Shifting the Burden: Patterns in American Military Fatalities From World War II to the Global War On Terror

How have the patterns of American military sacrifice changed throughout the 20th century, and how have said changes influenced our politics in the current year? This question has lingered in my mind for years. While it is a question tangentially related to my dissertation research, it has been a distraction that I cannot shake. I’ve written on this topic for Antiwar.com and on this blog. In both pieces, I argued a thesis that I still hold, that the sectional, economic, and racial disparities in military sacrifice have led to our current political strife.

But what about the past? How did we get here? Assuming that the latter is true, is it a new phenomenon? To answer it, I have, over the last few months, analyzed military fatality data available through the Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS) for the Global War on Terror (GWOT), the Vietnam War, as well as the Korean War. Yet, to really flesh this thing out, I needed records for the Second World War…and those are surprisingly difficult to obtain, at least in a transcribed form.

So I decided to do it myself and hand-jammed the county tabulations in the “WWII Army and Army Air Force Casualties” records currently available in pdf form from the National Archives. The records contain 3,123 county figures for all 48 states plus Washington, D.C., and total up to 307,757 U.S. Army and U.S. Army Air Forces killed and missing in action. I should note that the records also contain the names and geographic tabulations of those who hailed from America’s various territories (including Hawaii and Alaska).

These records do not contain figures for those who served within the Department of the Navy, which includes sailors, marines, and coastguardsmen. While the Navy records do list individuals and their street addresses, they do not offer county-level tabulations. I have, however, digitized the Navy Department’s state records and posted a CSV file with them and the Department of the Army figures. The said file is available on my GitHub.

Attempting a long-term analysis of county-level military fatalities without data from the Navy is, in the parlance of our times, problematic. The NARA records record that 66,370 sailors, marines, and coastguardmen were killed in the war. But there’s no way that I can, as a single person, transcribe every name and then geocode every address.

Spoiler alert: we’re still going to proceed, but before doing so, I’d like to pause and note that according to these datasets, 17.9% of American lives were lost during the war came from those who served within the Department of the Navy. They were not spread out evenly as 19 states endured slanted naval losses above the national average, including some highly populated states like California (graphic 1).

Graphic 1: This graphic depicts the military fatalities endured by the states in total losses and the relative number of deaths lost in naval service during World War II. Each dot represents a state that is colorized by region and sized by the number of total wartime fatalities (both Army and Navy). Each state is located on an x-axis that shows what percentage of that combined total was lost in naval service. The y-axis depicts the per-100k loss.

Even with incomplete records, that is, only those county-level statistics from the Department of the Army, I think we can still proceed with our inquiry. To make sense of the fatality records, I analyzed them against demographic data from the U.S. Census and the “1915-1941 Vital Statistics: Natality & Mortality Data [States & Counties]” made available through the National Historical Geographic Information System.1

Generating per capita statistics for the Department of the Army losses during the Second World War yields the following results (see interactive table below).

The table lists the county, state, and number of Army fatalities per 100k losses and the county’s percentage difference from the national per 100k (233.455). If you sort the records by the number of losses, unsurprisingly, the most populous county in 1940, Cook County, which contains Chicago, is at the top of the list. But, what is different from subsequent wars (to varying degrees, as we shall see) is that these highly populated counties all meet, exceed, or at the least come close to the national per 100k.

CountyStateNumberPopulation in 1940Fatalities Per 100kDifference from National Per 100k
AutaugaAlabama3220977152.565.3%
BaldwinAlabama4432324136.158.3%
BarbourAlabama3632722110.047.1%
BibbAlabama3920155193.582.9%
BlountAlabama4429490149.263.9%
BullockAlabama2019810101.043.2%
ButlerAlabama5832447178.876.6%
CalhounAlabama16963319266.9114.3%
ChambersAlabama5842146137.658.9%
CherokeeAlabama2919928145.562.3%
ChiltonAlabama4927955175.375.1%
ChoctawAlabama3120195153.565.8%
ClarkeAlabama3827636137.558.9%
ClayAlabama2716907159.768.4%
CleburneAlabama2213629161.469.1%
CoffeeAlabama5231987162.669.6%
ColbertAlabama7434093217.193.0%
ConecuhAlabama2725489105.945.4%
CoosaAlabama3013460222.995.5%
CovingtonAlabama8842417207.588.9%
CrenshawAlabama3623631152.365.3%
CullmanAlabama11647343245.0105.0%
DaleAlabama3522685154.366.1%
DallasAlabama7155245128.555.1%
De KalbAlabama10343075239.1102.4%
ElmoreAlabama6934546199.785.6%
EscambiaAlabama6030671195.683.8%
EtowahAlabama14372580197.084.4%
FayetteAlabama5221651240.2102.9%
FranklinAlabama6927552250.4107.3%
GenevaAlabama5529172188.580.8%
GreeneAlabama101918552.122.3%
HaleAlabama2625533101.843.6%
HenryAlabama2321912105.045.0%
HoustonAlabama7345665159.968.5%
JacksonAlabama10641802253.6108.6%
JeffersonAlabama874459930190.081.4%
LamarAlabama3919708197.984.8%
LauderdaleAlabama9046230194.783.4%
LawrenceAlabama4327880154.266.1%
LeeAlabama6236455170.172.9%
LimestoneAlabama5935642165.570.9%
LowndesAlabama152266166.228.4%
MaconAlabama2827654101.343.4%
MadisonAlabama13266317199.085.3%
MarengoAlabama293573681.234.8%
MarionAlabama7428776257.2110.2%
MarshallAlabama10242395240.6103.1%
MobileAlabama249141974175.475.1%
MonroeAlabama242946581.534.9%
MontgomeryAlabama209114420182.778.2%
MorganAlabama11048148228.597.9%
PerryAlabama212661078.933.8%
PickensAlabama4027671144.661.9%
PikeAlabama3632493110.847.5%
