History of elections held during American crises

[xocolatl]

Does anybody have a list of American crises during which elections were still held? I've seen it here before, but I can't find it now.

I'd like to write a letter to my reps in congress and I think this list would be useful. (I'll post the letter when I'm done).

[elperromagico]

1. Start with wars.

Civil War - Elections held 1862, 1864
First World War - Election held 1918
Second World War - Elections held 1942, 1944
Vietnam - Elections held 1966, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1974

And don't forget the Great Depression - Elections held 1930, 1932, 1934, 1936, 1938, 1940

[Blue Wally]

5. Good list, but......

"Civil War - Elections held 1862, 1864
First World War - Election held 1918
Second World War - Elections held 1942, 1944
Vietnam - Elections held 1966, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1974

And don't forget the Great Depression - Elections held 1930, 1932, 1934, 1936, 1938, 1940"

1860, 1916, 1940, and 1964 were probably the key elections during times of building crises. In 1916, 1940, and 1964, the people thought they were voting for someone who would keep them out of war.

For all intents and purposes, Vietnam was finished by early 1973. The 1974 election was very much influenced by Watergate and the Nixon resignation. When vietnam fell, in 1975, it was just a matter of the US pulling the plug. It was written off two years before.

Can an election be held in time of war?? Of course it can, we have done it before. The problem was that in each of those instances, the polling places were safe. Could New York have held a municipal election on 09/15/01??

[elperromagico]

9. I'm sorry, but I don't regard it as necessary to postpone

a national election because some areas might not be safe. And there are alternatives to going to the polling place to cast a ballot. Why not encourage those in more threatened areas to vote absentee, or participate in early voting?

Postponing a national election strikes me as a bad move altogether. Not only does it set a dangerous precedent, but it sends a message to terrorists that they can control our election process and cripple us. And that's exactly what they want.

After 9/11, we were told to go to shopping malls and basically go on with our normal lives. Is voting somehow less important than those trivialities?

[Raven]

2. A really accurate comparison would be to wars where

the security of the country was threatened...I think that would be the Civil War and WWII.

[Mistress Quickly]

3. I would think just

the Civil War, since it was truly "in country"

[bryant69]

4. The Great Depression was probably

More of a threat than World War II, in my opinion.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[xocolatl]

6. Feedback

Thanks everybody. Here is my letter. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions:


Dear Senator ,

I am greatly disturbed by recent reports of discussions on postponing the presidential election in the wake of a terrorist attack. For example, a CNN headline read “Officials discuss how to delay Election Day”, (CNN’s website, July 11, 2004, 10:42 PM EDT).

Elections were held in 1862 and 1864 – during the American Civil War. Elections were held during the First and Second World Wars. Elections were held during the Great Depression. Why should they not be held after a terrorist attack?

It may be reasonable to delay elections in a local area affected by a terrorist attack, but there is no justification for delaying the elections nationwide. Such a public discussion is merely an invitation for terrorists to tamper with our electoral process.

Furthermore, I question the impartiality of DeForest Soaries Jr., chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (an agency set up by the Bush administration). Soaries, a Baptist minister and Bush appointee, is as partisan an official as there ever could be. In the event of a terrorist attack and postponed election, how can the public be assured that the electoral process would not be manipulated in such a way as to be advantageous to the incumbent?

Please fight against this dangerous idea in Congress. Tell your colleagues that postponing the election is inimical to the democratic process and unacceptable to Americans. If, in succumbing to paranoia, we abandon the foundations of democracy, then terrorists have indeed won.

Sincerely,

[LiberalEsto]

7. Nice job!

Good letter. I'm planning to send one to my senators, Sarbanes and Mikulski, as well. This threat to postpone or cancel the election scares the daylights out of me, and it should scare our elected representatives as well.

Mikulski and other senators are running for re-election this year. What happpens if the election is canceled due to a so-called emergency? Does our Rethug governor then get to appoint a new senator to replace Mikulski?

I suggest you forward your letter to Move-On, because they need to get behind this save-the-election effort big-time.

[elperromagico]

11. Are your Senators Kennedy and Kerry? n/t

[LTR]

8. I posted this yesterday

Hope it helps.

- War of 1812 (1812)
- Civil War (1860 and 1864)
- WWII (1940 and 1944)
- Korean War (1952)
- Vietnam War (1964, 1968 and 1972)
- Iran hostage crisis (1980)

I know I must be missing some.

Elections occurred in 1812 as Washington laid in burning ruins.

The 1860 election still took place when the South was on the verge of seceding. In 1864, elections still took place at the peak of the war.

Elections still took place in 1940 as Europe and Asia were deep in war, and the US was close to entering. 1944 elections took place at the peak of US involvement. FDR died shortly before the end of the war, and Truman proceded effectively.

Truman's successor, Eisenhower, became president while the Korean War was still being fought with no end in sight.

In 1964, the US was involved in Vietnam on a smaller scale than in 1968 and 1972. Elections were heated and hostile, but still went on.

And the US was involved in quagmires with both Iran and the Soviet Union in 1980. Elections still proceded.

Don't forget, there was a major terrorist attack on a US ship (the USS Cole) right before the 2000 elections.

In short, in 228 years, there has never been an election cancelled or postponed. The Constitution has seen to that.

Elections were scheduled in New York City around the time of the 9/11/01 attacks and were postponed. But NYC was the epicenter of the attacks, and it was near impossible to effectively procede. By this example, there would have to be large scale attacks throughout many metropolitan areas in order for the US to postpone attacks. Therefore, it would be ludicrous to cancel or postpone them.

Besides, if elections were postponed, I'm sure there are a lot of Bush supporters who would be miffed enough to change their votes. I highly doubt many Americans would stand for this. Just look at the opinions of this on Free Republic, for example. Sure, they're all hard-core Bush supporters, but very few of them think this is a good idea.

If this goes through, there is a serious danger of it backfiring on the Bush Administration. This could easily destroy him.

[Blue Wally]

10. Correction

"The 1860 election still took place when the South was on the verge of seceding. In 1864, elections still took place at the peak of the war."

The 1860 election results were the trigger for the secession of the southern states.

[xocolatl]

12. OK, thanks :) n/t

[LTR]

13. Seseccion was likely to happen

The whole country was on the brink. Lincoln's predecessor, James Buchanan, was ineffective in bringing the two sides together. Plus, he sided with the South somewhat.

The 1860 election just pushed it all over the top, since Lincoln was seen as much more partial to the North's view of things.

[Blue Wally]

14. Building since 1820

In retrospect, the south might have succeeded in secession if they had done the deed in 1845.

1. Only token railroads. Railroads permitted the mass armies which the unbion was able to use even in the sparsely populated west. Armies of the size the union deployed would have been impossible logistically in 1845.

2. Smaller number of steamships. Steamships were essential to the union blockade and steamboats were essential to supplement the railroads on the inland waterways.

3. Smaller population differential. The north had a population boom (primarily German and Irish immigration) after 1848. These provided the north with the ability to create and maintain larger armies than the south.

4. Railroads again. Connecting the midwest to the east with trunkline railroads allowed midwest grain to move to market by an alternate route. Earlier, the midwest was dependent on the Mississippi River to move its grain to market.