Search using this query type:

Advanced Search (Items only)


The Democratic Party effectively responded to Fusionist attacks on the Suffrage Amendment, both in person and in print. For example, although they denied that any white voters would be disfranchised by the amendment, in order to appease those who were concerned that the grandfather clause might be found unconstitutional, Democratic legislators revised the text of the law so that if one part of the legislation was struck down the entire amendment would be revoked. (Item 384; Perman 2001, 166-167; Edmonds 1951, 200-203) The News and Observer also ran a number of editorials detailing how similar laws functioned in other states in order to comfort whites who had lingering doubts about the laws effectiveness or who feared they would be denied the vote, particularly Louisiana which had recently passed a law very similar to the one proposed in North Carolina. Josephus Daniels contributed an editorial examining disfranchisement in the Lafourche Parish of Louisiana. He reported happily that based on conversations he had had with the area’s leading men, Louisiana’s grandfather clause was working perfectly and no uneducated whites had been adversely affected by the new law. (Item 608; Edmonds 1951, 200) In response to Fusionist attacks that illiterate white boys who could not register before the grandfather clause expired in 1908 would be disfranchised, , Democratic candidates, particularly gubernatorial candidate Charles Aycock (who would come to be known as the education governor), championed educational reform, arguing that if the Democrats remained in power they would see to it that all young white men would be educated enough to vote. (Perman 2001, 168; Edmonds 1951, 204-205)

The Democrats also combated attacks against their new election laws by arguing that the laws were both unbiased and Constitutional. As a part of this defense, they attempted to turn the Fusionists’ attacks against the Fusionists themselves, by making it appear that their objections were partisan and self-interested. Norman Jennett drafted a cartoon for the News and Observer which depicted four caricatured African Americans (labeled “DEAD NEGRO,” “EIGHTEEN YEARS OLD,” “IMPORTED,” and “CONVICT” respectively) who were prevented from casting their ballots by a wall labeled “NEW ELECTION LAW.” As the groups represented by these figures were not eligible to vote, this image suggested that the true motivation for opposition to these laws was the fact that they would prevent the radicals from committing and benefitting from electoral fraud, a strategy Fusionists would need to utilize if they hoped to defeat the Democrats. While the Democratic Party had notoriously benefitted from illegal voting practices themselves, cartoons like this one attempted to re-envision the party as standing for law and order against an unscrupulous and unworthy opponent. (Item 505)