RandolphAlabama5425516211.690.7%
RussellAlabama5135775142.661.1%
ShelbyAlabama4128962141.660.6%
St ClairAlabama6327336230.598.7%
SumterAlabama212732176.932.9%
TalladegaAlabama13251832254.7109.1%
TallapoosaAlabama5935270167.371.7%
TuscaloosaAlabama14976036196.083.9%
WalkerAlabama15064201233.6100.1%
WashingtonAlabama3116188191.582.0%
WilcoxAlabama3426279129.455.4%
WinstonAlabama4218746224.096.0%
ArkansasArkansas5224437212.891.1%
AshleyArkansas5226785194.183.2%
BaxterArkansas3010281291.8125.0%
BentonArkansas9936148273.9117.3%
BooneArkansas4715860296.3126.9%
BradleyArkansas3918097215.592.3%
CalhounArkansas299636301.0128.9%
CarrollArkansas3614737244.3104.6%
ChicotArkansas3227452116.649.9%
ClarkArkansas4924402200.886.0%
ClayArkansas6528386229.098.1%
CleburneArkansas2613134198.084.8%
ClevelandArkansas2212570175.075.0%
ColumbiaArkansas4829822161.068.9%
ConwayArkansas3221536148.663.6%
CraigheadArkansas10047200211.990.8%
CrawfordArkansas6223920259.2111.0%
CrittendenArkansas254247358.925.2%
CrossArkansas5726046218.893.7%
DallasArkansas2214471152.065.1%
DeshaArkansas4627160169.472.5%
DrewArkansas3019831151.364.8%
FaulknerArkansas6225880239.6102.6%
FranklinArkansas3615683229.598.3%
FultonArkansas2710253263.3112.8%
GarlandArkansas9541664228.097.7%
GrantArkansas2410477229.198.1%
GreeneArkansas5030204165.570.9%
HempsteadArkansas5232770158.768.0%
Hot SpringArkansas5518916290.8124.5%
HowardArkansas3516621210.690.2%
IndependenceArkansas6225643241.8103.6%
IzardArkansas3412834264.9113.5%
JacksonArkansas5026427189.281.0%
JeffersonArkansas8665101132.156.6%
JohnsonArkansas3618795191.582.0%
LafayetteArkansas1916851112.848.3%
LawrenceArkansas4722651207.588.9%
LeeArkansas242681089.538.3%
LincolnArkansas2819709142.160.9%
Little RiverArkansas3115932194.683.3%
LoganArkansas6025967231.199.0%
LonokeArkansas5529802184.679.1%
MadisonArkansas2914531199.685.5%
MarionArkansas179464179.676.9%
MillerArkansas5531874172.673.9%
MississippiArkansas11580217143.461.4%
MonroeArkansas3321133156.266.9%
MontgomeryArkansas228876247.9106.2%
NevadaArkansas4319869216.492.7%
NewtonArkansas2310881211.490.5%
OuachitaArkansas5231151166.971.5%
PerryArkansas178392202.686.8%
PhillipsArkansas5345970115.349.4%
PikeArkansas2911786246.1105.4%
PoinsettArkansas8537670225.696.7%
PolkArkansas4715832296.9127.2%
PopeArkansas3525682136.358.4%
PrairieArkansas3415304222.295.2%
PulaskiArkansas327156085209.589.7%
RandolphArkansas3018319163.870.1%
SalineArkansas3819163198.384.9%
ScottArkansas2613300195.583.7%
SearcyArkansas2411942201.086.1%
SebastianArkansas15462809245.2105.0%
SevierArkansas3415248223.095.5%
SharpArkansas2711497234.8100.6%
St FrancisArkansas4136043113.848.7%
St.oneArkansas148603162.769.7%
UnionArkansas9450461186.379.8%
Van BurenArkansas3612518287.6123.2%
WashingtonArkansas10541114255.4109.4%
WhiteArkansas7637176204.487.6%
WoodruffArkansas3222133144.661.9%
YellArkansas4820970228.998.0%
ApacheArizona5124095211.790.7%
CochiseArizona11134627320.6137.3%
CoconinoArizona4918770261.1111.8%
GilaArizona8723867364.5156.1%
GrahamArizona4912113404.5173.3%
GreenleeArizona318698356.4152.7%
MaricopaArizona514186193276.1118.2%
MohaveArizona228591256.1109.7%
NavajoArizona6425309252.9108.3%
PimaArizona23972838328.1140.6%
PinalArizona11528841398.7170.8%
Santa CruzArizona439482453.5194.3%
YavapaiArizona8026511301.8129.3%
YumaArizona8019326414.0177.3%
AlamedaCalifornia1266513011246.8105.7%
AlpineCalifornia1323309.6132.6%
AmadorCalifornia228973245.2105.0%
ButteCalifornia10742840249.8107.0%
CalaverasCalifornia218221255.4109.4%
ColusaCalifornia259788255.4109.4%
Contra CostaCalifornia320100450318.6136.5%
Del NorteCalifornia74745147.563.2%
El DoradoCalifornia2713229204.187.4%
FresnoCalifornia511178565286.2122.6%
GlennCalifornia3212195262.4112.4%
HumboldtCalifornia11445812248.8106.6%
ImperialCalifornia10759740179.176.7%
InyoCalifornia287625367.2157.3%
KernCalifornia340135124251.6107.8%
KingsCalifornia10435168295.7126.7%
LakeCalifornia268069322.2138.0%
LassenCalifornia4914479338.4145.0%
Los AngelesCalifornia66742785643239.6102.6%
MaderaCalifornia7923314338.9145.1%
MarinCalifornia10352907194.783.4%
MariposaCalifornia65605107.045.9%
MendocinoCalifornia5427864193.883.0%
MercedCalifornia10346988219.293.9%
ModocCalifornia238713264.0113.1%
MonoCalifornia112299478.5205.0%
MontereyCalifornia24073032328.6140.8%
NapaCalifornia5728503200.085.7%
NevadaCalifornia4219283217.893.3%
OrangeCalifornia334130760255.4109.4%
PlacerCalifornia7528108266.8114.3%
PlumasCalifornia4911548424.3181.8%
RiversideCalifornia314105524297.6127.5%
SacramentoCalifornia441170333258.9110.9%
San BenitoCalifornia3611392316.0135.4%
San BernardinoCalifornia441161108273.7117.3%
San DiegoCalifornia775289348267.8114.7%
San FranciscoCalifornia1365634536215.192.1%
San JoaquinCalifornia283134207210.990.3%
San Luis ObispoCalifornia8933246267.7114.7%
San MateoCalifornia220111782196.884.3%
Santa BarbaraCalifornia15370555216.992.9%
Santa ClaraCalifornia441174949252.1108.0%
Santa CruzCalifornia8845057195.383.7%
ShastaCalifornia6928800239.6102.6%
SierraCalifornia123025396.7169.9%
SiskiyouCalifornia7228598251.8107.8%
SolanoCalifornia15049118305.4130.8%
SonomaCalifornia16569052239.0102.4%
St.anislausCalifornia17874866237.8101.8%
SutterCalifornia6118680326.6139.9%
TehamaCalifornia1714316118.750.9%
TrinityCalifornia93970226.797.1%
TulareCalifornia246107152229.698.3%
TuolumneCalifornia2610887238.8102.3%
VenturaCalifornia21669685310.0132.8%
YoloCalifornia7227243264.3113.2%
YubaCalifornia4517034264.2113.2%
AdamsColorado4222481186.880.0%
AlamosaColorado3410484324.3138.9%
ArapahoeColorado6432150199.185.3%
ArchuletaColorado173806446.7191.3%
BacaColorado146207225.696.6%
BentColorado259653259.0110.9%
BoulderColorado8837438235.1100.7%
ChaffeeColorado188109222.095.1%
CheyenneColorado92964303.6130.1%
Clear CreekColorado93784237.8101.9%
ConejosColorado3111648266.1114.0%
CostillaColorado117533146.062.5%
CrowleyColorado225398407.6174.6%
CusterColorado72270308.4132.1%
DeltaColorado4416470267.2114.4%
DenverColorado786322412243.8104.4%
DoloresColorado1195851.121.9%
DouglasColorado73496200.285.8%
EagleColorado75361130.655.9%
ElbertColorado3546054.923.5%
El PasoColorado14154025261.0111.8%
FremontColorado5319742268.5115.0%
GarfieldColorado2910560274.6117.6%
GilpinColorado1162561.526.4%
GrandColorado143587390.3167.2%
