninsula 47.5 143.9 44.1 Michigan 47.6 44.0 44.1 ‘— _ ‘7 Alger, Gogebic and Iron had a larger number of Democratic majorities than all other U.P. counties. In all three presidential elections during the Williams era, they had higher Democratic percentages than either the rest of Michigan as a whole. Of all the mining counties, voters in the western copper region were least Democratic, Houghton County voters not returning a single Democratic majority. The eastern counties were equally non— Democratic: Chippewa, Mackinac, Luce and Schoolcraft 73 returning no majorities for presidential candidates. Table 19 shows the varying degrees of Democratic strength for these elections in all U.P. counties. In quadrennial elections there was a good deal of ticket—splitting; a number of counties that had no majority in presidential elections did give a majority to Williams in every election. Counties doing this were: Baraga, Marquette, Ontonagon and Menominee. After Williams‘ decision had been made early in 1948 to enter the race for the governorship, a group of Democrats in Michigan‘s Upper Peninsula sent in a resolution offering their support for him in the coming primary election.1 As the Democratic member of Michigan‘s Liquor Control Commission (appointed by Governor Kim Sigler, whom he defeated in the 1948 election), Williams traveled extensively throughout the state, becoming familiar with the tempo and politics of Michigan's grass roots. This same effort to become well known every— where in Michigan was very evident in his campaign travels into all eighty—three counties. Freed to a considerable extent by the help of the CIO Political Action Committee, which undertook some of the most demanding campaigning in Lower Peninsula industrial areas, Williams was able to ‘ - . < 1: - v- i 1 av— lRichard Thruelsen, "When Michigan Woke Up He Was Governor," Saturday Evening_Post (Vol. 221, No. 33, February 12, 1949), pp. 26—27 and 112—114. 74 Table l9.--Democratic response in presidential elections: 1948—1958 ll Times More Times More No. of Dem. Dem. Dem. County Majorities Than U.P. Than L.P. Score Alger 2 3 3 8 Gogebic 2 3 3 8 Iron 2 3 3 8 Delta 1 3 3 7 Dickinson 1 3 3 7 Marquette l 3 2 6 Keweenaw 0 2 2 4 Menominee l l 1 3 Baraga 0 0 O 0 Chippewa 0 O 0 0 Houghton 0 0 0 0 Luce 0 0 0 0 Mackinac 0 0 0 0 Ontonagon 0 0 0 '0 Schoolcraft 0 0 0 0 go into the cities and towns elsewhere in the state, even into the Upper Peninsula in his appeal to the voters. When the votes were counted in that election year of 1948 Upper Peninsula voters found they had given a majority only 1.4 per cent less than Michigan‘s Democratic majority. During the next five elections Governor Williams estab- lished himself as the undisputed leader of his party in Michigan. In these years, the Upper Peninsula percentage of the vote for him was greater than in the rest of Michigan. The elections of 1950 and 1952 show the razor-thin edge Williams was able to secure——a re-count being de— manded in both instances (in 1950 by Williams, and in 75 Table 20.--Democratic Percentage of pOpular vote in gubernatorial elections: 1948—1958 Upper Peninsula compared with Lower Peninsula. 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 Upper Peninsula 52.0 52.1 52.3 58.5 56.1 56.2 Lower Peninsula 53.4 49.6 49.8 55.4 54.6 52.8 Michigan 53.4 50.0 50.2 55.8 54.8 53.0 1952 by the Republicans). In both instances, Upper Peninsula voters supplied the margin of votes needed by Williams to win the election. Table 21 shows that the greatest Democratic strength was exhibited in the gubernatorial elections. All the iron mining counties gave Democratic majorities in every election, and were more Democratic than they had been in any earlier period. Houghton County, which remained less Democratic than any other western county, was suffering from persistent and substantial unemployment, and a continuous out-migration. The eastern counties remained strongly Republican. Menominee County voters remained in a middle position compared with mining and eastern counties. Luce and Mackinac County voters gave Williams no majority in any election year, and Chippewa voters were only slightly more Democratic with their two majorities in 1954 and 1958. For voters in the eastern half of the U.P. the appearance of G. Mennen Williams served only to strengthen their Republicanism. 76 Table 21.--Democratic response in gubernatorial elections: Times More Times More No. of Dem. Dem. Dem. County Majorities Than U.P. Than L.P. Score Alger 6 6 6 18 Delta 6 6 6 18 Dickinson 6 6 6 l8 Gogebic 6 5 6 l7 Keweenaw 6 6 5 17 Baraga 6 5 5 16 Iron 6 5 5 16 Marquette 6 4 6 l6 Ontonagon 6 1 5 l2 Houghton 3 l 2 6 Schoolcraft 3 0 3 6 Menominee 4 0 l 5 Chippewa 2 0 0 2 Luce 0 0 0 0 Mackinac 0 0 0 0 Upper Peninsula 6 Michigan 6 The voters in Houghton and Schoolcraft Counties became more Democratic as Williams continued to be reelected to office. Voters here had shown only very occasional Demo— cratic majorities at any level, and the appearance of such Democratic majorities in 1954, 1956 and 1958 was a sign of newly found strength. Democratic response in marginal Menominee County was not as strong as1night have been expected, when the strong Democratic showing of the 1920‘s at the state representative level is recalled. Menominee voters had majorities for Williams in every election except 1950 and 1952. The remaining counties gave Williams 77 majorities in all six elections. Marquette and Dickinson were the larger and more economically important counties that now joined the strongly Democratic group. The voters in the cities of Menominee, Escanaba, . Iron Mountain and Ironwood cast Democratic majorities for Williams in all six elections. Sault Ste. Marie and Menominee had higher Democratic percentages than their respective counties. Three cities returned majorities for Williams less often than did the county as a whole: Calumet, Marquette and Ishpeming. The cities which showed greatest Democratic strength in the 1936 to 1946 period continued to be most Democratic. The remaining cities, except Calumet, were slightly more Democratic than they had been previously. Three of the eight, Ishpeming, Marquette, and Calumet, continued to be less Democratic than their counties, the rural out-county voters being more Democratic than the city dwellers. In general, the voters in the cities returned slightly higher majorities for Williams in each succeeding election, but urban—rural distinctions contined to have little traditional meaning in U.P. vbting. Table 22 compares the cities in their Democratic response to Williams' bids for the governorship. 