Inligting

Toe die Eerste Wêreldoorlog en pandemie die presidentsverkiesing van 1920 beïnvloed het


Uitgemergel deur 'n rits historiese gebeure oor vier skrikwekkende jare, wou uitgeputte Amerikaners hul gesamentlike asem haal toe die verkiesingsdag nader kom.

Die vier jaar voor die presidentsverkiesing van 1920 het 'n gruwelike sameloop van oorlog, pes, terrorisme en werkloosheid gelewer. Sodra die Eerste Wêreldoorlog die lewe van 100 000 Amerikaners klaargemaak het, het 'n wêreldwye griep -pandemie nog 650,000 gesteel. Rasse -onluste, arbeidstakings en 'n rits anargistiese bombardemente - waaronder een wat 38 mense op Wall Street vermoor het - het Amerikaanse stede na die oorlog geskok. Die Amerikaanse ekonomie het in 1920 nog lank nie gebrul nie, aangesien werkloosheid die hoogte ingeskiet en aandeelpryse gedaal het. Amerikaners was bitter verdeeld oor die vraag of hulle by die Volkebond sou aansluit, en die vrees vir die verspreiding van kommunisme na die Russiese Revolusie het die Rooi Skrik en Palmer -aanvalle veroorsaak. 'N Bedrogskandaal het die nasionale tydverdryf besmet met beskuldigings dat die' Black Sox 'met dobbelaars saamgesweer het om die Wêreldreeks van 1919 reg te stel. Selfs die hemel het weinig verlossing gebring omdat 'n groep van bykans 40 tornado's op Palmsondag in 1920 van Georgië na Wisconsin toegeslaan het, en meer as 380 sterf.

LEES MEER: Waarom die tweede golf van die Spaanse griep van 1918 so dodelik was

Die 'beste van die tweede beoordelaars'

Teen hierdie onstuimige agtergrond het die Republikeinse Party in Junie 1920 in Chicago vergader om sy genomineerde te kies om president Woodrow Wilson op te volg, wat maande tevore 'n verswakte beroerte gehad het. Op soek na die Withuis, het die Republikeine op die tiende stembrief besluit op 'n kandidaat met 'n donker perd, senator Warren G. Harding van Ohio. 'Daar is geen eerste beoordelaars hierdie jaar nie,' verklaar senator Frank Brandegee, Connecticut. 'Ons het baie tweede beoordelaars, en Warren Harding is die beste van die tweede beoordelaars.' Harding, 'n klein koerantuitgewer uit 'n swaaistaat in die Amerikaanse hartland wat die progressiewe en konserwatiewe vleuels van die party oorbrug het, was 'n veilige keuse wat net die soort politieke troos kon bied wat die Amerikaners begeer het.

Harding belowe senutergende kiesers alles behalwe radikale verandering. In 'n toespraak in Mei 1920 in Boston verklaar hy: 'Die huidige behoefte van Amerika is nie heldhaftigheid nie, maar genesing; nie neus, maar normaliteit; nie revolusie nie, maar herstel; nie roering nie, maar aanpassing; nie chirurgie nie, maar rustigheid; nie die dramatiese nie, maar die passievolle; nie eksperimenteer nie, maar equipoise; nie onderdompeling in internasionaliteit nie, maar volhoubaarheid in triomfantlike nasionaliteit. ”

LEES MEER: Die wedloop om stemreg te slaag voor die verkiesing in 1920

Terug na 'normaal'

Toe hy in Julie uit die senaat terugkeer na sy tuisdorp Marion, Ohio, het Harding aan sy bure gesê: "Normale mans en terug na normaal sal 'n beskawing bewerkstellig wat deur die grootste omwenteling van die hele wêreld gepynig is." 'Terug na normaal' en 'terugkeer na normaal' is vinnig aangeneem as slagspreuke van die Harding -veldtog (saam met 'n ander een, 'Amerika eerste.')

Harding se vermelding van 'normaliteit' het nie net 'n politieke debat veroorsaak nie, maar ook 'n grammatikale debat. Kritici van die Republikeinse genomineerde beweer dat die woord 'n wanvoorstelling was wat Harding geuiter het toe hy eintlik 'normaal' wou sê. Die kandidaat druk terug. 'Ek het opgemerk dat die woord daartoe gelei het dat aansienlike koerantredakteurs dit na' normaliteit 'verander het,' het Harding aan die pers gesê. 'Ek het na' normaliteit 'in my woordeboek gesoek, en ek vind dit nie daar nie. 'Normaliteit', vind ek, en dit is 'n goeie woord. " Die term het inderdaad in die destydse koerante verskyn, en Merriam-Webster herlei sy oorsprong tot minstens 1855.

Harding dring daarop aan dat sy begeerte na 'normaliteit' nie 'n verlange was om die klok terug te draai nie. 'Met' normaliteit 'bedoel ek nie die ou orde nie, maar 'n gereelde, bestendige orde van dinge,' het hy gesê. 'Ek bedoel normale prosedure, op die natuurlike manier, sonder te veel. Ek glo nie die ou orde kan of moet terugkom nie, maar ons moet 'n normale orde hê, of, soos ek gesê het, 'normaal'.

Die 'voorstoep -veldtog'

Hy beloof sy belofte om terug te keer na eenvoudiger, minder chaotiese tye, en hardloop 'n veldtog direk uit die 1890's, 'n tyd voor die progressivisme van Theodore Roosevelt, die idealisme van Wilson en die onrus van populisme. Terwyl sy Demokratiese teenstander, goewerneur van Ohio, James M. Cox, 22 000 myl deur die land gereis het om veldtogbyeenkomste te hou, het Harding selde verder as sy drumpel gewaag en die pad van William McKinley na die Withuis nagevolg met 'n 'Voorportaal -veldtog'. Pelgrims kom duisende na Harding se huis net langs Main Street in Marion en vergader op die voorste grasperk om die stoep om die kandidaat van die boonste trap te hoor. 'N Eeu later wag die kiesers op hul beurt om foto's saam met Harding en sy vrou, Florence, te laat neem wat na hul koerante in die tuisstad gestuur word.

Harding se persoonlikheid en aantrekkingskrag op die klein dorpie spreek tot die tyd: Hy het 'n oorwinning behaal in beide die kieskollege en die algemene stem om die 29ste president van die Verenigde State te word. Hy het 37 van 48 state, insluitend elke staat buite die Suide, vervoer. Die Republikeinse kaartjie het meer as 16 miljoen stemme gekry, byna dubbel die stemme wat Cox en sy ondervoorsitter, Franklin D. Roosevelt, gekry het. Die Republikeinse Party het ook aansienlike meerderhede in die Amerikaanse Huis van Verteenwoordigers en die Senaat gewen.

"Ons belangrikste taak is die hervatting van ons normale, normale manier," verklaar Harding in sy intreerede.

Terwyl Amerika in die daaropvolgende jare uit die wolke van resessie, pandemie en oorlog gekom het, het die Harding -presidentskap sy eie onstuimigheid veroorsaak. Verbod het 'n toename in bendegeweld en georganiseerde misdaad gesien. Harding se kabinet is geteister deur korrupsie soos die Teapot Dome Scandal, waarin oliemanne Albert Fall omgekoop het vir die boorregte op federale grond. Harding sou nie sy termyn van vier jaar voltooi nie. Hy sterf in 1923 op 57-jarige ouderdom in 'n hotelkamer in San Francisco terwyl hy op 'n landtoer deur die Verenigde State was.


Die politieke lesse van die pandemie van 1918

Geillustreer | Getty Images, Library of Congress, iStock

Onverwagte natuurrampe het 'n manier om ongediagnoseerde patologieë in 'n land se ekonomiese, sosiale en politieke stelsels te openbaar.

Vir die Verenigde State in 2020 het die nog steeds ontvouende virale ramp van COVID-19 die onderstebo aard van werk en beloning in ons samelewing blootgelê. Miljoene lae-loonwerkers met 'n lae status hou voorsieningskettings (en gesonde verstand) en kritiese alledaagse prosesse in werking terwyl die rykes na hul vakansiehuise ontsnap en baie in die middelklas 'n voorsmakie van die dag of 'n herinnering daaraan dat baie van hul werk in die eerste plek miskien nie so belangrik is nie. Terwyl ander lande onbepaalde finansiële steun aan alle burgers belowe het, het die Amerikaanse kongres 'n reeks jammerlik onvoldoende maatreëls getref wat oënskynlik bedoel was om die land in 'n groot depressie te laat val.

Erger nog, die besluit van president Trump om advies te neem by hoogleraars in die regsgeleerdheid en sy nuttelose skoonseun in plaas van openbare gesondheidswerkers, beteken dat baie state eers nou die nodige stappe doen om die verspreiding van hierdie aaklige virus te bekamp. Ondanks die kort peiling van suiker uit 'n tydren-om-die-vlag-effek, besit die president en sy eerbiedige rooi staatsbestuurders die reaksie op hierdie krisis. Aangesien werkloosheid op die vlak was wat selfs in die dertigerjare nog nie gesien is nie, word tot 200 000 Amerikaners veroordeel om dood te gaan in hospitale se isolasie -afdelings en miljoene wat vasgekeer is in huise weg van vriende, familie en enige bron van vreugde. November.

