I teach in the History Program here. I also am the director of the project on slavery, race, and reconciliation. Institutions endeavor to not only understand a particular history, but the obligations that that history has had for us. It is my pleasure today to introduce our speakers in order of their appearance. First up this morning is professor Tracy Campbell of the university of kentucky. Professor campbell received his ba from the university of kentucky and phd at duke university. History ofmarkable teaching and scholarship. , here arriving at kentucky taught at mars hill and union colleges. Since he has been at kentucky, he has been recognized not only for his scholarship but especially for his skill as a classroom teacher. He is the author of numerous articles and five major books, including most recently, his 2013 study of the gateway arch in st. Louis, which he tellingly calls a biography. Perhaps directly related to our symposium today is his history of Election Fraud in american political tradition. 17722004. This is a book that we need to take up today. It is not for the first time or even the second time. At present, he is hard at work subtitledry of 1942, americas year of peril, the meaning of which will become clear to us today. Voting rights under stress, soldiers, and race in the 1942 election. Our second panelist is a Pulitzer Prizewinning author, hank klibanoff. A professor of journalism at him or university. A native of alabama and graduate of Washington University in st. Louis and university at northwestern. He joined the faculty at emory after more than three decades working as a journalist and editor at the nations most distinguished newspapers. Among them, the boston globe, philadelphia inquirer, and atlantis journalconstitution. The 2007 book he coauthored with his fellow journalist won the Pulitzer Prize for history that year. The New York Times describes the race to beat as a richly textured and balanced narrative that reveals the strengths and weaknesses of the news media as well as the personal and contingent factors, the sudden subtle negotiations, missed opportunities, and sometimes heroic efforts that influenced coverage. No doubt this book needs to be , read or reread today. In recent years, he has directed the georgia civil rights cold cases project which enlists is emory undergraduates in investigating the history of the jim crow era in georgia by investigating unsolved or unpunished racially motivated crimes murders that happened in that state. His talk today reflects the work of his journalistic career and leadership of the cold case project. The whites only primaries last gasp and how it played out on the unyielding soil of georgia. Please join me in welcoming this morning for their insights and reflections on the history of voting in the United States professor campbell. , [applause] dr. Campbell thank you, woody, for the very kind introduction. Thank you to the university of the south for inviting me and for such a timely and remarkable gathering and to you, for your kind hospitality. For making the trains run on time. We really appreciate it. I am going to talk about a snapshot this morning. I think it is a pretty revealing snapshot of the United States in a particular year and at a particular moment. The premise for my paper is pretty straightforward. If you want to understand some of the realities of Voting Rights, i think it is useful to observe those rights when the country is under the greatest stress and when its survival is on the line. Just as individuals or families can undergo stress or trauma, so can countries. Those moments expose a persons or a countrys inherent strengths and flaws quite like nothing else. Things tend to rise to the surface under that kind of pressure. In the 20th century, that stress was never greater than the year following the attack on pearl harbor. And americas entry into world war ii, which is of course 1942. The way the country debated Voting Rights that year, in wartime, and conducted a national election. I think if we look at the context of it, it tells us a good deal about the fragile nature of american democracy and the way in which the 15th amendment was negated. For millions of people at a crucial moment. There is a collective narrative about 1942. I think we sometimes read history backward. We know we are going to win the war, so we gloss over some things. But if we are going to look at 1942, i think it is helpful to try and understand it on its own terms. The collective narrative, which is symbolized by this portrait, kind of goes like this. After a little early panic and worry, the nation came together, built a massive production miracle, we cast partisan and sectional differences aside. Once the allies turned back the japanese at midway and landed in north africa, ultimate victory was in sight. At home and abroad, we came together. Unity was the common theme. By in tom brokaws words the greatest generation any , society has ever produced. I think if were going to understand 1942, we also have to see a different reality. This is a series of paintings by done in 1942 in reaction to pearl harbor. He called about eight of these paintings, america in peril, 1942. This was similar to other themes that were possible. This was a time when the federal government was selling insurance andcies against attack people as far inland as indiana are buying these policies to make sure they were protected against any kind of foreign attack. At a time in which some in the government worried we might lose the war or that areas along both coasts or well inland could be subject to many more attacks, at a time in which one former president called on the nation to give president roosevelt dictatorial powers, this is a time when they a large contingent in congress wanted to make sure the work was not used toas expand Voting Rights. That is what i want