GunnisonColorado166192258.4110.7%
HinsdaleColorado2349573.1245.5%
HuerfanoColorado4216088261.1111.8%
JacksonColorado61798333.7142.9%
JeffersonColorado5730725185.579.5%
KiowaColorado152793537.1230.0%
Kit CarsonColorado167512213.091.2%
LakeColorado196883276.0118.2%
La PlataColorado3915494251.7107.8%
LarimerColorado7735539216.792.8%
Las AnimasColorado8132369250.2107.2%
LincolnColorado175882289.0123.8%
LoganColorado3918370212.390.9%
MesaColorado7333791216.092.5%
MineralColorado1975102.643.9%
MoffatColorado155086294.9126.3%
MontezumaColorado2010463191.181.9%
MontroseColorado4515418291.9125.0%
MorganColorado5017214290.5124.4%
OteroColorado3923571165.570.9%
OurayColorado42089191.582.0%
ParkColorado73272213.991.6%
PhillipsColorado184948363.8155.8%
PitkinColorado21836108.946.7%
ProwersColorado4412304357.6153.2%
PuebloColorado15168870219.393.9%
Rio BlancoColorado142943475.7203.8%
Rio GrandeColorado3012404241.9103.6%
RouttColorado2510525237.5101.7%
SaguacheColorado146173226.897.1%
San JuanColorado31439208.589.3%
San MiguelColorado83664218.393.5%
SedgwickColorado95294170.072.8%
SummitColorado21754114.048.8%
TellerColorado156463232.199.4%
WashingtonColorado118336132.056.5%
WeldColorado13663747213.391.4%
YumaColorado3012102247.9106.2%
FairfieldConnecticut1097418384262.2112.3%
HartfordConnecticut1238450189275.0117.8%
LitchfieldConnecticut23287041266.5114.2%
MiddlesexConnecticut13655999242.9104.0%
New HavenConnecticut1143484316236.0101.1%
New LondonConnecticut250125224199.685.5%
TollandConnecticut6631866207.188.7%
WindhamConnecticut14756223261.5112.0%
District Of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia3029663091456.8195.7%
KentDelaware5934441171.373.4%
New CastleDelaware392179562218.393.5%
SussexDelaware9152502173.374.2%
AlachuaFlorida5938607152.865.5%
BakerFlorida186510276.5118.4%
BayFlorida5620686270.7116.0%
BradfordFlorida178717195.083.5%
BrevardFlorida2616142161.169.0%
BrowardFlorida5039794125.653.8%
CalhounFlorida248218292.0125.1%
CharlotteFlorida83663218.493.6%
CitrusFlorida165846273.7117.2%
ClayFlorida136468201.086.1%
CollierFlorida85102156.867.2%
ColumbiaFlorida2716859160.268.6%
De SotoFlorida137792166.871.5%
DixieFlorida107018142.561.0%
DuvalFlorida392210143186.579.9%
EscambiaFlorida12474667166.171.1%
FlaglerFlorida53008166.271.2%
FranklinFlorida115991183.678.6%
GadsdenFlorida4331450136.758.6%
GilchristFlorida94250211.890.7%
GladesFlorida62745218.693.6%
GulfFlorida176951244.6104.8%
HamiltonFlorida139778133.056.9%
HardeeFlorida2510158246.1105.4%
HendryFlorida165237305.5130.9%
HernandoFlorida155641265.9113.9%
HighlandsFlorida289246302.8129.7%
HillsboroughFlorida363180148201.586.3%
HolmesFlorida3515447226.697.1%
Indian RiverFlorida168957178.676.5%
JacksonFlorida5434428156.867.2%
JeffersonFlorida91203274.832.0%
LafayetteFlorida64405136.258.3%
LakeFlorida5327255194.583.3%
LeeFlorida4317488245.9105.3%
LeonFlorida5631646177.075.8%
LevyFlorida2312550183.378.5%
LibertyFlorida103752266.5114.2%
MadisonFlorida1916190117.450.3%
ManateeFlorida4626098176.375.5%
MarionFlorida4431243140.860.3%
MartinFlorida76295111.247.6%
DadeFlorida503267739187.980.5%
MonroeFlorida3014078213.191.3%
NassauFlorida1510826138.659.3%
OkaloosaFlorida3412900263.6112.9%
OkeechobeeFlorida73000233.399.9%
OrangeFlorida17370074246.9105.8%
OsceolaFlorida1410119138.459.3%
Palm BeachFlorida12279989152.565.3%
PascoFlorida2913981207.488.8%
PinellasFlorida13891852150.264.4%
PolkFlorida20086665230.898.9%
PutnamFlorida2518698133.757.3%
Santa RosaFlorida2816085174.174.6%
SarasotaFlorida3316106204.987.8%
SeminoleFlorida3722304165.971.1%
St JohnsFlorida4120012204.987.8%
St LucieFlorida2011871168.572.2%
SumterFlorida1911041172.173.7%
SuwanneeFlorida2917073169.972.8%
TaylorFlorida1611565138.359.3%
UnionFlorida97094126.954.3%
VolusiaFlorida8753710162.069.4%
WakullaFlorida85463146.462.7%
WaltonFlorida3114246217.693.2%
WashingtonFlorida2512302203.287.0%
ApplingGeorgia3314497227.697.5%
AtkinsonGeorgia127093169.272.5%
BaconGeorgia158096185.379.4%
BakerGeorgia5734468.129.2%
BaldwinGeorgia2924190119.951.4%
BanksGeorgia118733126.054.0%
BarrowGeorgia4013064306.2131.2%
BartowGeorgia4725283185.979.6%
Ben HillGeorgia2214523151.564.9%
BerrienGeorgia1815370117.150.2%
BibbGeorgia16083783191.081.8%
BleckleyGeorgia229655227.997.6%
BrantleyGeorgia176871247.4106.0%
BrooksGeorgia2320497112.248.1%
BryanGeorgia126288190.881.7%
BullochGeorgia3326010126.954.3%
BurkeGeorgia242652090.538.8%
ButtsGeorgia199182206.988.6%
CalhounGeorgia1610438153.365.7%
CamdenGeorgia75910118.450.7%
CandlerGeorgia119103120.851.8%
CarrollGeorgia7834156228.497.8%
CatoosaGeorgia1912199155.866.7%
CharltonGeorgia175256323.4138.5%
ChathamGeorgia223117970189.081.0%
ChattahoocheeGeorgia121513879.334.0%
ChattoogaGeorgia4318532232.099.4%
CherokeeGeorgia4220126208.789.4%
ClarkeGeorgia5928398207.889.0%
ClayGeorgia97064127.454.6%
ClaytonGeorgia2511655214.591.9%
ClinchGeorgia76437108.746.6%
CobbGeorgia7038272182.978.3%
CoffeeGeorgia4221541195.083.5%
ColquittGeorgia5833012175.775.3%
ColumbiaGeorgia129433127.254.5%
CookGeorgia3011919251.7107.8%
CowetaGeorgia4226972155.766.7%
CrawfordGeorgia127128168.472.1%
CrispGeorgia2417540136.858.6%
DadeGeorgia135894220.694.5%
DawsonGeorgia94479200.986.1%
DecaturGeorgia4922234220.494.4%
DekalbGeorgia12086942138.059.1%
DodgeGeorgia3321022157.067.2%
DoolyGeorgia2516886148.163.4%
DoughertyGeorgia5528565192.582.5%
DouglasGeorgia1510053149.263.9%
EarlyGeorgia141867975.032.1%
EcholsGeorgia42964135.057.8%
EffinghamGeorgia139646134.857.7%
ElbertGeorgia3119618158.067.7%
EmanuelGeorgia3223517136.158.3%
EvansGeorgia107401135.157.9%
FanninGeorgia3014752203.487.1%
FayetteGeorgia148170171.473.4%
FloydGeorgia11556141204.887.7%
ForsythGeorgia1311322114.849.2%
FranklinGeorgia2415612153.765.8%
FultonGeorgia883392886224.796.3%
GilmerGeorgia269001288.9123.7%
GlascockGeorgia104547219.994.2%
GlynnGeorgia6021920273.7117.2%
GordonGeorgia4318445233.199.9%
GradyGeorgia3319654167.971.9%
GreeneGeorgia2713709197.084.4%
GwinnettGeorgia5729087196.083.9%
HabershamGeorgia3014771203.187.0%
HallGeorgia9934822284.3121.8%
HancockGeorgia1812764141.060.4%
HaralsonGeorgia2814377194.883.4%
HarrisGeorgia1611428140.060.0%
HartGeorgia2615512167.671.8%
HeardGeorgia128610139.459.7%
HenryGeorgia2015119132.356.7%
HoustonGeorgia1211303106.245.5%
IrwinGeorgia101293677.333.1%
JacksonGeorgia4820089238.9102.3%