Hoe belangrik die straf van die regerende party sal wees, hang af van 'n aantal faktore. Die politieke wetenskaplike Alan Abramowitz se "Time For Change" -model van die presidentsverkiesings na die Tweede Wêreldoorlog met 'n posbekleër toon aan dat twee faktore-ekonomiese groei in die tweede kwartaal, en die president se netto goedkeuring in Junie-deurslaggewend is in die lot van die huidige party.

Kom ons sê byvoorbeeld dat president Trump se goedkeuringsgradering uiteindelik terugsak na die netto -7.7 -punt waar dit op Super Tuesday was, waaraan ons nou kan dink as die laaste normale dag wat enigeen van ons maande lank sal beleef. Kom ons sê ook dat die ekonomiese groei in die tweede kwartaal -5 persent beloop, wat aansienlik minder erg is as wat ekonome nou dink. Wat tans vir Trump na 'n beste scenario in hierdie veranderlikes lyk, sou volgens Abramowitz iets oplewer in die omvang van 'n 388-150 verkiesingskollege-grondstorting vir die Demokratiese genomineerde in November.

Hierdie modelle kan egter eenvoudig nie verantwoordelik wees vir die Black Swan-aard van hierdie krisis nie, of die president Trump se basis ooit sy rol in die administrasie sal erken om Amerika weerloos te laat bly by die verwoesting van COVID-19. Dit is beslis moontlik dat hy suksesvol 'n soort skuld vir ander doelwitte sal uitstraal - Demokrate omdat hy hom aangekla het, goewerneurs soos Andrew Cuomo omdat hy nie vinnig genoeg opgetree het nie, die Kongres omdat hy nie 'n voldoende hulppakket geslaag het nie, die Obama -administrasie vir alles wat hy kan - en kom daarmee weg. Maar dit blyk dat hierdie strategie beperkings kan vind, gegewe die waarskynlike omvang van menslike en ekonomiese lyding wat vir hierdie land voorspel word.

Om 'n beter idee te kry van wat op die GOP in November wag, kan ons ook kyk hoe natuurrampe regeringspartye regoor die wêreld beïnvloed. Hier word die data gemeng. Sommige studies het min effek getoon. En soms, soos met die orkaan Sandy net voor die verkiesing in 2012, blyk dit dat die posbekleërs daarby baat. 'N Opgawe uit 2011 wat op die konferensie van die International Studies Association deur Constantine Boussalis, Travis Coan en Parina Patel aangebied is, het gekyk na die gevolge van natuurrampe soos orkane, tsoenami's en aardbewings op die daaropvolgende verkiesings tussen 1980 en 2007. Hulle het bevind dat die huidige partye en leiers waarskynlik deur die kiesers gestraf word as a) die staat nie die vermoë het om die nodige reaksie te gee nie en b) genoeg tyd - maar nie te veel tyd nie! - het geslaag dat kiesers die posbekleërs die skuld gee.

Die Verenigde State, die rykste en magtigste land ter wêreld, beskik beslis oor die vermoë om op hierdie ramp te reageer. Maar tot dusver het die federale regering nie daarin geslaag om die verspreiding van die virus te voorkom nie, die nodige toetse te lewer, die nodige beskermende toerusting vir gesondheidswerkers te versprei en die soort kontant in die sak van mense te sit om grootskaalse vermyding te vermy ekonomiese verplasing. Dit is moeilik om enige kenmerk van hierdie krisis te identifiseer wat bekwaam deur hierdie ineptokrate van die Withuis bestuur is.

Is COVID-19 'n 'natuurramp'? Op een of ander manier ja, maar die naaste analoog aan ons huidige situasie kan eintlik meer in ons eie geskiedenis geleë wees: die presidentsverkiesing van 1920. In daardie jaar wou die posbekleër, die demokraat Woodrow Wilson, wat siek was en aan die einde van sy tweede termyn was, nie herverkies word nie. Die land kom pas op uit die verskriklike verwoesting van die Spaanse griepepidemie van 1918-1919, wat tussen 17 en 100 miljoen mense wêreldwyd gedood het, waaronder ongeveer 675,000 Amerikaners, sowel as die gevolge van die Eerste Wêreldoorlog. Miskien die ergste vir Demokrate , het die ekonomie in Januarie 1920 tot 'n skerp resessie gedaal, met industriële produksie wat met 'n derde gedaal het en werkloosheid in die daaropvolgende jaar tot byna 12 persent gestyg het. Hoewel meningspeilings 100 jaar gelede nie bestaan ​​het nie, is dit moeilik om iets anders voor te stel as beslissende opposisie teen die Wilson -administrasie en sy beleid.

Die 1920 -verkiesing bevat dus die konvergensie van al drie die veranderlikes - 'n skerp ekonomiese afswaai in die tweede kwartaal van die verkiesingsjaar plus 'n ongewilde huidige president wat voorsiening gemaak het vir die toepassing van moeilike en pynlike maatreëls om 'n eksogene skok in die vorm van 'n grieppandemie. Eintlik is daar absoluut niks wat soortgelyk is aan hierdie jaar as die 1920 -verkiesing nie.

Wat het gebeur? Republikein Warren Harding, wat hom beywer vir 'n "terugkeer na normaal" (klink bekend?) Het meer as 60 persent van die stemme en 'n toring meerderheid in die kieskollege gewen. Republikeine het die meerderheid in beide kongreskamers grootliks toegeneem. Dit was 'n deeglike verwerping van die genomineerde James Cox en die Demokratiese Party. Republikeine sou voortaan die president van die brullende twintigerjare wees, die volgende drie presidentsverkiesings wen en tot 1931 verenigde beheer oor die kongres behou.

Daar is nog 'n strukturele ooreenkoms. Woodrow Wilson was die enigste demokraat wat die presidentskap tussen 1896 en 1932 gewen het, en een van slegs twee demokrate wat die amp gewen het tussen die einde van die Burgeroorlog en die Groot Depressie. Sy oorspronklike verkiesing in 1912, net soos Donald Trump in 2016, was 'n toeval wat deels deur buitemakers bederf is. In 1912 was dit die voormalige president Theodore Roosevelt, wat die Republikeinse stem oor die hele land verdeel het met die huidige Republikeinse president, William Taft.

Demokrate het sedert 1992 die meeste stemme gewen in elke presidentsverkiesing, met die uitsondering van 2004. Slegs bisarre en verouderde instellings soos die kieskollege verhinder ons om te sien dat ons waarskynlik reeds te midde van 'n lang periode van demokratiese oorheersing van die nasionale politiek is. In daardie opsig, nog voordat COVID-19 die ekonomie neergestort en miljoene bedreig het, het die president waarskynlik 'n opdraande stryd ondervind.

Sal president Trump verloor met Harding-Cox-marges? Natuurlik nie, nie in die hiper-gepolariseerde politieke omgewing van vandag nie. Hy kon nog wen. Maar tensy hy op die een of ander manier na die krisis kom en werklik, herkenbaar goed doen in plaas daarvan om elke dag 'n halfuur as president op sy perskonferensies te speel, is hy in die moeilikheid.

Wil u meer belangrike kommentaar en analise soos hierdie direk in u inkassie lewer? Teken hier in vir die nuusbrief van die week se "Vandag se beste artikels".


Dit is nie die eerste keer dat Amerika 'n krisis in 'n verkiesingsjaar ondergaan het nie

Die COVID-19-pandemie het die openbare lewe reeds op verskeie maniere ontwrig en groot geleenthede word gekanselleer, restaurante word gesluit en baie van ons sit tuis, maar 'n fundamentele aspek van ons demokratiese samelewing kan ook bedreig word: stemming.

Agt state of gebiede het reeds hul presidentsverkiesings en mdash uitgestel, maar afhangende van hoe lank hierdie pandemie die daaglikse lewe in die Verenigde State beïnvloed, kan dit ook die algemene verkiesing in November beïnvloed. Maar dit is nie die eerste keer dat ons land in 'n krisistyd na die stembus moes gaan nie. Verkiesings het plaasgevind tydens ekonomiese rampe soos die Groot Depressie sowel as tydens beide wêreldoorloë. Die goeie nuus is dat ons altyd daarin geslaag het om algemene verkiesings te hou, selfs te midde van die burgeroorlog, maar die slegte nuus is dat ons stemvermoë dikwels belemmer word. En die stempersentasie het gewoonlik gedaal omdat stemme moeiliker of duurder geword het in die lig van natuurlike of mensgemaakte rampe. As ons vorentoe kyk na die November -verkiesing, toon onlangse primêre verkiesings dat state voorbereid moet wees op die ergste as dit moet verseker dat mense kan stem ondanks 'n gesondheidskrisis.