78 Table 22.--Democratic response in gubernatorial elections: 1948-1958. 5° 5' .23 o o o z D Q D p - h C EU) a) a) (1)4.) :30) a)m a - a . :.s 00) Q44 on. on. 0:3 0.4 44 E- E:- 20 4a Q—iH :3 A o cH-H OH (I) (D G) (0 0‘4 a o a): a): £4 a): o 4-3 oh ECU ECU 0 ECU oh H c>m *4: $43 t) v43 <36 O 22 6&4 BB m BB 22 Menominee 6 6 6 18 6 4 Escanaba 6 4 5 15 0 6 Iron Moutain 6 3 5 14 0 6 Ironwood 6 4 4 l4 0 6 Ishpeming 4 0 0 4 0 6 Sault Ste. Marie 3 0 0 3 6 2 Marquette 3 0 0 3 0 6 Calumet 0 0 0 O 0 3 District Elections: 1948-1958 The Twelfth Congressional District had behaved marginally in the 1938-1946 period as it swung to and then away from Democratic representation. Eleventh District voters had deserted Democratic representation by 1938, when they unseated the incumbent John Luecke, and remained out of Democratic hands as Charles Potter and then Victor Knox won the seat for the Republicans. There were no Democratic majorities from U.P. voters from either congres- sional district throughout G. Mennen Williams' entire governorship. 79 Table 23.n—Michigan representatives in U.S. Congress: 1948-1958 Ratio of Democrats to Republicans U.P. com- pared with Lower Peninsula. t ‘L 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 D R D R D R D R D R D R Upper Peninsula 0 2 0 2 0 2 O 2 0 2 0 2 Lower Peninsula - 10 — 10 - ll — 9 - 10 - 8 Michigan 5 - 5 - 5 - 7 - 6 — 8 - The 1948—1958 period includes six biennial elections. Although both U.P. congressional districts consistently returned Republican congressmen, not all the counties responded in this manner. Delta County would have seated the Democratic contestant in five of the six elections, and Alger was next most Democratic with four Democratic majorities. Schoolcraft voters returned three Democratic majorities, all in the last three election years--an in- dication that there might be increasing Democratic strength in the eastern end of the peninsula. The remain- ing counties offered only one or no such majorities. With respect to other state—wide and district elections, both Delta and Alger were strongly Democratic, but not so Schoolcraft. In fact, Schoolcraft voters‘ gubernatorial record was bettered by nine counties. Table 24 provides this information for all counties. From 1944 to 1952, the Upper Peninsula had eight of Michigan‘s 110 state representative seats, and seven 80 Table 24.--Number of times Democrats received a majority in six elections for congressman: 1948-1958. Delta 5 Iron 1 Houghton 0 Alger 4 Mackinac 1 Keweenaw 0 Schoolcraft 3 Menominee l Luce 0 Dickinson 1 Barage 0 Marquette 0 Gogebic l Chippewa 0 Ontonagon 0 T—f seats from 1954 to 1962. After their representation was reduced in 1952, Upper Peninsula voters continued to become more Democratic in choosing their representatives for the state legislature. In state representative districts there was an increase in Democratic strength. Alger, Iron and Marquette districts returned Democratic representatives in the last three elections of Williams‘ administration. Compared with the earlier period their Democracy was of about the same intensity. Delta and Gogebic remained the most strongly Democratic, returning a Democratic state represen- tative in each of the six biennial elections. Houghton district‘s Democratic strength dropped sharply, and during the Williams era voters here sent only one Democratic representative to Lansing-—compared with five during the previous 1936 to 1946 period. The Chippewa district in this period, as in the last, sent no Democratic represen- tative. There was no change in the number of seats U.P. voters held in the state senate, the number having re— mained at three since 1893. 81 In the strongly Republican 30th senatorial district, no Democrat ran in 1948, but by 1954 a Democrat, Gibbs, was able to unseat the incumbent, Ellsworth, who had held the seat since 1948. In 1956 the Democrat Miron took over from Gibbs, and was able to retain control. In the 31st district (iron mining) Republican Cloon lost his seat the first year Williams ran. In 1950, he regained it, but lost it to the Democratic challenger, Rahoi, in 1954. Rahoi retained the seat, with increasing majorities for the remainder of this period. In the 32nd district (COpper mining) Leo Roy, a liberal Republican, succeded Republican Burritt, in the first year of Williams‘ governorship. In this strongly Republican district there was at least one Democrat in most elections (but not in 1952). In 1956, Democrat McManiman opposed Roy, and in 1958, when Roy decided not to run, for reasons of health and income, McManiman won-— becoming the first Democratic state senator from the 32nd since 1938. On the basis of the number of Democratic state senators these districts sent to Lansing, the most Democratic was the iron mining district which sent four out of a possible total of six; the copper district sent three out of six; and the eastern non—industrial district sent only one Democrat. In both chambers Upper Peninsula Democratic representation was weakest in 1950 and 1952. 82 After that, apparently responding to the Democratic pull offered by Williams, a stronger Democratic pattern emerged in those U.P. counties which had been most Democratic in the two preceding periods. Table 25 shows Democratic strength in both houses of the state legislature. Table 25.--Representation in state legislature: 1948- 1958 Ratio of Democrats to Republicans Upper Peninsula compared with Lower aninsula. 