JasperGeorgia198772216.692.8%
Jeff DavisGeorgia138841147.063.0%
JeffersonGeorgia3220040159.768.4%
JenkinsGeorgia1611843135.157.9%
JohnsonGeorgia1812953139.059.5%
JonesGeorgia108331120.051.4%
LamarGeorgia2310091227.997.6%
LanierGeorgia135632230.898.9%
LaurensGeorgia7633606226.296.9%
LeeGeorgia87837102.143.7%
LibertyGeorgia128595139.659.8%
LincolnGeorgia7704299.442.6%
LongGeorgia64086146.862.9%
LowndesGeorgia5031860156.967.2%
LumpkinGeorgia146223225.096.4%
MaconGeorgia4415947275.9118.2%
MadisonGeorgia3213431238.3102.1%
MarionGeorgia5695471.930.8%
McduffieGeorgia3110878285.0122.1%
MeriwetherGeorgia3622055163.269.9%
MillerGeorgia129998120.051.4%
MitchellGeorgia2723261116.149.7%
MonroeGeorgia1110749102.343.8%
MontgomeryGeorgia7966872.431.0%
MorganGeorgia2012713157.367.4%
MurrayGeorgia2311137206.588.5%
MuscogeeGeorgia20775494274.2117.5%
NewtonGeorgia3618576193.883.0%
OconeeGeorgia167576211.290.5%
OglethorpeGeorgia61243048.320.7%
PauldingGeorgia2112832163.770.1%
PeachGeorgia2010378192.782.5%
PickensGeorgia139136142.361.0%
PierceGeorgia2411800203.487.1%
PikeGeorgia1810375173.574.3%
PolkGeorgia6428467224.896.3%
PulaskiGeorgia129829122.152.3%
PutnamGeorgia128514140.960.4%
QuitmanGeorgia83435232.999.8%
RabunGeorgia207821255.7109.5%
RandolphGeorgia121660972.230.9%
RichmondGeorgia13881863168.672.2%
RockdaleGeorgia147724181.377.6%
SchleyGeorgia85033159.068.1%
ScrevenGeorgia3120353152.365.2%
SeminoleGeorgia138492153.165.6%
SpaldingGeorgia6228427218.193.4%
St.ephensGeorgia3812972292.9125.5%
St.ewartGeorgia101060394.340.4%
SumterGeorgia3524502142.861.2%
TalbotGeorgia5814161.426.3%
TaliaferroGeorgia4627863.727.3%
TattnallGeorgia2616243160.168.6%
TaylorGeorgia1710768157.967.6%
TelfairGeorgia2615145171.773.5%
TerrellGeorgia2416675143.961.7%
ThomasGeorgia4931289156.667.1%
TiftGeorgia3418599182.878.3%
ToombsGeorgia3116952182.978.3%
TownsGeorgia134925264.0113.1%
TreutlenGeorgia97632117.950.5%
TroupGeorgia8443879191.482.0%
TurnerGeorgia1610846147.563.2%
TwiggsGeorgia5911754.823.5%
UnionGeorgia147680182.378.1%
UpsonGeorgia4525064179.576.9%
WalkerGeorgia8331024267.5114.6%
WaltonGeorgia3120777149.263.9%
WareGeorgia5827929207.789.0%
WarrenGeorgia1310236127.054.4%
WashingtonGeorgia3424230140.360.1%
WayneGeorgia2113122160.068.6%
WebsterGeorgia1472621.29.1%
WheelerGeorgia178535199.285.3%
WhiteGeorgia126417187.080.1%
WhitfieldGeorgia5626105214.591.9%
WilcoxGeorgia2712755211.790.7%
WilkesGeorgia91508459.725.6%
WilkinsonGeorgia1211025108.846.6%
WorthGeorgia192137488.938.1%
AdairIowa3413196257.7110.4%
AdamsIowa2710156265.9113.9%
AllamakeeIowa3017184174.674.8%
AppanooseIowa6524245268.1114.8%
AudubonIowa3111790262.9112.6%
BentonIowa5422879236.0101.1%
Black HawkIowa20179946251.4107.7%
BooneIowa6629782221.694.9%
BremerIowa2917932161.769.3%
BuchananIowa3320991157.267.3%
Buena VistaIowa3519838176.475.6%
ButlerIowa3817986211.390.5%
CalhounIowa4317584244.5104.7%
CarrollIowa5022770219.694.1%
CassIowa4718647252.1108.0%
CedarIowa3516884207.388.8%
Cerro GordoIowa11243845255.4109.4%
CherokeeIowa3719258192.182.3%
ChickasawIowa3015227197.084.4%
ClarkeIowa2010233195.483.7%
ClayIowa3017762168.972.3%
ClaytonIowa3624334147.963.4%
ClintonIowa10144722225.896.7%
CrawfordIowa5620538272.7116.8%
DallasIowa5524649223.195.6%
DavisIowa2711136242.5103.9%
DecaturIowa4714012335.4143.7%
DelawareIowa3518487189.381.1%
Des MoinesIowa10536804285.3122.2%
DickinsonIowa2312185188.880.9%
DubuqueIowa16263768254.0108.8%
EmmetIowa4013406298.4127.8%
FayetteIowa5529151188.780.8%
FloydIowa4920169242.9104.1%
FranklinIowa2416379146.562.8%
FremontIowa4614645314.1134.5%
GreeneIowa4616599277.1118.7%
GrundyIowa3413518251.5107.7%
GuthrieIowa3817210220.894.6%
HamiltonIowa4619922230.998.9%
HancockIowa2615402168.872.3%
HardinIowa3222530142.060.8%
HarrisonIowa4522767197.784.7%
HenryIowa3917994216.792.8%
HowardIowa2913531214.391.8%
HumboldtIowa3213459237.8101.8%
IdaIowa2311047208.289.2%
IowaIowa3317016193.983.1%
JacksonIowa2719181140.860.3%
JasperIowa6431496203.287.0%
JeffersonIowa4315762272.8116.9%
JohnsonIowa7533191226.096.8%
JonesIowa3319950165.470.9%
KeokukIowa4318406233.6100.1%
KossuthIowa6926630259.1111.0%
LeeIowa9841074238.6102.2%
LinnIowa21389142238.9102.4%
LouisaIowa2511384219.694.1%
LucasIowa2114571144.161.7%
LyonIowa2715374175.675.2%
MadisonIowa2314525158.367.8%
MahaskaIowa5426485203.987.3%
MarionIowa3527019129.555.5%
MarshallIowa5235406146.962.9%
MillsIowa3115064205.888.1%
MitchellIowa3214121226.697.1%
MononaIowa4118238224.896.3%
MonroeIowa3214553219.994.2%
MontgomeryIowa4615697293.0125.5%
MuscatineIowa6431296204.587.6%
O'brienIowa4219293217.793.2%
OsceolaIowa1310607122.652.5%
PageIowa5624887225.096.4%
Palo AltoIowa4416170272.1116.6%
PlymouthIowa5423502229.898.4%
PocahontasIowa3316266202.986.9%
PolkIowa450195835229.898.4%
PottawattamieIowa15266756227.797.5%
PoweshiekIowa4118758218.693.6%
RinggoldIowa2811137251.4107.7%
SacIowa2817639158.768.0%
ScottIowa16884748198.284.9%
ShelbyIowa2916720173.474.3%
SiouxIowa6627209242.6103.9%
St.oryIowa9533434284.1121.7%
TamaIowa3922428173.974.5%
TaylorIowa2914258203.487.1%
UnionIowa3316280202.786.8%
Van BurenIowa3112053257.2110.2%
WapelloIowa9944280223.695.8%
WarrenIowa4717695265.6113.8%
WashingtonIowa5420055269.3115.3%
WayneIowa3113308232.999.8%
WebsterIowa9741521233.6100.1%
WinnebagoIowa3313972236.2101.2%
WinneshiekIowa3022263134.857.7%
WoodburyIowa234103627225.896.7%
WorthIowa2811449244.6104.8%
WrightIowa3920038194.683.4%
AdaIdaho11950401236.1101.1%
AdamsIdaho123407352.2150.9%
BannockIdaho8934759256.0109.7%
Bear LakeIdaho217911265.5113.7%
BenewahIdaho207332272.8116.8%
BinghamIdaho4921044232.899.7%
BlaineIdaho85295151.164.7%
BoiseIdaho92333385.8165.2%
BonnerIdaho4415667280.8120.3%
BonnevilleIdaho6925697268.5115.0%
BoundaryIdaho175987283.9121.6%
ButteIdaho41877213.191.3%
CamasIdaho61360441.2189.0%
CanyonIdaho11040987268.4115.0%
CaribouIdaho92284394.0168.8%
CassiaIdaho3614430249.5106.9%
ClarkIdaho51005497.5213.1%
ClearwaterIdaho278243327.6140.3%
CusterIdaho103549281.8120.7%
ElmoreIdaho155518271.8116.4%
FranklinIdaho1710229166.271.2%
FremontIdaho2310304223.295.6%
GemIdaho269544272.4116.7%
GoodingIdaho249257259.3111.1%
IdahoIdaho2412691189.181.0%
JeffersonIdaho2010762185.879.6%
JeromeIdaho469900464.6199.0%
KootenaiIdaho6622283296.2126.9%
LatahIdaho5418804287.2123.0%
LemhiIdaho206521306.7131.4%