Neem verlede Dinsdag. Ohio het sy verkiesing uitgestel en in Illinois, waar daar nie 'n tradisie was om per pos te stem nie, was die opkoms baie laer as in die ander twee state wat gestem het. (Florida en Arizona gooi oor die algemeen 'n groot persentasie stembriewe per pos uit.) Daar is nog baie wat ons nie weet oor die huidige gesondheidskrisis nie, en hoe lank sal die dringendheid van die koronavirusbedreiging byvoorbeeld duur, of hoe dinge gebeur Dit sal in November en mdash lyk, maar as ons kyk na verkiesings wat vergelykbaar is met ons huidige oomblik, is die middeltermyn van 1918 die mees relevante.

Daardie herfs, in die afnemende dae van die Eerste Wêreldoorlog, het die Spaanse griep 'n soort griep veroorsaak wat die naam gekry het omdat Spanje een van die min lande was om vrylik daaroor verslag te doen en mdash die Verenigde State verwoes en honderde duisende mense doodgemaak het, baie in die aanloop tot die November-verkiesing.

In reaksie op hierdie verwoestende siekte het amptenare van openbare gesondheid probeer om die verspreiding daarvan te beperk, maar die versagtingsbeleid het politieke veldtogte beïnvloed. Marian Moser Jones, 'n professor aan die University of Maryland School of Public Health wat die griep -pandemie bestudeer, het gewys op 'n verbod op openbare byeenkomste, wat ons ook nou sal sien. & ldquo [Y] u kon nie die gewone verkiesingsrede hou nie, wat toe nog belangriker was omdat u nie televisie of radio gehad het nie, en Jones het gesê. & ldquo [Kandidate] moes eintlik veldtog voer via koerantredaksies en posse. & rdquo

Dit was veral waar in die weste, waar die erns van die pandemie en die kwessie in die dae voor die verkiesing 'n hoogtepunt bereik het. Selfs die verkiesingsaand het verander: daar was 'n verbod op die vertoon van verkiesingsopgawes op groot borde buite koerantkantore, sodat skares nie sou bymekaarkom om te sien hoe die uitslae binnekom nie, het Jones aan my gesê. En in Los Angeles het beamptes van die verkiesing hulself in elke stembus opgesluit om die stemme te tel en om griepoordrag te voorkom. & Rdquo

Die Spaanse griep het waarskynlik ook daartoe bygedra dat die stempersentasie op die verkiesingsdag laer was. Ongeveer 40 persent van die stemgeregtigde bevolking het in die middeltermynverkiesing van 1918 gestem, skerp gedaal van die 50 tot 52 persent wat in die vorige twee tussentydse stemme gestem het.

Jason Marisam, wat die effek van griep op die verkiesing van 1918 bestudeer het as 'n regsgenoot aan die Harvard Law School (hy is nou 'n assistent -prokureur -generaal in Minnesota), het vir my gesê dat dit waarskynlik 'n uitwerking het op die stem van mense. & ldquoDie San Francisco Chronicle het foto's van die verkiesingsdag gemaak, mense wat tou gestaan ​​het om almal hierdie maskers te dra. Hulle noem dit die eerste gemaskerde stembrief in die Amerikaanse geskiedenis, en Marisam het gesê. U moet dink dat daardie soort mentaliteit 'n uitwerking op die opkoms gehad het. & rdquo

Waarnemers in 1918 skryf die afname in die opkoms ook toe aan die gevolge van die pandemie. Die Los Angeles Times beraam dat die griep 40 000 mense weggehou het van die stembusse in San Francisco, & rdquo het Jones gesê en bygevoeg dat die koerantberigte oor stemming in Arizona en New Mexico gepraat het oor die ontsmetting van stemlokale en 'n stem van stemme as gevolg van griep en die afwesigheid van baie mans weens die oorlog.

Daar is 'n duidelike komplikasie wanneer ons die opkoms in 1918 ondersoek: die Eerste Wêreldoorlog. Dit was moeilik om die griep- en rquos -effek op die verkiesing te onderskei, want ongeveer 2 miljoen mans veg ook in 1918 oorsee, en daar is nie veel gedoen om hulle te help stem nie. Dit het beteken dat 'n aansienlike deel van die kiesers effektief uit die stemreg was, aangesien slegs mans van 21 jaar of ouer in 'n groot deel van die land kon stem. (Onthou, die 19de wysiging, wat vroue die reg gegee het om te stem, is nie tot die somer 1920 bekragtig nie.) Maar selfs al verklaar griep slegs 'n deel van die afname in die kiesersopkoms, het Marisam geskat dat dit waarskynlik nog honderde duisende van mense wat nie stem nie.

Maar ten spyte van kommer oor die gesondheid van griep wat verband hou met griep, het Marisam vir my gesê dat hy geen bewyse kan vind dat mense bespreek het om die verkiesing in 1918 uit te stel nie. Burgerlike trots en patriotisme was hoog tydens die Eerste Wêreldoorlog, aangesien veldtogte vir oorlogsbande en propaganda van die Komitee vir Openbare Inligting Amerikaners aangemoedig het om hul deel te doen om die oorlogspoging te ondersteun. En koerante het burgers aangemoedig om na die stembus te gaan ondanks die Spaanse griep met opskrifte soos & ldquoEvery Loyal Californian Will Stem At Election Today & rdquo in the Los Angeles Times. Daar was ook nie 'n nasionale debat oor of die uitslag wettig was nie, al was die opkoms laer, en in sommige dele van die land het amptenare beweer dat griep die resultate in kongres- en plaaslike verkiesings beïnvloed het.

Die verkiesing van 1918 is natuurlik nie die enigste verkiesing wat tydens 'n krisistyd gehou is nie (hoewel dit wel tydens een van ons land se massiewe gesondheidskrisisse plaasgevind het). Maar net soos die verkiesing van 1918, het ander federale verkiesings wat ook tydens wêreldoorloë gehou is, 'n bedrukte opkoms beleef.

In 1942, tydens die Tweede Wêreldoorlog, het die regering probeer om die opkoms te verhoog deur die Wet op die Stem van die Soldate te slaag, wat state gehelp het om federale stembriewe na dienslede te stuur. Dit het nie baie goed gewerk nie: Minder as 30 000 federale stembriewe is ingevolge die bepalings 1 uitgevoer, en die stempersentasie in 1942 was baie laag, en slegs 34 persent van die stemgeregtigde bevolking het 'n stembrief gemaak, wat dit die tweede laagste middeltermynopkoms gemaak het sedert die bekragtiging van die 19de wysiging (slegs 1926, met 33 persent, was laer).

In dieselfde poging om in 1944 dieselfde probleme te vermy, het die Kongres voor die verkiesing 'n militêre stemwet aanvaar wat ten minste 2,6 miljoen soldate gehelp het om 'n verskil te maak vir president Franklin Roosevelt in ten minste een staat. (Volgens 'n tydgenootstudie het hy genoeg militêre stemme in New Jersey gekry om sy tekort onder burgerlike stemme te oorkom). tydens die verkiesing was die Amerikaanse betrokkenheid by die twee wêreldoorloë laer as in die vorige middeltermyn- en presidentsverkiesings.

Die opkoms het tydens wêreldoorloë gedaal vergeleke met vorige verkiesings

Die opkoms onder die stemgeregtigde bevolking tydens die Eerste en Tweede Wêreldoorlog in vergelyking met die vorige twee middeltermyn- of presidentsverkiesings

Eerste Wêreldoorlog Midterm -opkoms
1910 52.0%
1914 50.4
1918 39.9
Tweede Wereldoorlog Midterm -opkoms
1934 44.5%
1938 46.6
1942 33.9
Tweede Wereldoorlog Presidensiële opkoms
1936 61.0%
1940 62.4
1944 55.9

Bron: Amerikaanse verkiesingsprojek, Vital Statistics of American Politics

Maar dit is nie net oorlog en siektes wat ons verkiesings ontwrig het nie. Skielike natuurrampe het ook gestem, soos getoon deur orkaan Sandy, wat die ooskus getref het enkele dae voor die verkiesing in 2012. New Jersey en New York is veral swaar getref, en leiers daar moes werk om die toegang tot stemme te vergemaklik in die storms en nadraai. In New Jersey het die regering diegene wat deur die storm verplaas is, aangewys as kiesers in die buiteland, wat hulle in staat gestel het om afwesige stembriewe per e -pos te stuur of te faks, hoewel sommige plekke die toename in afwesige versoeke nie effektief kon hanteer nie. En in dele van New York moes sommige kiesers in tente stembriewe weens die skade aan stemlokale.

Dit is onwaarskynlik dat Sandy -rsquos -effekte die presidensiële uitslag verander het, aangesien New Jersey en New York veilig Demokraties was, maar die opkoms was minder in gebiede wat geraak is deur 'n stormvloed in New Jersey. Een studie van politieke wetenskaplikes aan die Stony Brook -universiteit het bevind dat die storm Barack Obama moontlik gehelp het om Virginia te dra omdat dit die opkoms in dele van die staat beïnvloed het.

Ander rampe soos 9/11 het ons verkiesings meer dramaties ontwrig. Die primêre verkiesing in New York en rsquos was eintlik op 11 September 2001 geskeduleer, maar die terreuraanval op die World Trade Center daardie oggend het die goewerneur van New York, George Pataki, daartoe gelei om die verkiesing uit te stel, en die staat het in plaas daarvan sy voorverkiesing gehou twee weke later. Dit was duidelik 'n veral uiterste geval, maar die skielike vertraging herinner ons daaraan dat verkiesings soms kan plaasvind.