1 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 State House Upper Peninsula 3—5 2—6 2—6 4-3 4-3 6—1 Lower Peninsula 36—56 32—60 32—60 47—56 45-58 49-54 State Senate Upper Peninsula 1-3 0-3 0-3 2-1 2-1 3-0 Lower Peninsula 8-20 5-22 8-21 9-22 9-22 9-22 County Officers: 1948-1958 Did this increasing Democracy, however, extend it- self to the county level? Table 26 measures Democratic strength at the county level. Only three of the fifteen-— Alger, Delta, and Gogebic—-were strongly DemoCratic during the entire 1948-1958 period. That is, they elected Democrats to at least four of the five offices in each biennial election. These counties were also most Democratic in choosing candidates for national or state offices. Two counties, Dickinson and Marquette, tended to split between Democratic and Republican officers, but 83 Table 26.--Number of Democratic county officers: 1948- 1958. County 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 Total GOSebic 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 Delta 5 3 5 5 5 5 28 Alger 4 4 4 5 5 5 27 Marquette 3 2 1 4 4 5 19 Dickinson 2 2 2 2 2 5 l5 Baraga l l l 2 4 4 13 Iron 1 l l 3 3 4 l3 Keweenaw 2 2 2 2 0 0 8 Ontonagon l 1 2 2 1 l 8 Schoolcraft 0 0 0 l 3 4 8 Mackinac l l l 1 l 1 6 Menominee 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 Chippewa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Luce 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 Dem. per cent Of U.P. total 33% 29% 32% 42.6% 45% 58% by 1956 and 1958 they were electing all Democrats at the county level. In other elections they tended to be predominantly Democratic, but ticket-splitting was regularly evident. Iron, Menominee and Schoolcraft counties elected only Republican county officers until 1956, when they be- gan tO give some Democratic majorities at the county level. By 1958, all three were selecting all or all but one Of their county officer from Democratic ranks. Seven counties, almost a majority Of the fifteen, remained firmly Opposed to candidates wearing Democratic labels, and only 84 occasionally selected a single Democrat.2 Of the seven, Baraga, Keweenaw, and Ontonagon--all very sparsely pOpulated-—selected G. Mennen Williams every election in which he ran. All Of the seven eschewed the Democratic charms Of Truman and Stevenson. When the total number Of Democratic county Officers for each election years Of this period is compared with the years from 1936 to 1946, a pattern Of rising Democratic strength emerges. The Democratic percentage of all U.P. county Officers increased steadily with Williams‘ succeeding terms in Office. As a whole, voters in the Upper Peninsula moved again toward Democracy after the initial accpetance Of G. Mennen Williams. The biennial elections between 1948 and 1952 in the U.P. saw little Democratic support given to Democratic candidates to Offices other than that Of governor. But by 1954 Democratic support was increasing in all counties for all elective Offices, except U.S. Congressman. 2Among those who changed from Republican to Democratic affiliation in 1934 and 1936, were the sheriffs, and they were also most successful in re— taining Office. CHAPTER VI THE UPPER PENINSULA VOTES WITH MICHIGAN: 1960w1964 The U.S. Census taken in 1960 disclosed a con- tinuing loss of population for the Upper Peninsula as a whole. The region now had but 3.9 per cent Of the total state population, the number Of persons 65 years Old and over inched upward in all counties, and unem- ployment remained substantial and persistent in every county. Chippewa, Delta and Marquette cOunties, far more so than the other twelve, continued to attract residents from elsewhere in the peninsula. In four Of the eight cities the pOpulation level increased slightly: Sault Ste. Mare, Escanaba, Marquette and Menominee.l Population in the other four decreased slightly: Iron Mountain, Ironwood, Ishpeming and Calumet—-all iron and copper mining cities. The prOportion Of foreign stock to the total population ranged between 25 and 40 per cent, the percentage in the western counties being highest. State—Wide Elections: 1960—1964 In the state-wide elections for governor and presi- dent, Upper Peninsula voters supported Michigan‘s choice in every election. Both chose the Democrat John Swainson 1 See Appendix for population tables. 85 86 for governor in 1960, with Upper Peninsula voters as usual giving a greater majority—-52.9 per cent compared to Michigan‘s 50.5 per cent. But the Williams touch wasn‘t there, and Michigan and U.P. voters alike showed their Republican colors in 1962 and again in 1964 when they chose George Romney for their governor. In 1964, voters in the Upper Peninsula, like those in the rest of Michigan, neatly split their tickets. Table 27.-—Democratic percentage Of the popular vote, presidential and gubernatorial elections: 1960- 1964. 1960 1962 1964 Presidential Upper Peninsula 51.7 —- 67.0 Lower Peninsula 50.8 —- 66.8 Michigan 50.9 —- 66.8 Gubernatorial Upper Peninsula 52.9 48.7 46.8 Lower Peninsula 50.3 48.4 43.8 Michigan 50.5 48.4 43. In presidential and gubernatorial elections Demo- cratic candidates received the largest number of majorities from voters in Alger, Delta, and the four iron mining counties. Houghton County voters were more Democratic than they had been since 1936, a majority supporting both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960 and 1964. In gubernatorial elections they voted 87 as did Upper and Lower Peninsula voters and returned majorities for Republican George Romney in 1962 and 1964. Voters in the eastern non-industrial counties remained Republican in respect to these Offices, whereas the counties to the west became still more Democratic. Tables 28 and 29 provide a comparison Of voting in the counties for presidential and gubernatorial candidates. With the departure of Mennen Williams cities in the U.P. lost much of their Democratic complexion. On the basis Of the number Of Democratic majorities alone, there was a definite weakening in Democratic response in this post—Williams period as compared with the Williams era; Ironwood and Menominee voters struck the strongest Democratic position: a majority of Ironwood voters chose Democrat Neil Steabler in 1964, and Menominee voters wanted Swainson in 1962. Escanaba, Iron Mountain and Marquette voted with the U.P. and the rest of Michigan in all three elections. In respect to an urban-rural split, voters in five cities were less Democratic than rural out— county voters. District Elections: 1960-1964 In both the 1960 and 1962 elections, incumbents Victor Knox from the 11th Congressional District and John Bennett from the 12th Congressional District, retained their 88 Table 28.