LewisIdaho184666385.8165.2%
LincolnIdaho124230283.7121.5%
MadisonIdaho249186261.3111.9%
MinidokaIdaho269870263.4112.8%
Nez PerceIdaho6318873333.8143.0%
OneidaIdaho145417258.4110.7%
OwyheeIdaho105652176.975.8%
PayetteIdaho239511241.8103.6%
PowerIdaho153965378.3162.0%
ShoshoneIdaho5021230235.5100.9%
TetonIdaho113601305.5130.8%
Twin FallsIdaho8636403236.2101.2%
ValleyIdaho144035347.0148.6%
WashingtonIdaho268853293.7125.8%
AdamsIllinois12765229194.783.4%
AlexanderIllinois6425496251.0107.5%
BondIllinois4814540330.1141.4%
BooneIllinois2715202177.676.1%
BrownIllinois258053310.4133.0%
BureauIllinois8537600226.196.8%
CalhounIllinois218207255.9109.6%
CarrollIllinois3217987177.976.2%
CassIllinois3716425225.396.5%
ChampaignIllinois18170578256.5109.9%
ChristianIllinois8138564210.090.0%
ClarkIllinois3518842185.879.6%
ClayIllinois5018947263.9113.0%
ClintonIllinois4522912196.484.1%
ColesIllinois9538470246.9105.8%
CookIllinois97214063342239.2102.5%
CrawfordIllinois6121294286.5122.7%
CumberlandIllinois1911698162.469.6%
De KalbIllinois11734388340.2145.7%
De WittIllinois4218244230.298.6%
DouglasIllinois4817590272.9116.9%
Du PageIllinois253103480244.5104.7%
EdgarIllinois5524430225.196.4%
EdwardsIllinois118974122.652.5%
EffinghamIllinois6722034304.1130.3%
FayetteIllinois6629159226.397.0%
FordIllinois3115007206.688.5%
FranklinIllinois12953137242.8104.0%
FultonIllinois6844627152.465.3%
GallatinIllinois2311414201.586.3%
GreeneIllinois4320292211.990.8%
GrundyIllinois4418398239.2102.4%
HamiltonIllinois4513454334.5143.3%
HancockIllinois6526297247.2105.9%
HardinIllinois287759360.9154.6%
HendersonIllinois188949201.186.2%
HenryIllinois7443798169.072.4%
IroquoisIllinois6132496187.780.4%
JacksonIllinois8937920234.7100.5%
JasperIllinois4213431312.7133.9%
JeffersonIllinois11834375343.3147.0%
JerseyIllinois3313636242.0103.7%
Jo DaviessIllinois4919989245.1105.0%
JohnsonIllinois3010727279.7119.8%
KaneIllinois304130206233.5100.0%
KankakeeIllinois13160877215.292.2%
KendallIllinois2611105234.1100.3%
KnoxIllinois11352250216.392.6%
LakeIllinois257121094212.290.9%
La SalleIllinois25097801255.6109.5%
LawrenceIllinois6221075294.2126.0%
LeeIllinois8434604242.7104.0%
LivingstonIllinois8738838224.096.0%
LoganIllinois7129438241.2103.3%
MaconIllinois17684693207.889.0%
MacoupinIllinois10246304220.394.4%
MadisonIllinois346149349231.799.2%
MarionIllinois10247989212.591.0%
MarshallIllinois2813179212.591.0%
MasonIllinois4615358299.5128.3%
MassacIllinois3314937220.994.6%
McdonoughIllinois6526944241.2103.3%
MchenryIllinois8937311238.5102.2%
McleanIllinois16973930228.697.9%
MenardIllinois1510663140.760.3%
MercerIllinois4417701248.6106.5%
MonroeIllinois2012754156.867.2%
MontgomeryIllinois8734499252.2108.0%
MorganIllinois8036378219.994.2%
MoultrieIllinois3213477237.4101.7%
OgleIllinois6529869217.693.2%
PeoriaIllinois343153374223.695.8%
PerryIllinois4623438196.384.1%
PiattIllinois3914659266.0114.0%
PikeIllinois6125340240.7103.1%
PopeIllinois157999187.580.3%
PulaskiIllinois2615875163.870.2%
PutnamIllinois125289226.997.2%
RandolphIllinois6533608193.482.8%
RichlandIllinois4317137250.9107.5%
Rock IslandIllinois267113323235.6100.9%
SalineIllinois8038066210.290.0%
SangamonIllinois271117912229.898.4%
SchuylerIllinois2211430192.582.4%
ScottIllinois248176293.5125.7%
ShelbyIllinois6726290254.8109.2%
St.arkIllinois208881225.296.5%
St ClairIllinois349166899209.189.6%
St.ephensonIllinois8240646201.786.4%
TazewellIllinois10158362173.174.1%
UnionIllinois4221528195.183.6%
VermilionIllinois18486791212.090.8%
WabashIllinois3713724269.6115.5%
WarrenIllinois4521286211.490.6%
WashingtonIllinois2415801151.965.1%
WayneIllinois6022092271.6116.3%
WhiteIllinois5320027264.6113.4%
WhitesideIllinois11643338267.7114.7%
WillIllinois271114210237.3101.6%
WilliamsonIllinois11151424215.992.5%
WinnebagoIllinois285121178235.2100.7%
WoodfordIllinois5019124261.5112.0%
AdamsIndiana5421254254.1108.8%
AllenIndiana291155084187.680.4%
BartholomewIndiana6828276240.5103.0%
BentonIndiana4911117440.8188.8%
BlackfordIndiana3513783253.9108.8%
BooneIndiana4122081185.779.5%
BrownIndiana96189145.462.3%
CarrollIndiana4115410266.1114.0%
CassIndiana8836908238.4102.1%
ClarkIndiana9131020293.4125.7%
ClayIndiana6125365240.5103.0%
ClintonIndiana6328411221.795.0%
CrawfordIndiana3110171304.8130.6%
DaviessIndiana5926163225.596.6%
DearbornIndiana6223053268.9115.2%
DecaturIndiana3517722197.584.6%
De KalbIndiana4724756189.981.3%
DelawareIndiana15874963210.890.3%
DuboisIndiana4322579190.481.6%
ElkhartIndiana18172634249.2106.7%
FayetteIndiana4119411211.290.5%
FloydIndiana7835061222.595.3%
FountainIndiana4118299224.196.0%
FranklinIndiana2714412187.380.2%
FultonIndiana3415577218.393.5%
GibsonIndiana6630709214.992.1%
GrantIndiana11355813202.586.7%
GreeneIndiana6531330207.588.9%
HamiltonIndiana4824614195.083.5%
HancockIndiana3317302190.781.7%
HarrisonIndiana5317106309.8132.7%
HendricksIndiana3620151178.776.5%
HenryIndiana8740208216.492.7%
HowardIndiana11647752242.9104.1%
HuntingtonIndiana6729931223.895.9%
JacksonIndiana7226612270.6115.9%
JasperIndiana3414397236.2101.2%
JayIndiana5622601247.8106.1%
JeffersonIndiana3719912185.879.6%
JenningsIndiana3513680255.8109.6%
JohnsonIndiana5222493231.299.0%
KnoxIndiana10943973247.9106.2%
KosciuskoIndiana4629561155.666.7%
LagrangeIndiana2414352167.271.6%
LakeIndiana815293195278.0119.1%
La PorteIndiana18363660287.5123.1%
LawrenceIndiana7735045219.794.1%
MadisonIndiana22888575257.4110.3%
MarionIndiana1055460926228.998.0%
MarshallIndiana6325935242.9104.1%
MartinIndiana2310300223.395.7%
MiamiIndiana6627926236.3101.2%
MonroeIndiana9236534251.8107.9%
MontgomeryIndiana7027231257.1110.1%
MorganIndiana5719801287.9123.3%
NewtonIndiana3110775287.7123.2%
NobleIndiana4922776215.192.2%
OhioIndiana93782238.0101.9%
OrangeIndiana3817311219.594.0%
OwenIndiana1612090132.356.7%
ParkeIndiana3417358195.983.9%
PerryIndiana5017770281.4120.5%
PikeIndiana3017045176.075.4%
PorterIndiana4927836176.075.4%
PoseyIndiana5619183291.9125.0%
PulaskiIndiana4312056356.7152.8%
PutnamIndiana4920839235.1100.7%
RandolphIndiana5926766220.494.4%
RipleyIndiana3918898206.488.4%
RushIndiana3118927163.870.2%
ScottIndiana408978445.5190.8%
ShelbyIndiana5625953215.892.4%
SpencerIndiana4916211302.3129.5%
St.arkeIndiana1912258155.066.4%
St.eubenIndiana3713740269.3115.3%
St JosephIndiana430161823265.7113.8%