En dit is waarskynlik waarom state nou moet voorberei op die stemming in November. Die stempersentasie het gewoonlik afgeneem tydens krisisverkiesings en mdash soms dramaties en mdash en Illinois en rsquos het verlede Dinsdag 'n afname in die opkoms getoon dat dit 'n uitdaging kan wees om 'n verkiesing te hou as COVID-19 nog steeds 'n groot gevaar is, veral in November, veral as sommige state steeds afhanklik is van persoonlik stem .

Edward Foley, 'n verkiesingsregkenner aan die Ohio State University en rsquos Moritz College of Law, het vir my gesê dat state hul stemstelsels moet begin aanpas. & ldquo Die aandag moet fokus op hoe om 'n verkiesing in November uit te voer wat die kans op kiesersdeelname onder huidige omstandighede maksimeer, & rdquo Foley. En dit beteken dat die vermoë om per pos te stem verhoog word in state wat tradisioneel nie gebruik word om per pos te stem nie. & rdquo

Baie state kan egter sukkel om kiesstelsels per stem te aanvaar, weens wetlike, logistieke en verkiesingsveiligheidsuitdagings. Dit sluit in die verandering van wette om meer tyd te gee vir die aflewering, versameling en verwerking van stembriewe wat gestuur word, asook om te verseker dat 'n persoon slegs een keer stem. Daar is oënskynlik alledaagse struikelblokke wat oorkom moet word, soos om genoeg papier van hoë gehalte te kry vir die druk van stembriewe en genoeg koeverte! Dit is genoeg om u te laat wonder of daar selfs sprake kan wees van die uitstel van die verkiesing in 2020.

Maar dit is baie moeilik om die presidents- en kongresverkiesings wat vir November geskeduleer is, te verander. Dit sou kongresoptrede verg, en so 'n stap sou ongekend wees. Gelukkig het staats- en federale regerings tyd om baie moontlike verkiesingsuitdagings as gevolg van COVID-19 voor te loop. & ldquoAs [state] met die voorbereiding begin, verwag ek geen rede waarom die kongres die datum van die verkiesing in November wil verander nie, het Foley gesê.

Of ons leiers die nodige veranderinge gaan aanbring, moet egter nog gesien word.


Verkiesingsdag

Eggo's van 'sosiale distansie' kan gesien word in instruksies wat in Fresno se stemriglyne van 1918 verskyn het, wat aandring het op 'nie byeenkom by die stembusse nie en onnodige blootstelling vermy'.

'Persone word aangeraai om die stemlokale binne te gaan, een of twee op 'n slag, en alle sanitêre voorsorgmaatreëls te tref,' en die verpligte gesigmaskers in Kalifornië ingesluit, Die Fresno Morning Republikein verklaar. Die San Francisco Chronicle het wragtig opgemerk dat dit 'die eerste gemaskerde stembrief ooit in die geskiedenis van Amerika was'.

Monterey Daily Cypress, 4 November 2018.

Verslae het Kalifornië se stemlokale as die 'stilste in die geheue' uitgebeeld en gesê dat hulle slegs die mees vurige kiesers verwelkom het, soos Nancy Elworthy (92), wat gesê het dat sy steeds 'n plig van elke burger was terwyl sy amper blind was. Dit is onduidelik of Elworthy haar mede -kiesers opgemerk het, wat deur die meningspeilers beskryf word as 'belydenislik griep', of dat die stemlokale spuit en ontsmettingsmiddel bevat, volgens die Kroniek.

'Ek moet dadelik weer gaan slaap,' het 'n ander kieser aan die koerant gesê toe hy uitstap. 'Ek moes regtig nie met hierdie griep uitgekom het nie!'

Nuwe Mexikane was te "bang vir die griep" om te stem, en die peilings in Arizona het 'n ligte opkoms, selfs met die belofte van die staat om gereeld stemhokke te ontsmet. El Paso Herald gerapporteer. Die verkiesing was 'n "taamlik stil een" in Minnesota, die Little Falls Herald berig, en in Utah, die Parowan Times 'n oorsaak van 'n lae stempersentasie is gediagnoseer: 'Baie vroue wat gewoonlik stem, was nie in staat om na die stembus te gaan nie omdat hulle verplig was om tuis te bly om na die siekes om te sien.'

Sommige meningspeilings kon nie oopmaak nie weens 'te veel griep' Die Sacramento -by, verklaar "daar was nie genoeg burgers wat goed genoeg was nie."

Verskeie nuuskamers is ook gedwing om te sluit weens kwarantynwette. Die Long Beach Press het aangekondig dat hy nie die uitslag van die verkiesing vir die eerste keer in sy geskiedenis kon rapporteer nie en het lesers respekvol versoek om nie te bel om vrae te stel nie, aangesien die personeel van die telefoonmaatskappy weens die siekte 'verswak' is.

Die stempersentasie was laer as in die vorige middeltermynverkiesings. Terwyl die Eerste Wêreldoorlog die aantal stemgeregtigdes beïnvloed het, het 'n ontleding deur Jason Marisam in die Verkiesingsregtydskrif het bevind dat die griep 'n "beduidende uitwerking" op die opkoms het.

'As slegs 'n fraksie van die afname in die stempersentasie tussen 1914 en 1918 te wyte was aan die teenwoordigheid van griep, was die siekte verantwoordelik vir honderde duisende mense wat nie gestem het nie,' merk Marisam op die meer as 10% afname in kiesers.

Die griep is deur die Republikeinse nasionale voorsitter as sondebok vir kongresverliese gebruik en het in sommige gemeenskappe regsuitdagings veroorsaak, soos wanneer 'n verslane kandidaat in die staatswetgewing in Noord -Dakota beweer dat verkiesingsamptenare stembriewe onregverdig by huise in sommige distrikte afgelewer het en nie in ander nie, volgens die Grand Forks Herald.

Terwyl Amerikaanse regeringsleiers nog 'n pandemie ondervind, erken historici soortgelyke uitdagings vir die federale regeringstelsel nou as wat dit tydens die Spaanse griep -era gekonfronteer is.

'Ek dink daar is iets om die historiese lesse wat tot ons vertragings en optrede bygedra het, nie te absorbeer nie,' het professor Alex Keyssar, professor in Harvard -universiteit, wat spesialiseer in verkiesingsgeskiedenis, aan CBS News gesê. "Om duidelik te wees, dit is nie te sê dat almal in die [Trump] -administrasie gelees moes gewees het oor die griep van 1918 nie, maar daar moet 'n kundigheidsentrum wees wat die historiese lesse absorbeer na wie beleidmakers hulle wend."

State beheer ook meestal hul eie verkiesings, wat gelei het tot 'n lappieskombers in die state van beide noodreaksie en politieke besluite, het Keyssar verduidelik. Aangesien state hul hoop plaas op die relatief vinnige ontwikkeling van antivirale behandelings in die komende maande voor die algemene verkiesing, is die meeste state wat nog nie in die primêre verkiesing gestem het nie, huiwerig om die verspreiding van die virus te verhoog.

Op hierdie stadium het die wete dat COVID-19 baie aansteeklik is en die oortuiging dat dit 'n hoër sterftesyfer as die griep het, elf state oortuig om hul presidentsverkiesings uit te stel, vyf state om die afwesigheid van afwesiges uit te brei en na 'n reeks regsgevegte oor die afgelope paar dae vorder Wisconsin Dinsdag met sy persoonlike inleiding.

Soos sommige verkiesingsamptenare in 1918 gedoen het, het Wisconsin belowe om stemhokies te ontsmet en sosiale afstand te handhaaf.


Hoe groot het COVID-19 die verkiesing in 2020 beïnvloed?

Daar is genoeg tyd verby sedert die presidentsverkiesing in 2020, wat ons nou kan vra: Watter uitwerking het COVID-19, waarskynlik die grootste gebeurtenis van die jaar en mdash van die eeu, selfs & mdash op die uitslag van die verkiesing gehad?

Die antwoord op hierdie vraag lyk waarskynlik eenvoudig, in ag genome hoe afgrondig Amerikaners gedink het dat president Trump die pandemie hanteer het. Maar die bewyse wat ons het, wys in baie rigtings.