--Democratic response in presidential elections: 1960-1964. f h ‘7‘— 7 Times More Times More NO. Of Dem. Dem. Dem. County Majorities Than U. P. Than L. P. Score Alger 2 2 2 6 Delta 2 2 2 6 Dickinson 2 2 2 6 Gogebic 2 2 2 6 Iron 2 2 2 6 Baraga 2 1 2 5 Menominee 2 l l 4 Keweenaw l l l 3 Marquette 2 0 1 3 Ontonagon l 1 l 3 Houghton 2 0 0 2 Chippewa 1 0 0 l Luce l 0 0 1 Mackinac l 0 0 1 Schoolcraft l 0 0 l Upper Peninsula Michigan MN 89 Table 29.——Democratic response in gubernatorial elections: Times More Times More NO. Of Dem. Dem. Dem. County Majorities Than U. P. Than L. P. Score Alger 3 3 3 9 Baraga 3 3 3 9 Iron 3 3 3 9 Delta 2 3 3 8 Dickinson 2 3 3 8 Gogebic 2 2 3 7 Keweenaw 2 2 3 7 Marquette 2 2 3 7 Houghton 1 2 2 5 Menominee l l 2 4 Ontonagon l 0 2 3 Schoolcraft l l l 3 Chippewa 0 0 o o Luce 0 0 0 0 Mackinac 0 0 0 0 Upper Peninsula Michigan l—‘H 90_ seats, their challengers Offering no real threat.2 In these elections, as in the congressional elections through the Williams era, the 12th Congressional District (iron and copper mining) was less Democratic than were the eastern counties in the 11th. Voters in Alger and Delta in the 11th District continued to return majorities for Democratic candidates, but no counties in the 12th District did so. In 1962, Michigan had an at-large congressional seat available. Neil Staebler, running as the Democratic candidate for this seat, was given majorities by the voters from only Alger and Delta counties in the 11th District. The strongly Republican 12th District, which had never shown a Democratic majority in any county from 1948 through 1962, did have four counties—-Baraga, Dickinson, Gogebic and Marquette--with thin Democratic majorities for Staebler. The 12th District, however, did not return a majority for Staebler. In the U.P. as a whole, the voters gave only 48.7 per cent Of their vote to Staebler, and would have preferred Republican Alvin Bentley as congressman-at-large. With reapportionament and redistricting in 1964, Democrats in the new 11th District, containing all Of the Upper Peninsula plus seven Lower Peninsula counties, were able to poll 53.2 per cent Of the vote. Voters in Chippewa, 2John Bennett had held the seat since 1946, and Victor Knox his since 1952. 91 Luce, and Mackinac alone preferred the Republican incum- bent Victor Knox to the Democratic challenger, Raymond Clevenger.3 In 1964, President Johnson‘s coattails were Obvious. Every county in the U.P. except Mackinac showed a stronger Democratic majority than in any previous congressional election. Through the 1962 election Upper Peninsula voters had seven of Michigan‘s 110 representatives. Democrats from the Upper Peninsula in 1960 were able tO maintain their 1958 ratio Of 6-1, again demonstrating a Democratic response stronger than in the state as a whole. In 1962, U.P. voters decreased their Democratic representation to five, Menominee district voters joining Chippewa in sending Republicans to Lansing. Upper Peninsula voters in 1960 returned their three incumbent state senators, all Democrats: Miron from the 30th for his third term; Rahoi from the 31st for his fourth term; and McManiman from the 32nd for his second term. An interesting attempt at a political comeback took place in the 1960 election in the 32nd senatorial district when Leo Roy, a liberal Republican, tried to regain his seat. He had successfully held the seat since 1949 beginning with Williams‘ first term, but had decided not to run in 1958. In that election Charles 0. McManiman, 3John Bennett, the 12th district Republican incumbent, died shortly before the 1964 primaries. 92 a Democrat, gained the seat, and Roy was unable to wrest it from him in 1960, in spite Of the fact that Roy was personally popular in his district and had secured needed public works for his district during his tenure. The absence Of G. Mennen Williams compounded by Romney‘s Republican strength, showed in 1962 in the state senate as well as in the House. In the 30th senatorial district William E. Miron, a Democrat, did not run again in 1962 and his replacement lost to the Republican Kent T. Lundgren. The 1964 reapportionment and re-districting sent shock waves throughout both houses Of the state legisla— ture, resulting in Democratic majorities in both: 73-37 in the House, and 23—15 in the senate. The number Of representatives allotted to the U.P. dropped from seven to four in the House and from three to two in the senate. The U.P. also shared a fifth representatives with five Lower Peninsula counties and shared one Of its two state senate seats, the 37th, with eight Lower Peninsula counties. As for the U.P.‘s Democratic ratio, there was a definite shift to the Democratic side. Its four House seats all went to Democrats, but the shared seat at the eastern end of the peninsula went to a Republican. In the senate the U.P.‘s 38th district seat was won by a Democrat, and the 37th went to a Republican. In the 37th district, the Republican eastern counties (Mackinac, Luce and Chippewa) 93 were combined with an equally Republican tier of Lower Peninsula counties. This Republican total overwhelmed the strongly Democratic counties of Alger and Delta, which were also included in the district. Table 30.