SullivanIndiana6327014233.299.9%
SwitzerlandIndiana168167195.983.9%
TippecanoeIndiana14651020286.2122.6%
TiptonIndiana2915135191.682.1%
UnionIndiana156017249.3106.8%
VanderburghIndiana298130783227.997.6%
VermillionIndiana5021787229.598.3%
VigoIndiana21199709211.690.6%
WabashIndiana5626601210.590.2%
WarrenIndiana259055276.1118.3%
WarrickIndiana5419435277.8119.0%
WashingtonIndiana6617008388.1166.2%
WayneIndiana13459229226.296.9%
WellsIndiana2819099146.662.8%
WhiteIndiana3617037211.390.5%
WhitleyIndiana3817001223.595.7%
AllenKansas3719874186.279.7%
AndersonKansas2611658223.095.5%
AtchisonKansas4522222202.586.7%
BarberKansas359073385.8165.2%
BartonKansas6425010255.9109.6%
BourbonKansas5020944238.7102.3%
BrownKansas4517395258.7110.8%
ButlerKansas10032013312.4133.8%
ChaseKansas156345236.4101.3%
ChautauquaKansas289233303.3129.9%
CherokeeKansas7729817258.2110.6%
CheyenneKansas106221160.768.9%
ClarkKansas124081294.0126.0%
ClayKansas2913281218.493.5%
CloudKansas3917247226.196.9%
CoffeyKansas2012278162.969.8%
ComancheKansas134412294.7126.2%
CowleyKansas8538139222.995.5%
CrawfordKansas12344191278.3119.2%
DecaturKansas237434309.4132.5%
DickinsonKansas5622929244.2104.6%
DoniphanKansas3012936231.999.3%
DouglasKansas7425171294.0125.9%
EdwardsKansas216377329.3141.1%
ElkKansas198180232.399.5%
EllisKansas4117508234.2100.3%
EllsworthKansas189855182.678.2%
FinneyKansas3210092317.1135.8%
FordKansas5517254318.8136.5%
FranklinKansas3420889162.869.7%
GearyKansas6515222427.0182.9%
GoveKansas124793250.4107.2%
GrahamKansas146071230.698.8%
GrantKansas51946256.9110.1%
GrayKansas164773335.2143.6%
GreeleyKansas101638610.5261.5%
GreenwoodKansas4116495248.6106.5%
HamiltonKansas112645415.9178.1%
HarperKansas2112068174.074.5%
HarveyKansas6721712308.6132.2%
HaskellKansas102088478.9205.1%
HodgemanKansas83535226.396.9%
JacksonKansas4313382321.3137.6%
JeffersonKansas3512718275.2117.9%
JewellKansas3011970250.6107.4%
JohnsonKansas6833327204.087.4%
KearnyKansas62525237.6101.8%
KingmanKansas3712001308.3132.1%
KiowaKansas105112195.683.8%
LabetteKansas7930352260.3111.5%
LaneKansas42821141.860.7%
LeavenworthKansas9341112226.296.9%
LincolnKansas288338335.8143.8%
LinnKansas2311969192.282.3%
LoganKansas213688569.4243.9%
LyonKansas9326424352.0150.8%
MarionKansas3718951195.283.6%
MarshallKansas3620986171.573.5%
McphersonKansas5824152240.1102.9%
MeadeKansas135522235.4100.8%
MiamiKansas3119489159.168.1%
MitchellKansas2411339211.790.7%
MontgomeryKansas13849729277.5118.9%
MorrisKansas4510363434.2186.0%
MortonKansas42186183.078.4%
NemahaKansas3116761185.079.2%
NeoshoKansas4822210216.192.6%
NessKansas166864233.199.8%
NortonKansas229831223.895.9%
OsageKansas3015118198.485.0%
OsborneKansas289835284.7121.9%
OttawaKansas249224260.2111.5%
PawneeKansas1810300174.874.9%
PhillipsKansas2010435191.782.1%
PottawatomieKansas3714015264.0113.1%
PrattKansas3512348283.4121.4%
RawlinsKansas106618151.164.7%
RenoKansas10952165209.089.5%
RepublicKansas2813124213.391.4%
RiceKansas4417213255.6109.5%
RileyKansas6220617300.7128.8%
RooksKansas208497235.4100.8%
RushKansas178285205.287.9%
RussellKansas4013464297.1127.3%
SalineKansas7029535237.0101.5%
ScottKansas93773238.5102.2%
SedgwickKansas397143311277.0118.7%
SewardKansas126540183.578.6%
ShawneeKansas17291247188.580.7%
SheridanKansas115312207.188.7%
ShermanKansas166421249.2106.7%
SmithKansas3110582293.0125.5%
St.affordKansas2510487238.4102.1%
St.antonKansas21443138.659.4%
St.evensKansas133193407.1174.4%
SumnerKansas7026163267.6114.6%
ThomasKansas226425342.4146.7%
TregoKansas195822326.3139.8%
WabaunseeKansas129219130.255.8%
WallaceKansas32216135.458.0%
WashingtonKansas4015921251.2107.6%
WichitaKansas2321851052.6450.9%
WilsonKansas3217723180.677.3%
WoodsonKansas268014324.4139.0%
WyandotteKansas364145071250.9107.5%
AdairKentucky4518566242.4103.8%
AllenKentucky3415496219.494.0%
AndersonKentucky278936302.1129.4%
BallardKentucky279480284.8122.0%
BarrenKentucky5227559188.780.8%
BathKentucky2911451253.3108.5%
BellKentucky9143812207.789.0%
BooneKentucky2610820240.3102.9%
BourbonKentucky3317932184.078.8%
BoydKentucky11845938256.9110.0%
BoyleKentucky3917075228.497.8%
BrackenKentucky219389223.795.8%
BreathittKentucky7823946325.7139.5%
BreckinridgeKentucky5117744287.4123.1%
BullittKentucky239511241.8103.6%
ButlerKentucky3314371229.698.4%
CaldwellKentucky2314499158.667.9%
CallowayKentucky3919041204.887.7%
CampbellKentucky17471918241.9103.6%
CarlisleKentucky257650326.8140.0%
CarrollKentucky248657277.2118.8%
CarterKentucky6025545234.9100.6%
CaseyKentucky4419962220.494.4%
ChristianKentucky4836129132.956.9%
ClarkKentucky4617988255.7109.5%
ClayKentucky6823901284.5121.9%
ClintonKentucky2410279233.5100.0%
CrittendenKentucky2912115239.4102.5%
CumberlandKentucky3511923293.6125.7%
DaviessKentucky12952335246.5105.6%
EdmonsonKentucky2711344238.0102.0%
ElliottKentucky258713286.9122.9%
EstillKentucky5117978283.7121.5%
FayetteKentucky20678899261.1111.8%
FlemingKentucky3813327285.1122.1%
FloydKentucky11752986220.894.6%
FranklinKentucky4623308197.484.5%
FultonKentucky3415413220.694.5%
GallatinKentucky94307209.089.5%
GarrardKentucky2311910193.182.7%
GrantKentucky179876172.173.7%
GravesKentucky7131763223.595.7%
GraysonKentucky4917562279.0119.5%
GreenKentucky2312321186.780.0%
GreenupKentucky6124917244.8104.9%
HancockKentucky106807146.962.9%
HardinKentucky8029108274.8117.7%
HarlanKentucky18375275243.1104.1%
HarrisonKentucky3115124205.087.8%
HartKentucky3617239208.889.5%
HendersonKentucky7027020259.1111.0%
HenryKentucky3012220245.5105.2%
HickmanKentucky189142196.984.3%
HopkinsKentucky9337789246.1105.4%
JacksonKentucky3416339208.189.1%
JeffersonKentucky896385392232.599.6%
JessamineKentucky2512174205.488.0%
JohnsonKentucky7325771283.3121.3%
KentonKentucky22593139241.6103.5%
KnottKentucky6820007339.9145.6%
KnoxKentucky8131029261.0111.8%
LarueKentucky229622228.697.9%
LaurelKentucky6525640253.5108.6%
LawrenceKentucky4217275243.1104.1%
LeeKentucky4210860386.7165.7%
LeslieKentucky4014981267.0114.4%
LetcherKentucky11940592293.2125.6%
LewisKentucky4815686306.0131.1%
LincolnKentucky3619859181.377.7%
LivingstonKentucky229127241.0103.3%
LoganKentucky4523345192.882.6%
LyonKentucky159067165.470.9%
MadisonKentucky5428541189.281.0%
MagoffinKentucky3817490217.393.1%
MarionKentucky3216913189.281.0%
MarshallKentucky4316602259.0110.9%