Partisane stem nie saam nie, hulle haat mekaar | FiveThirtyAight

Kom ons begin met wat die geskiedenis ons kan vertel. Dit wil sê, gegewe wat ons weet oor verkiesings wat te midde van 'n pandemie plaasvind, watter effek het dit? moet het ons verwag dat die nuwe koronavirus opgedaag het? As u in u kop krap en aan 'n goeie vergelyking wil dink, kan dit wees omdat ons nie regtig een het nie. Die naaste analogie van wat ons in 2020 in die VSA beleef het, is die grieppandemie van 1918-1919, wat ook tydens 'n verkiesingsjaar uitgebreek het en honderde duisende Amerikaners doodgemaak het. 1

The effect of the pandemic on the 1918 midterms has been studied, too. But political scientists Chris Achen and Larry Bartels found that it had no particular effect on the election outcome the Democrats (in control of the White House at the time) did no worse in congressional elections in places where the disease hit hard than in places where it didn&rsquot. A somewhat different approach by Leticia Arroyo Abad and Noel Maurer found only a very small effect on the congressional vote in 1918 and no subsequent effect on the 1920 election. Now, that doesn&rsquot prove that a pandemic can&rsquot affect an election. Maybe the fact that the 1918 election was a midterm election played a role here that is, even if people did blame Woodrow Wilson&rsquos presidency for the pandemic, they didn&rsquot extend that to the rest of his party. And maybe the pandemic would have had a greater effect if the country hadn&rsquot been engaged in World War I at the time. It&rsquos also possible that many people didn&rsquot yet think of the federal government as responsible for matters of public health. 2

But returning to the present day, what do we know about the role COVID-19 played in the 2020 presidential election? One way to answer this question is to dig into state-level results and subtract Trump&rsquos vote share in 2020 from his vote share in 2016, measuring how much his vote improved or declined across those two elections. What we find, however, is no statistically significant relationship. That is, Trump did no worse &mdash and possibly slightly better &mdash in states with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. The same is true if we compare the vote against per capita COVID-19 cases.

It turns out that economic growth, measured as the growth in per capita real disposable income from the first through third quarters of 2020, may explain some of what we&rsquore seeing. That is, if we compare Trump&rsquos vote share from 2016 to 2020 with the amount of economic recovery a state experienced, we find that Trump did much better in those states where the economy bounced back, even controlling for COVID-19 death rates. In other words, that $1,200 stimulus payment voters received back in the spring may have done a lot to help mitigate the political damage for Trump. In fact, had he and Congress been able to deliver some kind of additional economic relief prior to the election, that may even have saved his reelection bid.

Other researchers have also found this same pattern of Trump doing no worse, and possibly even better, at the county level in areas with higher COVID-19 mortalities. And, perhaps somewhat counterintuitively, I also found in my analysis that the economy appeared to be somewhat weaker in states where there were more COVID-19 cases, and somewhat stronger where there were more COVID-19 deaths. One possible explanation is that places with fewer health restrictions on businesses helped produce a stronger economy in those areas (helping Trump) even while spreading the disease, and in the end, the economy just had a greater effect on people&rsquos votes. Researcher Solomon Messing discovered an added wrinkle in that more COVID-19 deaths seem to have hurt Trump in very white counties, while the same wasn&rsquot true in counties where a large share of the population isn&rsquot white.

To be clear, we still don&rsquot have a great sense of why these patterns occurred, and none of this is to suggest that Trump did better in some areas omdat of the coronavirus. But, suffice it to say, this pattern is not the sort of thing many would expect given how poorly most Americans thought Trump handled the pandemic. What also makes it difficult to detect the effect of COVID-19 on the election? Like so many other issues in American politics, the pandemic was quickly interpreted through partisan lenses. The fact that the initial fallout in March didn&rsquot give Trump much of a &ldquorally-around-the-flag&rdquo effect, or a temporary boost in popularity given the crisis, is telling. But, then again, so is the fact that it didn&rsquot seem to hurt him all that much either.

So, what can we ultimately say about the impact of COVID-19 on the 2020 election? Most likely, it worked against Trump. Had there been no pandemic, he may have still lost the popular vote, but considering how close the election was, he may have had a decent chance of winning the Electoral College. Yet the damage to his prospects was far from enormous, and that may have been mitigated somewhat by polarization. Indeed, a better response on Trump&rsquos part that either helped reduce the spread of the disease or limit its economic impact could well have secured his reelection bid.


Post-World War I turmoil in the United States

The final years of Woodrow Wilson’s presidency had been tumultuous. After being reelected in 1916 at least partly because he had kept the United States out of war, Wilson then led the country into the conflict in 1917. He mobilized millions of American troops to face death not only on the battlefields in Europe but also in the barracks back home as the influenza pandemic of 1918–19 swept through the ranks on the way to claiming an estimated 25 million lives worldwide.

Although the U.S. involvement in the war had not necessitated formal domestic rationing, government encouragement of homemakers to self-sacrifice had resulted in so-called Meatless Mondays, Wheatless Wednesdays, and Pork-less Thursdays and Sundays. But, if the war effort had disrupted daily routines on the American home front, it was nothing compared with the dramatic changes brought about by the flu pandemic, which claimed some 550,000 U.S. lives. Schools, churches, theatres, banks, restaurants, saloons, pool halls, and dance halls were closed as the country tried to stanch the spread of the virus. Attendance was limited or prohibited at funerals. Americans were encouraged to wear masks. After abating in the final months of 1918, the pandemic came roaring back as a final wave in the winter and spring of 1919.

During the war, labour disputes in the coal, steel, and transportation industries were settled by the National War Labor Board, resulting in improved wages and working conditions, but, when the board was disbanded following the war, management in some industries sought to roll back labour’s gains. In September 1919, steelworkers organized by the American Federation of Labor launched a massive strike that eventually involved more than 350,000 workers. Accompanied by violence, the “Great Steel Strike of 1919” unfolded in a generally anti-labour atmosphere stoked by a fear of bolshevism unleashed by the October (1917) Revolution in Russia. By January 1920 the strike was over and had proved to be a major defeat for the U.S. labour movement.

The Red Scare that heated up in response to solidification of the Soviet state and its supposed designs on exporting revolution to the United States also led to the anti-communist Palmer Raids of 1919–20. Ordered by Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, the raids were aimed at arresting communist and anarchist radicals. On one day, January 2, 1920, raids were conducted in more than 30 cities, resulting in the arrest of perhaps as many as 10,000 individuals. Many of those apprehended in the Palmer Raids proved to be guilty of nothing except being immigrants.

Racial tensions were also running high after the war. African Americans had begun the Great Migration to Northern cities to fill jobs vacated by servicemen. Returning white veterans, having sacrificed for their country, were angered to see their jobs taken by African Americans. Returning black veterans, having sacrificed for their country, were confronted again with racial discrimination and inequality. In the South a revival of violence by the Ku Klux Klan resulted in 64 lynchings in 1918 and 83 in 1919. A perfect storm waiting to happen, the summer of 1919 became known as “Red Summer” not because of any association with communism but because bloody race riots erupted in some two dozen American cities, from Longview, Texas, to Omaha, Nebraska, to Washington, D.C., with the worst occurring in Chicago, where violence raged for 13 days and led to 38 deaths.


This Isn’t the First Time America Has Voted During a Pandemic. Here’s How the 1918 Flu Affected That Year’s Election

Election Day 2020 will be unprecedented in any number of ways, but it won’t be the first time the U.S. has held elections during a global pandemic&mdashor the first time a public-health crisis has changed the way campaigning and voting take place.

As the midterm elections of 1918 approached, World War I was winding down, but a new strain of the flu was surging. It had been spreading earlier in the year, but is believed to have mutated into a more deadly, more contagious strain that fall.

Data analyzed by Tom Ewing, a professor of history at Virginia Tech, reveal that death rates in northeastern cities had spiked in late September and mid-October in 1918, and had sharply declined by Election Day on Nov. 5, while West Coast cities were in the throes of ongoing outbreaks.

“In much of the country, particularly the East Coast and the upper Midwest, the epidemic is really on the decline by early November,” says Ewing. “There are still some local restrictions, but generally there is a sense in a lot of East Coast cities [that] if it’s not over, at least it’s been contained and is not a real concern. On the West Coast, in the mountain states, to some extent the Southwest, there are quite a few cases and quite a few restrictions in early November.”

So it makes sense that, in the run-up to the election, the extent to which the flu affected campaigning depended on where voters lived. Photos of Election Day throughout New York State show civilians, soldiers, sailors and even gubernatorial candidate Al Smith standing next to one another, sharing candy, not wearing masks. But in other areas, the flu played a major role in shaping the campaign season.

Then, as now, in-person campaigning, speeches, rallies, and gatherings to watch the returns were halted or severely restricted. Just as Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Kamala Harris paused campaign travel on Thursday after two staffers tested positive for COVID-19, and other 2020 campaigners swap indoor events for virtual events, 1918 campaigners had to move away from in-person methods of getting their messages out. Nationwide, candidates and campaign managers did more interviews, says J. Alexander Navarro, Assistant Director of the Center for the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan, and used the written word to communicate with voters. “Direct mailings had been used before, but this gets ramped up as a result of candidates not being able to meet directly with voters,” he says.

“The campaign has been most unusual this year in that it has been one carried on principally through literature,” declared the Nov. 2, 1918, edition of Utah’s Deseret Evening News, one of many newspaper articles in the Center for the History of Medicine’s digital archive the Influenza Encyclopedia. “State headquarters have employed large corps of workers to distribute reading matter throughout the state in behalf of candidates for justices of the supreme court and congressmen. In some cases, personal canvassing and visiting has been done, but this has proved not altogether successful inasmuch as the state health board has discouraged such procedure because of the prevalence of Spanish influenza and the subsequent ban placed on public gatherings of all kinds.”