--Democratic percentage Of popular vote for state senator: 1960-1964. District 1960 1962 1964 Thirtieth 50.1 46.2 Thirty-first 55.9 56.1 Thirty-second 51.0 50.5 Thirty-seventh 48.5 Thirty—eighth 64.2 County Officers: 1960-1964 It was not until 1958, the last year in which Governor Williams sought and won the governorship, that more than half Of all Upper Peninsula county Officers were again Democratic, as they had been in 1936. Menominee County voters had suddenly shifted to a Democratic majority in this election year to join Alger, Baraga, Delta, Dickinson, Gogebic, Iron, Marquette and Schoolcraft. Chippewa, Luce, and Mackinac at the eastern end Of the peninsula remained Republican in county, as well as in state and national elections, as did the copper counties Of Houghton, Ontonagon and Keweenaw. The 1960 elections produced little change in the Democratic—Republican ratio: apparently neither 94 Table 31.--Democratic percentage Of pOpular vote for state representatives: 1960—1964. +7 W v- District 1960 1962 1964 Delta 62.5% 55.1% Marquette 54.8 57.9 Chippewa 43.3 40.7 Gogebic 55.0 100.0 Houghton 53.3 57.5 Iron 51.3 51.2 Menominee 51.8 49.7 106th 43.6% 107th - 59.0 108th 63.6 109th 53.6 110th 61.6 95 Swainson nor Kennedy was able tO stimulate greater Democratic response. The 1962 elections showed some change in that Houghton‘s county Officers were now 4-1 Democratic, but in Luce, Mackinac and Ontonagon counties there was decreased Democratic response. Table 32 measures Democratic strength at the county level. Throughout the Williams administration the total number of Democratic county Officers gradually increased. In the quadrennial election year Of 1964, Upper Peninsula voters as a whole increased the total number of Democratic county Officers. Marquette and Dickinson voters were now more strongly Democratic at the county level than they had been throughout Williams‘ administration. Menominee voters, strongly Democratic at state and national levels, moved from 9th position Of relative Democratic strength at the county level in the 1948-1958 period, to the group of 2nd most Democratic--as measured in Table 32. The remaining counties tended tO stay at about their previous level of Democratic strength. 96 Table 32.-—Democratic majorities for county Officers: 1960—1964. County 1960 1962 1964 Total Baraga 5 5 5 15 Delta 5 5 5 15 Dickinson 5 5 5 l5 Marquette 5 5 5 15 Alger 5 4 5 l4 Gogebic 5 4 5 l4 Menominee 4 4 4 12 Schoolcraft 4 4 4 12 Iron 4 3 4 ll Houghton 1 4 5 10 Ontonagon l l 2 4 Mackinac l 0 l 2 Keweenaw 0 l 0 1 Luce 0 0 l 1 Chippewa 0 0 0 0 Dem. per cent Of U.P. total 60.0% 60.0% 68.0% CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION An examination Of election statistics shows that the voting in Michigan‘s Upper Peninsula has a pattern Of response that has varied to some extent from the rest Of Michigan. The following statements are made and hypotheses suggested on the basis Of election returns from the Upper Peninsula, their relation to voting in the rest Of Michigan as a whole, and economic and demographic data. One interesting pattern that emerges upon viewing the data is that, except when there is a shift in party alignment, the voters in the Upper Peninsula are, with a rare exceptions, more Democratic or more Republican than voters in the rest Of Michigan. This behavior is difficult tO explain, but a tentative hypothesis may be submitted. The geographic isolation Of this region and the generally depressed economy foster regional homogeneity. This factor might lead to greater conformity in voting behavior in the Upper Peninsula than in the rest of Michigan. In the elections following the 1872 break with Democracy, Upper Peninsula voters in increasing numbers supported Republican candidates for national, state and local Offices. For the U.P. as a whole, Democratic 97 98 majorities first breached the barriers Of Republicanism at the gubernatorial level in the 1932 election. However, it was not until 1936 that Democratic majorities appeared for all elective Offices included in this study. Voting response in the Upper Peninsula tended to lag behind the rest of Michigan in that when shifts of partisan allegiance occurred in the rest Of the state, the Upper Peninsula did not shift similarly until two or four years later. However, this Observed lag, based on the voting response to presidential and gubernatorial candidates has apparently disappeared since the advent Of G. Mennen Williams. In attempting tO explain this lag the geographic isolation of the region may be one relevant factor. However, the Upper Peninsula has long had reasonably good roads, local and out-state news service, radio stations, and schools available to all. Nevertheless, compared with the rest Of the state there is a considerable degree of isolation. After 1948, voting behavior in the Upper Peninsula became remarkably similar to that Of the rest of the state. This has occurred despite the fact that the Upper Peninsula economy has remained distinctly different. It could be argued that the post war recession may have contributed tO the Williams victory in the Upper Peninsula in 1948, but it is by no means certain that the voters there endorsed 99 economic reform like other Michigan voters, because they also voted for Dewey. The fact that the Upper Peninsula twice supported Romney indicates that more has occurred since 1948 than the return of the Upper Peninsula to Democratic voting ways. One factor that may have contributed to this change, especially to the victories Of the photogenic Romney, would be the coming Of television to the Upper Peninsula, an impact heightened by the traditional isolation Of the Upper Peninsula. Television did not come into the Upper Peninsula itself until 1956 (at Marquette), but a television station was Operating at nearby Green Bay, Wisconsin, in 1953, and another at Duluth, Minnesota, in 1954. The counties at the eastern end Of the peninsula had no television service until 1962. However, by the time Of Romeny‘s first successful campaign for the governorship the Upper Peninsula was entirely serviced by television, a definite asset tO candidates with photogenic appeal. Another factor that has modified the communication isolation Of the Upper Peninsula is the growth in tourism since World War II. It may also may have contributed to the ending of the lag in voting response. The Mackinac Bridge, which has served the two peninsulas since 1957, has not made for as great an increase in the tourist industry in the whole of the Upper Peninsula as was hoped for by