MartinKentucky2710970246.1105.4%
MasonKentucky5119066267.5114.6%
MccrackenKentucky10248534210.290.0%
MccrearyKentucky3116451188.480.7%
McleanKentucky2711446235.9101.0%
MeadeKentucky238827260.6111.6%
MenifeeKentucky165691281.1120.4%
MercerKentucky6714629458.0196.2%
MetcalfeKentucky1710853156.667.1%
MonroeKentucky3614070255.9109.6%
MontgomeryKentucky3012280244.3104.6%
MorganKentucky4316827255.5109.5%
MuhlenbergKentucky8137554215.792.4%
NelsonKentucky3718004205.588.0%
NicholasKentucky208617232.199.4%
OhioKentucky4324421176.175.4%
OldhamKentucky1410716130.656.0%
OwenKentucky1710942155.466.6%
OwsleyKentucky238957256.8110.0%
PendletonKentucky1910392182.878.3%
PerryKentucky14447828301.1129.0%
PikeKentucky17671122247.5106.0%
PowellKentucky207671260.7111.7%
PulaskiKentucky11939863298.5127.9%
RobertsonKentucky63419175.575.2%
RockcastleKentucky4017165233.099.8%
RowanKentucky4912734384.8164.8%
RussellKentucky3013615220.394.4%
ScottKentucky3814314265.5113.7%
ShelbyKentucky3717759208.389.2%
SimpsonKentucky1911752161.769.3%
SpencerKentucky156757222.095.1%
TaylorKentucky2913556213.991.6%
ToddKentucky1814234126.554.2%
TriggKentucky1912784148.663.7%
TrimbleKentucky115601196.484.1%
UnionKentucky3817411218.393.5%
WarrenKentucky8436631229.398.2%
WashingtonKentucky2812965216.092.5%
WayneKentucky4017204232.599.6%
WebsterKentucky3419198177.175.9%
WhitleyKentucky10233186307.4131.7%
WolfeKentucky219997210.190.0%
WoodfordKentucky3011847253.2108.5%
AcadiaLouisiana8646260185.979.6%
AllenLouisiana3117540176.775.7%
AscensionLouisiana3121215146.162.6%
AssumptionLouisiana2318541124.053.1%
AvoyellesLouisiana7439256188.580.7%
BeauregardLouisiana2714847181.977.9%
BienvilleLouisiana3623933150.464.4%
BossierLouisiana293316287.437.5%
CaddoLouisiana320150203213.091.3%
CalcasieuLouisiana13556506238.9102.3%
CaldwellLouisiana2212046182.678.2%
CameronLouisiana177203236.0101.1%
CatahoulaLouisiana3014618205.287.9%
ClaiborneLouisiana5429855180.977.5%
ConcordiaLouisiana121456282.435.3%
DesotoLouisiana4431803138.459.3%
East Baton RougeLouisiana15088415169.772.7%
East CarrollLouisiana181902394.640.5%
East FelicianaLouisiana111803961.026.1%
EvangelineLouisiana3430497111.547.8%
FranklinLouisiana5032382154.466.1%
GrantLouisiana3515933219.794.1%
IberiaLouisiana323718386.136.9%
IbervilleLouisiana3827721137.158.7%
JacksonLouisiana4817807269.6115.5%
JeffersonLouisiana8950427176.575.6%
Jefferson DavisLouisiana4424191181.977.9%
LafayetteLouisiana8143941184.379.0%
LafourcheLouisiana5738615147.663.2%
La SalleLouisiana2910959264.6113.4%
LincolnLouisiana4124790165.470.8%
LivingstonLouisiana3217790179.977.0%
MadisonLouisiana181844397.641.8%
MorehouseLouisiana4027571145.162.1%
NatchitochesLouisiana7140997173.274.2%
OrleansLouisiana773494537156.367.0%
OuachitaLouisiana11459168192.782.5%
PlaqueminesLouisiana1412318113.748.7%
Pointe CoupeeLouisiana3024004125.053.5%
RapidesLouisiana14673370199.085.2%
Red RiverLouisiana3415881214.191.7%
RichlandLouisiana5228829180.477.3%
SabineLouisiana6823586288.3123.5%
St BernardLouisiana117280151.164.7%
St CharlesLouisiana1612321129.955.6%
St HelenaLouisiana4954241.918.0%
St JamesLouisiana2716596162.769.7%
St John The BaptistLouisiana2314766155.866.7%
St LandryLouisiana8171481113.348.5%
St MartinLouisiana3226394121.251.9%
St MaryLouisiana5931458187.680.3%
St TammanyLouisiana3723624156.667.1%
TangipahoaLouisiana7845519171.473.4%
TensasLouisiana141594087.837.6%
TerrebonneLouisiana6435880178.476.4%
UnionLouisiana3020943143.261.4%
VermilionLouisiana8237750217.293.0%
VernonLouisiana4519142235.1100.7%
WashingtonLouisiana6234443180.077.1%
WebsterLouisiana4433676130.756.0%
West Baton RougeLouisiana91126379.934.2%
West CarrollLouisiana5019252259.7111.2%
West FelicianaLouisiana111172093.940.2%
WinnLouisiana2416923141.860.7%
BarnstableMassachusetts5837295155.566.6%
BerkshireMassachusetts323122273264.2113.2%
BristolMassachusetts870364637238.6102.2%
DukesMassachusetts215669370.4158.7%
EssexMassachusetts1081496313217.893.3%
FranklinMassachusetts14449453291.2124.7%
HampdenMassachusetts819332107246.6105.6%
HampshireMassachusetts20072461276.0118.2%
MiddlesexMassachusetts2246971390231.299.0%
NantucketMassachusetts83401235.2100.8%
NorfolkMassachusetts688325180211.690.6%
PlymouthMassachusetts356168824210.990.3%
SuffolkMassachusetts1856863248215.092.1%
WorcesterMassachusetts1282504470254.1108.9%
AlleganyMaryland28286973324.2138.9%
Anne ArundelMaryland14668375213.591.5%
BaltimoreMaryland367155825235.5100.9%
Baltimore (city)Maryland2031859100236.4101.3%
CalvertMaryland2010484190.881.7%
CarolineMaryland2917549165.370.8%
CarrollMaryland8839054225.396.5%
CecilMaryland6326407238.6102.2%
CharlesMaryland3817612215.892.4%
DorchesterMaryland6128006217.893.3%
FrederickMaryland14157312246.0105.4%
GarrettMaryland5221981236.6101.3%
HarfordMaryland10935060310.9133.2%
HowardMaryland4317175250.4107.2%
KentMaryland2913465215.492.3%
MontgomeryMaryland18983912225.296.5%
Prince GeorgesMaryland21289490236.9101.5%
Queen AnnesMaryland2714476186.579.9%
SomersetMaryland5120965243.3104.2%
St MarysMaryland3314626225.696.6%
TalbotMaryland2918784154.466.1%
WashingtonMaryland17468838252.8108.3%
WicomicoMaryland6934530199.885.6%
WorcesterMaryland4021245188.380.6%
AndroscogginMaine20376679264.7113.4%
AroostookMaine22394436236.1101.1%
CumberlandMaine389146000266.4114.1%
FranklinMaine5619896281.5120.6%
HancockMaine6732422206.688.5%
KennebecMaine20977231270.6115.9%
KnoxMaine6327191231.799.2%
LincolnMaine3416294208.789.4%
OxfordMaine12742662297.7127.5%
PenobscotMaine23897104245.1105.0%
PiscataquisMaine5718467308.7132.2%
SagadahocMaine3819123198.785.1%
SomersetMaine9338245243.2104.2%
WaldoMaine5321159250.5107.3%
WashingtonMaine7637767201.286.2%
YorkMaine20682550249.5106.9%
AlconaMichigan165463292.9125.5%
AlgerMichigan2910167285.2122.2%
AlleganMichigan8741839207.989.1%
AlpenaMichigan4620766221.594.9%
AntrimMichigan3310964301.0128.9%
ArenacMichigan249233259.9111.3%
BaragaMichigan249356256.5109.9%
BarryMichigan4622613203.487.1%
BayMichigan18274981242.7104.0%
BenzieMichigan167800205.187.9%
BerrienMichigan23789117265.9113.9%
BranchMichigan5125845197.384.5%
CalhounMichigan20794206219.794.1%
CassMichigan3621910164.370.4%
CharlevoixMichigan3313031253.2108.5%
CheboyganMichigan4313644315.2135.0%
ChippewaMichigan7227807258.9110.9%
ClareMichigan269163283.7121.5%