Similarly, in California, the Oakland Tribune reported that “letter-writing, advertising, and telephoning took place instead of speech-making.”

The pandemic wasn’t a political football the way it is today. President Wilson never publicly addressed it, and the federal government was not expected to play a significant role in individuals’ healthcare matters. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wasn’t founded until 1946, and Medicare and Medicaid date back to the Great Society legislation of the 1960s. However, decisions about which public places stayed open or closed did get political. Throughout 1918, states had been ratifying what would become The 18th Amendment, banning the manufacture, sale, and transportation of “intoxicating liquors.” Prohibition advocates, who had long cast saloons as a threat to public health, were thrilled when cities closed them to curb the spread of the virus. (On the flip side, whiskey was seen as a treatment for influenza, and police and bootleggers alike kept hospitals stocked with confiscated liquor.)

The closure of those spaces disrupted normal campaign tactics. Oct. 20, 1918, Oakland Tribune article “‘Flu’ Holds Candidates In Leash” informed readers that “With the lodges, clubs, social dance halls, and other gathering places where the elusive voter was sought out under the ban, the handshaking and orating candidate is figuratively hamstrung.”

When Election Day rolled around, the pandemic continued to shape voter behavior, and many of the basic precautions taken at polling places are the same as those taken in 2020.

In Seattle, citizens made a point of getting to their polling places earlier in the day to “avoid the dangerous congestion…in the late afternoon.” In Salt Lake City, tents replaced some poorly ventilated polling places. In Oakland, Calif., the Election Day edition of the Oakland Tribune declared it “One of the Queerest Elections in the History of California.” Election officials faced a shortage of poll workers because so many who had signed up had come down with the flu, and struggled to find replacements because people were afraid of getting sick.

Local health officials tried to reassure the public that it was safe to vote. “Thousands of people who go to the polls today to cast their votes will be confronted by masked men for the first time in their lives,” the Los Angeles Tye reported in its Election Day edition. “This edict was not issued to frighten people away from the polls, it is said, but rather to throw around voters an additional protection against the disease.”

“There is not the slightest danger in voting if you wear your mask,” health officials in Oakland said in a statement on the front page of the Nov. 2, 1918, Tribune. “If you are staying home you are not being benefited by the fresh air and sunshine that you will enjoy performing your patriotic duty as an American Citizen.”

The city enforced the mask-wearing mandate too. About a dozen men who were arguing about election returns were each fined $10 (which would be about $185 in Sept. 2020) for removing their masks.

Such reassurances in newspapers were necessary to get out the vote, says Christopher Nichols, a historian of the Progressive Era and Director of the Oregon State University Center for the Humanities. “Americans are fearful. They didn’t get clear, rapid, coherent communication from the Wilson Administration or Surgeon General Rupert Blue,” he says, “so they don’t know what advice to follow and need to have regular communication from journalists that polling stations will be open to have confidence to go out.”

But those tactics may not have been enough. The 1918 election saw a dip in turnout, though it’s impossible to say how much of that shift was attributable to the pandemic versus the fact that many American men were still abroad fighting in World War I. While turnout is typically lower in midterm elections than in general elections, turnout in the Election of 1918 was about 40%, down around 10% from the two previous midterm elections (in 1914 and 1910), according to Navarro.

In the end, Republicans won control of Congress, and the leadership change is partly why the U.S. did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles or join the League of Nations.

“The 1918 election is a referendum on an unpopular war, and the U.S. rebukes that war at the ballot box, ending hopes of Democrats ramming through much legislation and eviscerating Wilson’s claims to popularity about his war effort and peacemaking,” says Nichols.

The war would end just days after the election, with the armistice arriving on Nov. 11. The pandemic, however, despite appearances to the contrary, continued for more than a year, and ultimately killed about 675,000 Americans and at least 50 million people worldwide, while infecting about 500 million people&mdashone-third of the global population. Whether voting in person caused any spikes in cases is likewise impossible to say, as many cities relaxed their gathering restrictions to celebrate the end of World War I. In Denver, for example, the city began to reopen before Election Day and Armistice Day, and shortly thereafter residents found themselves facing a death rate worse than the beginning of the deadly second wave of flu.

“We’ll never know how much the combination of people turning out to vote in person&mdashand then roughly one week later, gathering to celebrate the end of the war&mdashexacerbated spread and suffering,” says Nichols.

Today, Americans have many more opportunities to vote that can help mitigate the “dangerous congestion” feared in 1918, from voting by mail to voting early at satellite polling places. As TIME has previously reported, masks and social distancing saved lives back then, and can do so again this Election Day.

And the fight to prevent future pandemics continued well after Election Day 1918, as it will this year too. Thousands of telegrams flooded that newly elected Congress in the summer of 1919, urging lawmakers to support a bill to fund an investigation to avoid a repeat of the pandemic&mdashand reminding them that another Election Day would arrive soon enough.

“There is time for Congress to do something toward helping health officials, physicians, and others interested in public health to prevent a recurrence of the flu epidemic&mdashto halt the coming of another DEATH MONTH,” declared a front-page article in North Dakota’s Bismarck Tribune, which was shared with TIME by researchers at the genealogy website MyHeritage. “But Congress must act quickly. Usually Congress does NOT act quickly. Mostly Congress takes its time and acts when it gets good and ready. Often Congress needs a prodding from the home voters.”


Inhoud

Ottoman entry into World War I was the result of two recently purchased ships of its navy, still manned by their German crews and commanded by their German admiral, carrying out the Black Sea Raid on 29 October 1914. There were a number of factors that conspired to influence the Ottoman government, and encourage them into entering the war. The political reasons for the Ottoman Sultan's entry into the war are disputed. [1] and the Ottoman Empire was an agricultural state in an age of industrial warfare. [2] Also, the economic resources of the empire were depleted by the cost of the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913. The reasons for the Ottoman action were not immediately clear. [3]

The Ottoman entry into World War I began on 29 October 1914 when it launched the Black Sea Raid against Russian ports. Following the attack, Russia and its allies (Britain and France) declared war on the Ottomans in November 1914. The Ottoman Empire started military action after three months of formal neutrality, but it had signed a secret alliance with the Central Powers in August 1914.

The great landmass of Anatolia was between the Ottoman army's headquarters in Istanbul and many of the theatres of war. During Abdul Hamid II's reign civilian communications had improved, but the road and rail network was not ready for war. [2] It took more than a month to reach Syria and nearly two months to reach Mesopotamia. To reach the border with Russia, the railway ran only 60 km east of Ankara, and from there, it was 35 days to Erzurum. [2] The Army used Trabzon port as a logistical shortcut to the east. It took less time to arrive at any of those fronts from London than from the Ottoman War Department because of the poor condition of Ottoman supply ships.

The empire fell into disorder with the declaration of war along with Germany. On 11 November a conspiracy was discovered in Constantinople against Germans and the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) in which some of the CUP leaders were shot. That followed the 12 November revolt in Adrianople against the German military mission. On 13 November, a bomb exploded in Enver Pasha's palace, which killed five German officers but failed to kill Enver Pasha. On 18 November there were more anti-German plots. Committees formed around the country to rid the country of those who sided with Germany. Army and navy officers protested against the assumption of authority by Germans. On 4 December, widespread riots took place throughout the country. On 13 December, an anti-war demonstration was led by women in Konak (Izmir) and Erzurum. Throughout December, the CUP dealt with mutiny among soldiers in barracks and among naval crews. The head of the German Military Mission, Field Marshal von der Goltz, survived a conspiracy against his life.

Military power remained firmly in the hands of War Minister Enver Pasha, domestic issues (civil matters) were under Interior Minister Talat Pasha, and, interestingly, Cemal Pasha had sole control over Ottoman Syria. [4] Provincial governors ran their regions with differing degrees of autonomy. [4] An interesting case is Izmir Rahmi Bey behaved almost as if his region was a neutral zone between the warring states. [5]

War with Russia Edit

The Ottoman's entrance into the war greatly increased the Triple Entente's military burdens. Russia had to fight alone on the Caucasus Campaign but fought with the United Kingdom on the Persian Campaign. İsmail Enver Pasha set off for the Battle of Sarikamish with the intention of recapturing Batum and Kars, overrunning Georgia and occupying north-western Persia and the oil fields. Fighting the Russians in the Caucasus, however, the Ottomans lost ground, and over 100,000 soldiers, in a series of battles. 60,000 Ottoman soldiers died in the winter of 1916–17 on the Mus—Bitlis section of the front. [6] The Ottomans preferred to keep the Caucasus militarily silent as they had to regroup reserves to retake Baghdad and Palestine from the British. 1917 and the first half of 1918 was the time for negotiations. On 5 December 1917, the armistice of Erzincan (Erzincan Cease-fire Agreement) was signed between the Russians and Ottomans in Erzincan that ended the armed conflicts between Russia and Ottoman Empire. [7] On 3 March, the Grand vizier Talat Pasha signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Russian SFSR. It stipulated that Bolshevik Russia cede Batum, Kars, and Ardahan. In addition to these provisions, a secret clause was inserted which obligated the Russians to demobilize Armenian national forces. [8]

From 14 March to April 1918 the Trabzon peace conference was held between the Ottoman Empire and the delegation of the Transcaucasian Diet. Enver Pasha offered to surrender all ambitions in the Caucasus in return for recognition of the Ottoman reacquisition of the east Anatolian provinces at Brest-Litovsk at the end of the negotiations. [9] On 5 April, the head of the Transcaucasian delegation Akaki Chkhenkeli accepted the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk as a basis for more negotiations and wired the governing bodies urging them to accept this position. [10] The mood prevailing in Tiflis was very different. Tiflis acknowledge the existence of a state of war between themselves and the Ottoman Empire. [10]

In April 1918, the Ottoman 3rd Army finally went on the offensive in Armenia. Opposition from Armenian forces led to the Battle of Sardarapat, the Battle of Kara Killisse, and the Battle of Bash Abaran. On 28 May 1918, the Armenian National Council based in Tiflis declared the First Republic of Armenia. The new Republic of Armenia was forced to sign the Treaty of Batum.