to focus on. I want to focus on two moments that happens in the fall of 1942 that i think are particularly instructive. One occurred in september. As congress considered an issue that seemed a rather straightforward matter without any old terrier political motives, with the upcoming election approaching, congress debated a bill that would allow soldiers serving away from home to vote via absentee ballot. By this time in september, over 4 million americans were serving in the military, and almost all of them would not be home in their precinct to vote on election day. At a time in which democracy at time was at stake, what better way to display its enduring charter then by allowing those putting their lives on the line to vote for their leaders . Legislators facing reelection were anxious to support the measure which had the support of veteran groups and families of soldiers. Yet, when the representative of the Third District of tennessee, not far from here, inserted an amendment that waived the poll tax requirement for soldiers from 8 southern states, this exposed one of the underlying fault lines of american politics. If the poll tax could be waived in this one, specific circumstance some worried it , could be used as a wedge and outlaw in other elections. That was a threat to many white southerners who felt elections were purely local affairs and such intrusions by congress were unconstitutional. Representative sam hobbs of alabama described the soldier voting bill as an attack on our southern way of life and White Supremacy. They actually said these things. If there is one thing about the 1940s, they just said it. There is no code. There was no trying to say what actually meant. And you will see what i mean in a few minutes. He said it was an attempt to cater to the soldier vote at the expense of the foundation of our democracy. Since reconstruction, poll taxes were among some of the most effective ways, along with violence and literacy tests and the white primaries, of keeping africanamericans from voting. Here is a particular poll tax receipt from texas. I believe it is 1. 75. Most in the 1940s were between 1 or 2. They were cumulative. If you missed a primary or special election, you had to make up for it the third time. You could never get by without paying for it. They were still in effect in the states. Kept about 11 Million People from voting. Is estimated that 3 of africanamericans in the south were registered to vote. Poll taxes also kept poor whites from voting. About 66 of adults voted in nontax states in 1940. The idea of representative democracy. Fewer voted in the taxed states. A historian notes in 1940, georgias edward cox had been 5187ed to his seat by votes, while a Washington State representative won his state with 147,000. Through their iron grip on Voting Rights, southern democrats were elected time and time again. Here is a cartoon about the poll tax. If you can make out some of the figures, they might look familiar, because this was dr. Seuss. He was a cartoonist that worked a lot with a periodical called pm. Through their iron grip on Voting Rights, southern democrats were elected time and time again. Their subsequent seniority met with meant chairmanships on crucial committee. In 1942, as we go to war, southerners chaired seven of the 10 most powerful chair senate committees, including agricultural appropriations, commerce, foreign relations, and rules. No one in the house was more opposed to this amended soldier voting act than mississippis john rankin. In waving the poll tax the sawterm representative dangerous elements approaching. He said this was part of a longrange, communistic programming to change our form of government. That it would take out of the hands of white americans the ability to control the vote and give it to irresponsible parties trying to stir up trouble. Rankins argument against the bill failed to win over a majority of his house colleagues, who passed the bill on september 9. But an outraged rankin called the bill nothing more than a scheme to abolish state government. He added the next step will be to abolish congress. I remind you, they actually said this. [laughter] dr. Campbell the Senate Passed a bill on a voice vote. Senators tom connolly of texas and lester hill of alabama said in the process of approving the measure, the senate had ruptured constitutional processes. Opponents of the bill understood the political implications of denying soldiers the right to vote and were reluctant to wage a fullscale filibuster. They had to take their medicine at this particular moment. President roosevelt signed it into law on which required the september 16, war and Navy Departments to distribute postal cards to members of the armed forces who can then request a ballot from their state. This cumbersome process really meant it was too late to be fully operational on election day coming up in just 48 days. The poll tax debate is not quite over. I will get to it in just a moment. If we go to the election itself, the Roosevelt Administration in the fall of 1942 has reason to worry. In a previous Congressional Election in world war i in 1918, republicans won five senate seats and 25 house seats to take control of both houses. Throughout 1942 voters were , frustrated with a lot of things. The slow pace of the war, gas and food rationing, higher taxes, and congressional inaction on inflation. Congress had moved swiftly earlier in the year to give themselves pensions, which produced another widespread outcry and quick reversal weeks later. While f. D. R. Himself may not have been on the ballot, it was becoming a referendum of sorts as to his handling and the administrations handling of the war. Some worried f. D. R. Might use his wartime powers to cancel the election altogether. With all that was at stake, life magazine predicted the elections might be among the most fateful