both state and local interests. A 100 disprOportionately large number Of tourists move north tO Sault Ste. Marie and thence into Canada, and not westward into the peninsula prOper. However, this shouldn‘t be too surprising since 175, a modern limited- access highway, runs directly north from St. Ignace to Sault Ste. Marie. This factor, plus the much shorter distance into the rustic country of Canada, probably are the greatest contributors tO this deflection Of tourists. The geographic movement Of Democratic strength across the peninsula should also be noted. After the 1874 election a number Of counties remained Democratic. This strength died out first in the western mining counties and last, in 1894, in the eastern county Of Mackinac. In 1896, all counties Of the Upper Peninsula returned Republican majorities. In the early part of the twentieth century, Democratic majorities were occasionally evident in Menominee County. In 1932 Alger and Delta counties went Democratic. After this initial appearance Democracy spread westward into the iron mining counties and finally into the COpper bearing counties in the 1930‘s. However, Democratic strength in Mackinac, previously a Democratic stronghold, gradually disappeared during the 1930‘s. Since then the eastern counties have displayed consistently strong Republicanism. Democratic majorities from the Upper Peninsula as a whole reappeared in national and state elections with Franklin Roosevelt‘s second election campaign. 101 The factors Of urban develOpment and industriali- zation have long been identified with Democratic voting behavior, and the greater incidence Of these in the western half Of the Upper Peninsula is one explanation Of the westward spread of Democratic majorities. The western half is clearly more urban and more industrialized than is the eastern half. It is more heavily populated and has seven Of the eight urban areas Of 10,000 or more population. In the westward movement of Democratic response there is an exception that must be noted. An enclave of Republican strength, the strongest in the whole Of the Upper Peninsula, is formed by a majority of the voters Of Calumet. This urban area, located in the heart of the copper mining region, has never once returned a majority for a Democratic gubernatorial candidate. Calumet‘s unchanging Republican response is rather difficult to explain. This urban area has experienced the greatest pOpulation loss; there is practically no new industrial development Of any kind, unemployment is high, and the major employer continues to be the Calumet & Hecla Mining Company. This company, the major employer in the region since 1880, is well known for the paternalis- tic employee policies it originally practiced. There is good reason to believe that the early Republicanism Of this region was the result Of the company‘s concern that employees 102 should support Republican candidates as did their employer. It may be that this political belief, handed down from generation to generation, has been reinforced by ethnic exclusiveness. Except for Menominee, the usual urban-rural dichotomy in voting behavior does not exist in the Upper Peninsula. Voters in urban areas tend to be somewhat less Democratic than rural out-county voters. However, ruban voters, except especially for Calumet, and to a lesser extent the voters in Ishpeming and Sault Ste. Marie, almost invariably have voted in gubernatorial elections as did voters in the rest of Michigan. The voting totals used in this study do not indicate the nationality of the voter. Even if a single nationality or ethnic group accounted for over 50 per cent Of the population, a valid conclusion based on a voting study of this type could not be made. A sample survey Of voting response in relation to ethnicity would have to be con- ducted in order to make fairly precise statements regarding partisan response Of specific ethnic groups. There has been a declining and aging population in the Upper Peninsula since the period between 1910 and 1920. However, this aging population does not seem tO exhibit rigidity in voting behavior. For example: Houghton County‘s population has become steadily Older from 1930 to the present, yet during this period Houghton county was briefly 103 Democratic, returned to Republican ways, and now has slowly but surely become strongly Democratic. In con- trast, Chippewa‘s pOpulation has become younger on the average with each decennial census and has presently the lowest median age in the U.P., lower even than in Michigan. This county has become increasingly more Republican, but not its city, Sault Ste. Marie. These are some Of the patterns of voting behavior that may be found by an inspection of the election returns Of the U.P. from 1856 through 1964. While the hypotheses suggested above are highly tentative, they may indicate some valid explanations Of voting behavior in this region. Hopefully, they may even contribute to a better understand- ing of voting behavior in other parts of the United States. BIBLIOGRAPHY 104 BIBLIOGRAPHY 104 BIBLIOGRAPHY 104 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bald, F. Clever. Michigan in Four Centuries, New York; Harper Brother, 1961. 7 Before the Bridge. St. Ignace, Michigan: Kiwanis Club, 1959. C0 Census Analysis: Congressional Districts Of the United States. Washington D. C.,: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1964. Detroit Free Press, 1872. Dorr, Harold M. The Michigan Constitutional Convention Of 1835—1836. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1940. Duke, Richard D. Some Notes on Planningfor Tourism in Michigan‘s Upper Peninsula. East LafiSing, Michigan: State University, Institute for Community Develop- ment, 1962. Early History Of Michigan with Biographies. Lansing, Michigan: Thorp & Godfrey,71888. Economic Trends in the Upper Peninsula Of Michigan. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Federal Reserve Bank Of Minneapolis, 1960. Ervast, Aarne. The Upper Peninsula of Michigan: Six Years after the Ebasco Report, Lansing, Michigan: Economic Development Commission, 1959. Fenton, John H. Midwest Politics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and'Winson,’l960. Gates, William B. Michigan COpper and Boston Dollars. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951. Greenman, Emerson F. The Indians Of Michigan. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Historical Commission, 1961. Hatcher, Harlan. A Century Of Iron and Men. New York: Bobbs-Merrill CO., Inc., 1950. ' 105 106 Hawley, Amos. The Population of Michigan 1840-1960: An Analysis OvaPOWth DistriEution and Composition, Michigan Governmental Studies #19. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1942. Historyfiof the Upper Peninsula Of Michigan. Chicago: Western Historical CO., 1883. V HolbrOOk, Stewart. Iron Brew. New York: The Macmillan CO., 1939. Jamison, James K. The Mining Ventures of this Ontonagon Country. Calumet, Michigan: Drier, COpper Country Edition, 1965. Labor Market Letter, Upper Peninsula. Detroit Michigan: Employment Security CommissiOn, 1946-1966. Lamb, Karl A., White, John P., and Pierce, William J. Apportionment and Representative Institutions: The Michigan Experience. *East Lansing:‘Mlchigan: State University, Institute for Social Science Research, 1963. Landers, Frank M. Units Of Government in Michigan, Michigan Pamphlets #11. Ann Arbor,*Michigan: University Of Michigan Press, Bureau of Government, 1941. LaPalombara, Joseph. Guide to Michi an Politics. East Lansing, Michigan: State Uh versity Press, Bureau of Social and Political Research, 1960. Lewis, Ferris E. Michigan Civil Government. Hillsdale, Michigan: Hillsdaie School Supply, Inc., 1950. Litchfield, Edward H. Voting Behavior in a Metropolitan Area, Michigan Governmental Studies #7. Ann Arbor, Michigan:University Of Michigan Press, 1941. McNaughton, Frank. Mennen Williams Of Michigan. New York: Oceana Publications, 1960. Martin, John B. Call it North Country. New York: Knopf, 1949. Memorial Record Of the Northern Peninsula Of Michigan. 7 Chicago: LewisfPublishing CO., 1895. Michigan Manual, 1841—1963. 107 Millspaugh, Arthur Chester. Party Organization and Machinery in Micpggan SinceI1890. Johns HOpkins University Studies in'Historical and Political Science, Vol. XXXV. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1917). Murdoch, Angus. Boom Copper. Calumet, Michigan: Repub- lished by R. W. Drier and L. G. Koepel, Copper Country Edition, 1964. Official Canvass Of Votes, State of Michigan. Opportunities for Economic Develqpment in Michigan‘s Upper Peninsula. A Study prepared for the Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, September, 1961. Washing- ton, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962. Pollock, James K., and Eldersveld, Samuel. Michigan Politics in Transition. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University O Michigan Press, 1942. Sarasohn, Stephen B. The Re ulation Of Parties and Nominations in Michi an. IAnn Arbor,iMichigan: University Microfilms, 1953. Sarasohn, Stephen B. and Vera H. Political Party Patterns in Michigan. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, Sawyer, Alvah, L. A Histopyfof-the Northern Peninsula of Michigan I, II, and'III. Chicago:I'Thé7Lew1s I Publishing CO., 1911. Sjaastad, Larry A. "Michigan and Population Growth in the Upper Midwest: 1930-1960,“ Upper Midwest Economic Study. Minneapolis, University of Minneasota, 1962. SOkOlow, Alan David. Local Government in Michigan‘s Upper Peninsula: Some Problems and Opportunities. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Continuing Education Service, 1963. Stassmann, Paul W. Economic Growth in Northern Michigan. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State“University, 1958. Thaden, John F. Ethnic Settlements in Rural Michigan. Reprint from Michigan AgriculturalIStation, Quarterly Bulletin. Vol. 29, NO. 2. East Lansing, Michigan: 'Michigan State University, 1946. 108 Thaden, John F. Population of Michigan Counties, Projec- tions to 1970. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Institute for Community Development, 19 2o Thruelsen, Richard. "When Michigan Woke Up He was Governor," The Saturdpy Evening Post; Vol. 221, NO. 33 (February 12, 1949), pp. 26-27 and 112-114. Unemployment, Relief, and Economic Security. Second Report of State Emergency Welfare Relief Commission, July, 1933-December, 1935, Lansing, Michigan: 1936. U. S. Deaprtment of Commerce, U. S. Census Of Pqpulation. Bureau of the Census. Washington, D. C.: 'U. S. Governement Printing Office. White, John P. Michigan Votes: Election Statistics, 1928-1956. Papers in Public Administration #24. Institute of Public Administration (Bureau Of Government prior to 1961). Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, 1958. White, John P. 1960 Supplement Michigan Votes: Election Statistics 192841956. 'Papers in PubliE‘Administration #4{ Ann Arbor,‘Michigan: University Of Michigan, 1961. APPENDIX 109 11C) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00oo0 m.mumuw 0o 0.0.0 000.000 000.000 000.000 000.000 000.000 000.000 000.000 000.000 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.0 00smcwmmm0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 00 00 000so0oo000 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000 som0cooco 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.0 oos0socoz 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.0 000 00000000: 000.00 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 00000002 000.0 000.0 000.0. 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 0000 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000 30:00:00 000.00. 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.0 000.0 soaH 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.0 000.0 000 souswsom 000 00 000 0.0 000 0.00 -000 .00 0 0 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.0 000.0 000.0 00000 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.0 000.0 000.0_ 000 03000000 000H0 000.0 W00.0 00mnm M0m.m 000.0 000.m 0m0.0 000.0 000m00 000 0 000.00 00.00 00 0 . 000.0 000. 0 0.0 as 00 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 coma .oomatomma mmfipcsoo cam 00:0:0cmm Load: "COHpmHBQOmII.0 $0909 111 Table 2.