In July 1918, the Ottomans faced the Centrocaspian Dictatorship at the Battle of Baku, with the goal of taking Armenian/Russian/British occupied Baku on the Caspian Sea.

War with Britain Edit

The British captured Basra in November 1914, and marched north into Iraq. [6] Initially Ahmed Djemal Pasha was ordered to gather an army in Palestine to threaten the Suez Canal. In response, the Allies—including the newly formed Australian and New Zealand Army Corps ("ANZACs")—opened another front with the Battle of Gallipoli. The army led by Ahmed Djemal Pasha (Fourth Army) to eject the British from Egypt was stopped at the Suez canal in February 1915, and again the next summer. [6] The canal was vital to the British war effort. In addition, the 1915 locust plague broke out in the Palestine region the Ottoman military hospitals record the period as March–October 1915.

The expected, and feared, British invasion came not through Cilicia or northern Syria, but through the straits. [4] The aim of the Dardanelles campaign was to support Russia. Most military observers recognized that the uneducated Ottoman soldier was lost without good leadership, and at Gallipoli Mustafa Kemal realized the capabilities of his men if their officers led from the front. [12] The war was something from a different era, as the agrarian Ottoman Empire faced two industrialized forces in silent predawn attacks, officers with drawn swords went ahead of troops and the troops shouted their battlecry of "Allahu Akbar!" when they reached the enemy's trenches. [12]

The United Kingdom was obliged to defend India and the southern Persian oil territory by undertaking the Mesopotamian campaign. Britain also had to protect Egypt in the Sinai-Palestine-Syria Campaign. These campaigns strained Allied resources and relieved Germany.

The repulse of British forces in Palestine in the spring of 1917 was followed by the loss of Jerusalem in December of the same year. [6] The Ottoman authorities deported the entire civilian population of Jaffa and Tel Aviv, The Tel Aviv and Jaffa deportation, pursuant to the order from Ahmed Jamal Pasha on 6 April 1917. The Muslim evacuees were allowed to return before long. At the same period the Balfour Declaration was being negotiated (published on 2 November 1917) in which the British Government declared its support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. Ahmed Jamal Pasha effectively separated these groups. The Jewish evacuees returned after the British conquest of Palestine. [13]

The Ottomans were eventually defeated due to key attacks by the British general Edmund Allenby.

Empire on the Home Front Edit

The war tested to the limit the empire's relations with its Arab population. [14] In February 1915 in Syria, Cemal Pasha exercised absolute power in both military and civil affairs. [15] Cemal Pasha was convinced that an uprising among local Arabs was imminent. [14] Leading Arabs were executed, and notable families deported to Anatolia. [14] Cemal's policies did nothing to alleviate the famine that was gripping Syria it was exacerbated by a British and French blockade of the coastal ports, the requisitioning of transports, profiteering and — strikingly — Cemal's preference for spending scarce funds on public works and the restoration of historic monuments [14] [16] During the war, Britain had been a major sponsor of Arab nationalist thought and ideology, primarily as a weapon to use against the power of the Empire. Sharif Hussein ibn Ali rebelled against the Ottoman rule during the Arab Revolt of 1916. In August he was replaced by Sharif Haydar, but in October he proclaimed himself king of Arabia and in December was recognized by the British as an independent ruler. [14] There was little the Empire could do to influence the course of events, other than try to prevent news of the uprising spreading to keep it from demoralizing the army or acting as propaganda for anti-Ottoman Arab factions. [14] On 3 October 1918 forces of the Arab Revolt entered Damascus accompanied by British troops, ending 400 years of Ottoman rule.

War in Eastern Europe Edit

In order to support the other Central Powers, Enver Pasha sent 3 Army Corps or around 100,000 men to fight in Eastern Europe. [17]

    under command of Mustafa Hilmi Pasha participated in the Romanian Campaign between September 1916 and April 1918. under command of Yakup Şevki Subaşı and later Cevat Pasha fought in Galicia against the Russians between August 1916 and August 1917. under command of Abdul Kerim Pasha participated in the Salonika Campaign between December 1916 and May 1917.
    • The Rumeli Field Detachment (reinforced 177th Infantry Regiment) remained in Macedonia until May 1918.

    1915 Redigeer

    On 10 September 1915, Interior Minister Talat Pasha abolished the "Capitulations". On 10 September 1915 Grand Vizier Said Halim Pasha annulled (Vizer had the authority on annuls) the Capitulations, which ended the special privileges they granted to foreign nationals. The capitulation holders refused to recognize his action (unilateral action). [2] The American ambassador expressed the Great Power view:

    The capitulary regime, as it exists in the Empire, is not an autonomous institution of the Empire, but the result of international treaties, of diplomatic agreements and of contractual acts of various sorts. The regime, consequently, cannot be modified in any of its parts and still less suppressed in its entirety by the Ottoman Government except in consequence of an understanding with the contracting Powers. [18]

    Beside the capitulations, there was another issue which evolved under the shadow of capitulations. The debt and financial control (revenue generation) of the empire was intertwined under single institution, which its board was constituted from Great Powers rather than Ottomans. There is no sovereignty in this design. The public debt could and did interfere in state affairs because it controlled (collected) one-quarter of state revenues. [18] The debt was administered by the Ottoman Public Debt Administration and its power extended to the Imperial Ottoman Bank (equates to modern central banks). Debt Administration controlled many of the important revenues of the empire. The council had power over every financial affairs. Its control extended to determine the tax on livestock in districts. Ottoman public debt was part of a larger scheme of political control, through which the commercial interests of the world had sought to gain advantages that may not be to Empire's interest. The immediate purpose of the abolition of capitulations and the cancellation of foreign debt repayments was to reduce the foreign stranglehold on the Ottoman economy a second purpose — and one to which great political weight was attached – was to extirpate non—Muslims from the economy by transferring assets to Muslim Turks and encouraging their participation with government contracts and subsidies. [19]

    The Ottoman–German Alliance was an alliance was ratified on August 2, 1914, shortly following the outbreak of War I. The alliance was created as part of a joint-cooperative effort that would strengthen and modernize the failing Ottoman military, as well as provide Germany safe passage into neighboring British colonies. [20]

    1915 Redigeer

    The Constantinople Agreement on 18 March 1915 was a set of secret assurances, which Great Britain promised to give the Capital and the Dardanelles to the Russians in the event of victory. [21] The city of Constantinople was intended to be a free port.

    During 1915, British forces invalidated the Anglo-Ottoman Convention, declaring Kuwait to be an "independent sheikdom under British protectorate." [ This quote needs a citation ]

    1916 Redigeer

    The French-Armenian Agreement of 27 October 1916, was reported to the interior minister, Talat Pasha, which agreement negotiations were performed with the leadership of Boghos Nubar the chairman of the Armenian National Assembly and one of the founder of the AGBU.

    1917 Redigeer

    In 1917 the Ottoman Cabinet considered maintaining relations with Washington after the United States had declared war on Germany on 6 April. But the views of the war party prevailed and they insisted on maintaining a common front with their allies. Thus, relations with America were broken on 20 April 1917.

    Russian SFSR Edit

    The 1917 Russian revolution changed the realities. The war devastated not only Russian soldiers, but also the Russian economy, which was breaking down under the heightened strain of wartime demand by the end of 1915. The tsarist regime's advances for the security on its southern borders proved ruinous. [22] The tsarist regime's desire to control the Eastern Anatolia and the straits (perceived as an underbelly), in the end created the conditions that brought about Russia's own downfall. Unable to use Straits disrupted the Russian supply chain, Russia might have survived without the Straits, but the strain was the tipping point for its war economy. [22] This question was left to Soviet historians: "whether a less aggressive policy toward the Ottoman Empire before the war would have caused Istanbul to maintain neutrality or whether Russia later might have induced Istanbul to leave the war, [a] the outcome of tsarist future would be different. [22] Nicholas's inept handling of his country and the war destroyed the Tsar and ended up costing him both his reign and his life.