in u. S. History. A gallup poll taken on the eve of the 1942 election showed americans favored democrats about 52 to 48. But on election night, republicans shocked many observers by picking up 43 house seats, nine senate seat making it the greatest gain by the Opposition Party in midterm elections since 1918. You can see the majorities in both houses, how they shrunk, particularly in the house where 267165 spread was changed to just a bare 222209 margin. With a switch of just seven democrats in the house, republicans could defeat any administration measure. Consequently, the power of the reactionary southern block increased. House members like john rankin and martin deese were elected to their house seats without any opposition. Among the newly elected senators was mississippis james o. Eastland, a wealthy plantation owner who had become one of the leading opponents of Voting Rights for the next 30 years. He was among eight southern democrats in the senate who won their general election without facing any opposition. The results of the 1942 elections were often interpreted in sweeping terms. The Chicago Tribune which hated roosevelt, said, the people of this land had turned back the most terrible threat, which confronted them in their national history. , no one can say in the retrospect of history exactly when one Political Movement dies and another is born, but anyone who lookedat the election last week and see that Franklin Roosevelts new deal was sick. The success would combine the Electoral College vote up 321 votes spelled potential disaster for f. D. R. Or anyone else who might be thinking of running on the democratic ticket in 1944. I think interpreting the election in sweeping terms misses another point. The election witnessed the lowest turnout, 33. 9 for a congressional race in the 20th century. Lower than even the 2014 Congressional Election. Although the soldier voting act of 1942 was passed in september, allowing soldiers to vote, only 28,000 actually could vote. Less than 1 of those serving overseas. So interpreting what the American People thought or felt about 1942 is hard to get at from the election results. Regardless of the turnout, the election had immediate consequences. Two remaining agencies from the new deal, the wpa and the ccc, were quickly abolished. Efforts to expand Social Security and medical insurance were thwarted. The political winds were not necessarily reflected in the election. I think this hides underlying impulses. For example, in a poll taken by Fortune Magazine in november, the outlines for what some people hoped for after the war provides a glimpse that i do not think a lot of americans understand. 74 of americans polled said they thought the government should collect enough taxes after the war to provide medical care for anyone who needed it. Three out of four. 67 wanted the government to provide jobs for people if they were willing and able to work in case of a recession. Astonishing, 31. 9 said after the war they wanted a law limiting the amount of money people could earn. Roosevelt was proposing a 25,000 limit on incomes in 1942. That was also very popular. When asked if you think some form of socialism would be a good thing or a bad thing, 25 said it would be good, 34 were not quite sure yet. That is one moment. The second moment when Voting Rights are exposed came after the election. When the senate convened to consider a house bill sponsored by a california democrat that died in 1941 but had sponsored this bill many months before hand to end all taxes altogether in federal elections. Although the bill faced opposition by southern republicans, it passed the house. But when it came to the senate, it faced a filibuster. This time after the election without soldiers involved, southerners are ready to launch a filibuster. The filibuster was led by many people, including Theodore Bilbo of mississippi and Richard Russell of georgia. Together with other in southern senators, they brought the senate to a standstill for seven days in november 1942. Endless quorum calls were demanded as well as complete readings of the journal. Bilbo made it clear if this full tax bill passes, the next step will be an effort to remove the education qualifications. When that is done, he said we , will have no way of preventing negros from voting. Richard russell defended reconstruction and the history of Race Relations in his state, saying any fairminded man who studies the history of the last 75 years would commend the south on the great work we have done. , professor, he would not consider you to be a fairminded man in this respect. Here is another cartoon by dr. Seuss about Theodore Bilbo. The impasse in the senate reached a dramatic moment on saturday, november 14 when and the majority leader called for a quorum and ordered when some southerners left the hall, their arrest. One of those missing and was deeply offended was tennessees kenneth mckellar, saying being called a filibusterer holds no terror for me, adding he would work to his last breath to defeat this iniquitous measure. When barkley asserted southerners flied the chambers resembled the israelites fleeing egypt mckellar said, our , socalled leader is leading us straight into the Republican Party. Barkley responded by saying this bills passage would disenfranchise 200,000 white people. Poor tenant farmers will think a long time before paying 1. 50 for that right when the money might be needed to put shoes on their barefoot children. The majority leader cost with effort caused mckellar to withdraw his name from a letter he had signed, along with several other senators, urging president roosevelt to nominate barkley to the Supreme Court with a seat justice opened by burns resignation. The southern filibusterers knew their actions may be seen as must by many but not from their constituents. Senator george north of nebraska spoke o