——County's percentage of total U. P. pOpulation 0—-. V i- 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 Alger 2.3 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.0 Baraga 1.8 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.3 Chippewa 7.5 7.4 7.8 ‘ 8.5 9.6 10.6 Delta 9.2 9.2 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.2 Dickinson 6.3 5.8 9.6 8.8 8.2 7.8 Gogebic 7.1 9.9 10.2 9.8 8.9 7.9 Houghton 27.0 21.6 17.1 14.7 13.1 11.6 Iron 4.6 6.6 6.7 6.2 5.8 5.6 Keweenaw 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.2 .9 .7 Luce 1.2 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.6 2.5 Mackinac 2.8 2.4 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.5 Marquette 14.3 13.7 14.2 14.5 15.7 18.3 Menominee 7.8 7.1 7.6 7.6 8.3 8.0 Ontonagon 2.6 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 Schoolcraft 2.6 3.0 2.7 2.9 3.0 2.9 Table 3.--Land area in square mile Alger 913 Gogebic 1,112 Mackinac 1,014 Baraga 904 Houghton 1,030 Marquette 1,841 Chippewa 1,580 Iron 1,197 Menominee 1,032 Delta 1,180 Keweenaw 544 Ontonagon 1,321 Dickinson 757 Luce 914 Schoolcraftl,199 1L12 c.mc c.cc a.ac c.mc c.mm m.cc m.mc c.am mmcancmz m.mm o.wm m.mm m.mm m.mm m.:m m.:m o.mm opposommz m.ma c.ca a.cm m.cm m.mm c.cm a.mm m.cm measucnma m.m~ m.mm c.cm m.cm a.am m.am m.mm c.mm cossawc a.mc m.mc c.mc m.ca m.mc m.cm c.cm c.cm coozcoca c.cm m.cm m.mm m.cm c.mc m.=c m.am I: . sausage: coca m.cc c.c= m.mc m.cc m.mc m.mc c.cc 2.x: acacacmm m.mm m.am m.wm m.:m m.ma m.am :.m: m.»: wand: .opm pasmm ccma cmma ccma cmma cmma cama ccma cmca acac coapmHsooo zpcdoo amuou no mwmucoohmq m.mpHOII.m magma mcm.aa ama.aa cmm.ca cmm.ca mcm.m acm.ca cam.ma cmc.ca mccancc: cccasocmz cmc.ma mcm.ma cmm.ma mmm.ca cam.ma mcm.aa cmc.ca mmc.m mccmscpmz mccmscpms mmm.m mcm.c amc.m mmm.m ccm.ca mac.ma mmm.ma mma.aa mcccccccz wcaEmccma mma.m mmm.ca _mcm.ma mmc.ca mmm.mm mac.mm amm.mm mmm.ma coccwcom cascamc mom.ca ccc.aa mom.ma mmm.ca mmm.ma amm.ma mca.m mam.» cacmwoc coozcopa mmm.m mmc.m cmc.aa mmc.aa amm.c cam.m mcm.m mmm.c comcaxcac campuses coca amm.ma cma.ma cmc.ca cmm.ca mca.ma cma.ma mam.m ccm.c mcamc unaccomm mmm.ma mam.ma mcc.ma mmm.ma cmc.ma mac.ma cmm.ca ccm.m mzcccacc magma .mcm cacmm ccma cmma ccma cmma cmma cama ccma cmma acccoc muac Ll mmmhm smog: mangHCmm ammo: unwam no coapmasoomll.z magma I113 .Locoo_o .opmoaccmo oapmpoosma :Lmazmmp: mcu an coaaoo oprcooama msu ma mazes .mumoaocmo oapmpoosoo onu Lou mm.m: ompaoomp mcoam zucsoo mpumzvpmsn m.oo w.om a.:: m.m: wasmchmm Lozoq m.cc m.cn a.cc c.c: camaccam c.mc m.am c.mc m.cc Macmcacmm scams ccma ccma cmma mmma m.m: m.mc m.mc c.cm m.mm m.mm c.ma m.mm m.cc m.mm m.cm m.cm macmCacmm cczoa c.mc m.cm m.m:. c.cm c.mm a.mm a.ma m.mm m.mc . c.mm m.mm m.mm camacca: c.mc .m.mm . m.mm m.mm m.mc c.mm a.m m.ma m.mm m.mm a.am c.3a cacmCacmm pcccc mama :zma oqma mmma mmma wmma :mma omma mama mama woma coma m.o: p.33 5.5: m.w: m.om ©.a: 0.3: m a 5.x: 0 m: N.m: o.m: waSmCHEmm Lozoq c.mm c.mc m.mc c.mc m.m: c.az m.:: m.a c.mc m.cc m.mc c.ma camaccag c c m c m.cm c.mm c.c: m.ac m.mm m.mm m.mc m.mm m.mm cu- macmcaccm mmaac ooma mama mmwa wwwa :wwa owwa mmwa Qmmwa wowa zona coma omwa .Mazmzacmm amzoa ocm cwwHCQaz Cua3.owhmqsoo MadmCacom Lona: nomalwmwa umcoapooam awapcooammgo Ca opo> amqu ocp mo wmmMpcooLmQ oapmhooEmall.o maome \ 114 m.mc z.mc m.cm m.mm c.am c.mm m.mc. macmcacmm cmzoa m.m= c.m: m.cm c.mm m.cm m.mm m.cm camaccaz m.mc m.mc m.mm m.mm a.mm m.mm m.mm macmcacmm “can: cmma mmma cmma mmma mmma :mma mmma c.mc c.mm c.mm m.c= m.mc a.mm c.mc c.cm m.mc m.mm c.cc m.mm masmcacmm nmsoc c.cm a.mm a.mm c.mc c.mc «.mm c.mc a.am m.cc c.mm m.m= c.mm :cwancaz a.mm c.mm m.mc m.ma m.m= c.mm a.mm m.mm m.cm m.mc m.cm m.cm cacmzacmm cmccc cmma mama mama ccma mama ccma mmma mmma amma mmma cmma mmma c.5m m.cm ‘m.mm m.mm m.cm m.a: c.mc m.mm c.ma m.mc c.mm m.cc macmcacmm amzoa c.cm m.mm m.mm m.mm c.mm m.cc ,m.zm m.mm c.aa c.mc m.mm m.m: cmwazcaz m.mm m.~a m.cm m.cm m.cm m.mm m.cc m.mm c.cc a.mm m.ma c.mm cacmcacmm pmccc mmma .cmma mmma cmma mama mama cama mama cama mcma ccma ccma m.:c m.~: m.aa m.mc c.cm m.mc m.mm :.mc 3.1m m.mc m.am m.ma cacmcacmm pmzca m.mc m.a: m.cc c.m: m.mm a.mc m.am c.mc m.mc m.ma m.cm :.mc :mwascaz a.cm m.mm .m.mm a.mm a.mm a.c: m.c= m.m: c.mm m.mm «.mm c.ma cacmcacmm swam: mcma ccma mmma mmma cmma mmma cmma mmma cmma cmma mmma cmma m.mm m.cc m.mc m.c m.mc m.m: m.cc a.cc m.mc m.mc m.mc m.ma macmcacmm pmzoa m.mm m.mc m.mc m.a c.m: m.mc a.a: m.mc m.mz m.mc m.cc a.mc .cmwaccaz m.mm m.cz ac.cm mc.c m.am m.cm m.mm m.mc m.cm m.mm c.cm m.cc macmcacmm smccc mmma mmma amma mmma cmma mmma mmma cmma mmma cmma mmma mmma .ccwanoaz spa: omamQEoo masmchmm ammo: ammalmmma umcoapooao awahoprHmnsm Ca opo> ammo» mg» no mmwMQCmoaoa oaumhoosmoll.m manme 115 .mpmaooEmQ mao3.manmnoaa mm>apmpcmmonamh 03p mmmnu pnsoo oEom ma mama» maaczm aa wwma pmcmm «pawn aa ma mm mmacmpm gamma: mmsasocmz mmma aa mm m mmacmnm sauna: mmcasocmz cmma aa mm . m mmaccpm sauna: mmcasocmz mmma ,aa mm : moaUMLm Gamma: ooCaEOsz mmma ma mm m mmaccmm sauna: mm:a§0:mz mmma ONHHAmm admm GGCHEOCmS pmaoawx . paw .cOpcwsom ma mm mm occaaom .c canmwoc mama hmaaamx .m pew .counmzom ma mm ma cacaaom .c cacmwoc cama ma mm m scaccmx .m cam .cOccwsoz mcma aa cm ca mcaapmz .m .c mccasocmz mcma wpcpccz .m .2. cam .mccmscmmz m mm m cocaoc .m :coc. cma .mccmccgcz mmma m. mm am cc>aaasm .m..m czmccanc mmma capes: .q cowMCOpco. m cm mm camoa amcccaz mzmcmacc cmma m cm cm mcmcecnc .z mzcccanc mmma apoomqloEoov aopcmaamx cowmcouco m mm mm Acoamsmv compm .m mosancoE mmma m mm ca mm>asz .c cma .ccccccpmz cmmc camamowpm .moza 3mcmm3omx m mm mm . commccc .m mzmccacc mmma m mm mm mcccpmcz .23 czmccazc mmma mahzo .m .aom mupmsoamz c cm cc camamccmm .moce somccocco cmma a mm m uuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuunuu mmma .m .3 Ca .Qmm .Emo mEmz poaapmao ham» muoaaumam mmsom oasmhmnEmz COHuomam. madam anuoe mmsom . .mmmatmmma «.m .2 80am mo>apmpcmmmaooa madam oapmaoosonll.m manMB HICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIE 3IIIII 2III I IIIIIIIIIIIII IIII III III II I III