    Enver immediately instructed the Vehib Pasha, Third Army, to propose a ceasefire to Russia’s Caucasus Army. [23] Vehib cautioned withdrawing forces, as due to the politics in Russia — neither Russia’s Caucasus Army nor Caucasian civil authorities give assurance that an armistice would hold. [24] On 7 November 1917 the Bolshevik Party led by Vladimir Lenin overthrew the Provisional Government in a violent coup plunged Russia into multitude of civil wars between different ethnic groups. The slow dissolution of Russia’s Caucasus Army relieved one form of military threat from the east but brought another one. Russia was a long time threat, but at the same time kept the civil unrest in his land at bay without spreading to Ottomans in a violent. On 3 December the Ottoman foreign minister Ahmed Nesimi Bey informed the "Chamber of Deputies" about the prospects. The Chamber discussed the possible outcomes and priorities. On 15 December Armistice between Russia and the Central Powers signed. On 18 December Armistice of Erzincan signed. The Bolsheviks’ anti-imperialist formula of peace with no annexations and no indemnities was close to Ottoman position. The Bolsheviks' position brought a conflict with the Germany's aim to preserve control over the East European lands it occupied and with Bulgaria's claims on Dobruja and parts of Serbia. In December Enver informed the Quadruple Alliance that they would like to see the 1877 border (Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)), pointing out that the only Ottomans lost territory and 1877 border was Ottoman territories inhabited by Muslims. [25] Ottomans did not push the 1877 position too hard, scared to fall back to bilateral agreements. On the other hand, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Bulgaria clearly stood behind on the pulling back the Ottoman and Russian forces from Iran. [26] Ottomans wanted Muslim Iran be under its own control. The ambassador to Berlin, Ibrahim Hakki Pasha, wrote: "Although Russia may be in a weakened state today, it is always an awesome enemy and it is probable that in a short time it will recover its former might and power. [25]

    On 22 December 1917, the first meeting between Ottomans and the Bolsheviks, the temporary head Zeki Pasha, until Talat Pasha's arrival, requested of Lev Kamenev to put an end to atrocities being committed on Russian-occupied territory by Armenian partisans. Kamenev agreed and added "an international commission should be established to oversee the return of refugees (by own consent) and deportees (by forced relocation) to Eastern Anatolia. The battle of ideals, rhetoric, and material for the fate of Eastern Anatolia opened with this dialog . [25]

    The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk represented an enormous success for the empire. [ volgens wie? ] Minister of Foreign Affairs Halil Bey announced the achievement of peace to the Chamber of Deputies. He cheered the deputies further with his prediction of the imminent signing of a third peace treaty (the first Ukraine, second Russia, and with Romania). Halil Bey thought the Entente to cease hostilities and bring a rapid end to the war. The creation of an independent Ukraine promised to cripple Russia, and the recovery of Kars, Ardahan and Batum gave the CUP a tangible prize. Nationalism emerged at the center of the diplomatic struggle between the Central Powers and the Bolsheviks. The Empire recognized that Russia’s Muslims, their co-religionists, were disorganized and dispersed could not become an organized entity in the future battles of ideals, rhetoric, and material. Thus, the Ottomans mobilized the Caucasus Committee to make claims on behalf of the Muslims. [27] The Caucasus Committee had declined Ottoman earnest requests to break from Russia and embrace independence. The Caucasian Christians was far ahead in this new world concept. Helping the Caucasian Muslims to be free, like their neighbors, would be the Ottomans’ challenge. [27]

    1918 Edit

    In the overall war effort, the CUP was convinced that empire's contribution was essential. Ottoman armies had tied down large numbers of Allied troops on various fronts, keeping them away from theatres in Europe where they would have been used against German and Austrian forces. Moreover, they claimed that their success at Gallipoli had been an important factor in bringing about the collapse of Russia, resulting in the revolution of April 1917. They had turned the war in favor of Germany and her allies. [28] Hopes were initially high for the Ottomans that their losses in the Middle East might be compensated for by successes in the Caucasus Campaign. Enver Pasha maintained an optimistic stance, hid information that made the Ottoman position appear weak, and let most of the Ottoman elite believe that the war was still winnable. [29]

    Caucasus (Armenia–Azerbaijan–Georgia) Edit

    Ottoman policy toward the Caucasus evolved according to the changing demands of the diplomatic and geopolitical environment. [30] What was the Ottoman premise in involving with the Azerbaijan and the North Caucasus? The principle of "self-determination" became the criterion, or at least in part, to give them a chance to stand on their feet. [31] The Bolsheviks did not regard national separatism in this region as a lasting force. Their expectation was whole region come under a "voluntary and honest union" [b] and this union bearing no resemblance to Lenin’s famous description of Russia as a "prison house of peoples." [32] Lenin's arrival to Russia was formally welcomed by Nikolay Chkheidze, the Menshevik Chairman of the Petrograd Soviet.

    Ottoman's did not see a chance of these new states to stand against new Russia. These new Muslim states needed support to be emerged as viable independent states. In order to consolidate a buffer zone with Russia (both for the Empire and these new states), however, Ottomans needed to expel the Bolsheviks from Azerbaijan and the North Caucasus before the end of war. [33] Based on 1917 negotiations, Enver concluded that Empire should not to expect much military assistance from the Muslims of the Caucasus as they were the one in need. Enver also knew the importance of Kars—Julfa railroad and the adjacent areas for this support. Goal was set forward beginning from 1918 to end of the war.

    The Empire duly recognized the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic in February 1918. This preference to remain part of Russia led Caucasusian politics to the Trebizond Peace Conference to base their diplomacy on the incoherent assertion that they were an integral part of Russia but yet not bound [30] The representatives were Rauf Bey for the Empire, and Akaki Chkhenkeli from the Transcaucasian delegation.

    On 11 May, a new peace conference opened at Batum. The Treaty of Batum was signed on 4 June 1918, in Batum between the Ottoman Empire and three Trans-Caucasus states: First Republic of Armenia, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and Democratic Republic of Georgia.

    The goal was to assist Azerbaijan Democratic Republic at Battle of Baku, then turn north to assist the embattled Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus and then sweep southward to encircle the British in Mesopotamia and retake Baghdad. [31] The British in Mesopotamia already moving north, with forty vans (claimed to loaded with gold and silver for buying mercenary) accompanied with only a brigade, to establish a foothold. At the time Baku was under the control of the 26 Baku Commissars which were Bolshevik and Left Socialist Revolutionary (SR) members of the Baku Soviet Commune. The commune was established in the city of Baku. In this plan, they expected resistance from Bolshevik Russia and Britain, but also Germany, which opposed the extension of their influence into the Caucasus. [31] Ottoman's goal to side with Muslims of Azerbaijan and MRNC managed to get Bolsheviks of Russia, Britain and Germany on the same side of a conflict box at this brief point in the history.


    1920 Presidential Election

    The United States presidential election of 1920 was dominated by the aftermath of World War I and the hostile reaction to Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president. The wartime boom had collapsed. Politicians were arguing over peace treaties and the question of America's entry into the League of Nations. Overseas there were wars and revolutions. At home, 1919 was marked by major strikes in meatpacking and steel, and large race riots in Chicago and other cities. Terrorist attacks on Wall Street produced fears of radicals and terrorists.

    Outgoing President Wilson had become increasingly unpopular, and following his severe stroke in 1919 could no longer speak on his own behalf. The economy was in a recession, the public was weary of war and reform, the Irish Catholic and German communities were outraged at his policies, and his sponsorship of the League of Nations produced an isolationist reaction.

    The Democrats nominated newspaper publisher and Governor James M. Cox in turn the Republicans chose Senator Warren G. Harding, another Ohio newspaper publisher. Cox launched an energetic campaign against Senator Harding, and did all he could to defeat him. To help his campaign, he chose future president Franklin D. Roosevelt as his running mate. Harding virtually ignored Cox and essentially campaigned against Wilson, calling for a return to "normalcy" with an almost 4-to-1 spending advantage, he won a landslide victory. Harding's victory remains the largest popular-vote percentage margin (60.3% to 34.1%) in Presidential elections after the victory of James Monroe in the election of 1820.


    Popular in Human Interest

    I think a lot of us know that the comparison between that time and this one cannot fly. But we turn to the 1920s because it’s impossible to imagine how COVID will live on in our lives. Remember when we were still surprised at the idea that people “forgot” the 1918–19 pandemic? When COVID felt so huge to us that we couldn’t imagine it getting smaller in the rearview? I can’t believe I ever wondered. The past year has taught me that for Americans, our pathological optimism can move mountains. At the end of her book American Pandemic, historian Nancy Bristow argues that the people in the throes of flu amnesia in the 1920s were engaged in “a process common in the nation’s history”—the “drowning-out” of “narratives of anguish with the noise of public optimism.” Imagine, Bristow writes, how the “sense of opportunity and progress would have sounded to someone who had lost a mother, a brother, a wife, a son.” This was the hidden 1920s—a decade of private grief. It’s the only part I know for sure we’ll be doing again.


    Kyk die video: 2. GESCHIEDENIS EXAMEN. DE EERSTE WERELDOORLOG. #Duitsland (Januarie 2022).