IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/now/jnlhpe/115.00000091.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Dog That Did Not Bark: The Failed Attempts to Disenfranchise African Americans in Early Twentieth Century Maryland

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas R. Gray
  • Jeffery A. Jenkins

Abstract

We examine the multiple attempts by the Maryland Democratic Party to disenfranchise African Americans between 1901 and 1911. The Democrats sought to disenfranchise African Americans because they were a vital part of the Republican Party, which had recently challenged Democratic electoral dominance in the state. These disenfranchisement attempts took two forms. First, the Democrats tried to manipulate the ballot in 1901 and 1904 to make it more difficult for African Americans to vote. Second, the Democrats tried to amend the state constitution on three different occasions — 1905, 1909, and 1911 — to make it more difficult for African Americans to vote. While the state legislature passed disenfranchising measures, a popular referendum was needed to complete the amendment process, and each time the voters of Maryland rejected it. After a thorough documentation of this history, we conduct an empirical analysis of all disenfranchising efforts. We first show that the ballot reforms initiated in 1901 brought about a significant drop in turnout and increased rolloff in down-ballot races. And in an analysis of the referendum results, we find evidence of a "racial threat" pattern of voting in which support for disenfranchisement increased in more diverse locations.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas R. Gray & Jeffery A. Jenkins, 2025. "The Dog That Did Not Bark: The Failed Attempts to Disenfranchise African Americans in Early Twentieth Century Maryland," Journal of Historical Political Economy, now publishers, vol. 5(1), pages 139-166, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:now:jnlhpe:115.00000091
    DOI: 10.1561/115.00000091
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/115.00000091
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1561/115.00000091?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:now:jnlhpe:115.00000091. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lucy Wiseman (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nowpublishers.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.