ClintonMichigan4626671172.573.9%
CrawfordMichigan113765292.2125.1%
DeltaMichigan10634037311.4133.4%
DickinsonMichigan8828731306.3131.2%
EatonMichigan6434124187.680.3%
EmmetMichigan3315791209.089.5%
GeneseeMichigan498227944218.593.6%
GladwinMichigan279385287.7123.2%
GogebicMichigan12731797399.4171.1%
Grand TraverseMichigan4623390196.784.2%
GratiotMichigan5132205158.467.8%
HillsdaleMichigan5529092189.181.0%
HoughtonMichigan13047631272.9116.9%
HuronMichigan7732584236.3101.2%
InghamMichigan322130616246.5105.6%
IoniaMichigan9135710254.8109.2%
IoscoMichigan168560186.980.1%
IronMichigan8220243405.1173.5%
IsabellaMichigan5225982200.185.7%
JacksonMichigan18693108199.885.6%
KalamazooMichigan246100085245.8105.3%
KalkaskaMichigan155159290.8124.5%
KentMichigan583246338236.7101.4%
KeweenawMichigan114004274.7117.7%
LakeMichigan94798187.680.3%
LapeerMichigan6532116202.486.7%
LeelanauMichigan118436130.455.9%
LenaweeMichigan13353110250.4107.3%
LivingstonMichigan4620863220.594.4%
LuceMichigan117423148.263.5%
MackinacMichigan209438211.990.8%
MacombMichigan252107638234.1100.3%
ManisteeMichigan4818450260.2111.4%
MarquetteMichigan10747144227.097.2%
MasonMichigan5619378289.0123.8%
MecostaMichigan4416902260.3111.5%
MenomineeMichigan6124883245.1105.0%
MidlandMichigan6427094236.2101.2%
MissaukeeMichigan198034236.5101.3%
MonroeMichigan13158620223.595.7%
MontcalmMichigan5628581195.983.9%
MontmorencyMichigan103840260.4111.5%
MuskegonMichigan27494501289.9124.2%
NewaygoMichigan4419286228.197.7%
OaklandMichigan600254068236.2101.2%
OceanaMichigan3714812249.8107.0%
OgemawMichigan158720172.073.7%
OntonagonMichigan3911359343.3147.1%
OsceolaMichigan3213309240.4103.0%
OscodaMichigan62543235.9101.1%
OtsegoMichigan115827188.880.9%
OttawaMichigan16659660278.2119.2%
Presque IsleMichigan3212250261.2111.9%
RoscommonMichigan133668354.4151.8%
SaginawMichigan317130468243.0104.1%
SanilacMichigan3930114129.555.5%
SchoolcraftMichigan349524357.0152.9%
ShiawasseeMichigan8141207196.684.2%
St ClairMichigan19576222255.8109.6%
St JosephMichigan6031749189.081.0%
TuscolaMichigan6235694173.774.4%
Van BurenMichigan8535111242.1103.7%
WashtenawMichigan20180810248.7106.5%
WayneMichigan51042015623253.2108.5%
WexfordMichigan4817976267.0114.4%
AitkinMinnesota5017865279.9119.9%
AnokaMinnesota3222443142.661.1%
BeckerMinnesota6126562229.798.4%
BeltramiMinnesota8126107310.3132.9%
BentonMinnesota4716106291.8125.0%
Big St.oneMinnesota3810447363.7155.8%
Blue EarthMinnesota7336203201.686.4%
BrownMinnesota4225544164.470.4%
CarltonMinnesota6624212272.6116.8%
CarverMinnesota2317606130.656.0%
CassMinnesota4320646208.389.2%
ChippewaMinnesota4616927271.8116.4%
ChisagoMinnesota2513124190.581.6%
ClayMinnesota5925337232.999.7%
ClearwaterMinnesota4011153358.6153.6%
CookMinnesota83030264.0113.1%
CottonwoodMinnesota3116143192.082.3%
Crow WingMinnesota8430226277.9119.0%
DakotaMinnesota8639660216.892.9%
DodgeMinnesota1912931146.962.9%
DouglasMinnesota2920369142.461.0%
FaribaultMinnesota5423941225.696.6%
FillmoreMinnesota5425830209.189.6%
FreebornMinnesota8431780264.3113.2%
GoodhueMinnesota7231564228.197.7%
GrantMinnesota189828183.278.5%
HennepinMinnesota1340568899235.5100.9%
HoustonMinnesota2714735183.278.5%
HubbardMinnesota2611085234.6100.5%
IsantiMinnesota2012950154.466.2%
ItascaMinnesota9032996272.8116.8%
JacksonMinnesota3816805226.196.9%
KanabecMinnesota179651176.175.5%
KandiyohiMinnesota5426524203.687.2%
KittsonMinnesota2610717242.6103.9%
KoochichingMinnesota5816930342.6146.7%
Lac Qui ParleMinnesota4515509290.2124.3%
LakeMinnesota186956258.8110.8%
Lake Of The WoodsMinnesota165975267.8114.7%
Le SueurMinnesota2719227140.460.2%
LincolnMinnesota2810797259.3111.1%
LyonMinnesota6221569287.4123.1%
MahnomenMinnesota248054298.0127.6%
MarshallMinnesota3118364168.872.3%
MartinMinnesota5124656206.888.6%
McleodMinnesota4521380210.590.2%
MeekerMinnesota4019277207.588.9%
Mille LacsMinnesota3815558244.2104.6%
MorrisonMinnesota6827473247.5106.0%
MowerMinnesota8836113243.7104.4%
MurrayMinnesota2715060179.376.8%
NicolletMinnesota2918282158.667.9%
NoblesMinnesota4021215188.580.8%
NormanMinnesota3814746257.7110.4%
OlmstedMinnesota8142658189.981.3%
Otter TailMinnesota8753192163.670.1%
PenningtonMinnesota3512913271.0116.1%
PineMinnesota4821478223.595.7%
PipestoneMinnesota3813794275.5118.0%
PolkMinnesota8337734220.094.2%
PopeMinnesota3913544288.0123.3%
RamseyMinnesota746309935240.7103.1%
Red LakeMinnesota177413229.398.2%
RedwoodMinnesota5922290264.7113.4%
RenvilleMinnesota5824625235.5100.9%
RiceMinnesota6032160186.679.9%
RockMinnesota1710933155.566.6%
RoseauMinnesota2715103178.876.6%
ScottMinnesota2115585134.757.7%
SherburneMinnesota3010456286.9122.9%
SibleyMinnesota3016625180.577.3%
St.earnsMinnesota12067200178.676.5%
St.eeleMinnesota4319749217.793.3%
St.evensMinnesota2211039199.385.4%
St LouisMinnesota573206917276.9118.6%
SwiftMinnesota4815469310.3132.9%
ToddMinnesota5427438196.884.3%
TraverseMinnesota198283229.498.3%
WabashaMinnesota4217653237.9101.9%
WadenaMinnesota4112772321.0137.5%
WasecaMinnesota3115186204.187.4%
WashingtonMinnesota5826430219.494.0%
WatonwanMinnesota3413902244.6104.8%
WilkinMinnesota2010475190.981.8%
WinonaMinnesota6437795169.372.5%
WrightMinnesota4227550152.565.3%
Yellow MedicineMinnesota3416917201.086.1%
AdairMissouri4420246217.393.1%
AndrewMissouri2913015222.895.4%
AtchisonMissouri4112897317.9136.2%
AudrainMissouri5722673251.4107.7%
BarryMissouri4523546191.181.9%
BartonMissouri3614148254.5109.0%
BatesMissouri3819531194.683.3%
BentonMissouri2511142224.496.1%
BollingerMissouri1712898131.856.5%
BooneMissouri8434991240.1102.8%
BuchananMissouri21694067229.698.4%
ButlerMissouri6134276178.076.2%
CaldwellMissouri3811629326.8140.0%
CallawayMissouri4323094186.279.8%
CamdenMissouri248971267.5114.6%
Cape GirardeauMissouri8037775211.890.7%
CarrollMissouri3117814174.074.5%
CarterMissouri116226176.775.7%
CassMissouri4419534225.296.5%
CedarMissouri3311697282.1120.8%
CharitonMissouri4018084221.294.7%
ChristianMissouri2313538169.972.8%
ClarkMissouri1210166118.050.6%
ClayMissouri6130417200.585.9%
ClintonMissouri3713261279.0119.5%
ColeMissouri8334912237.7101.8%
CooperMissouri4718075260.0111.4%
CrawfordMissouri4112693323.0138.4%
DadeMissouri2611248231.299.0%
DallasMissouri2111523182.278.1%
DaviessMissouri3513398261.2111.9%
De KalbMissouri199751194.983.5%
DentMissouri3511763297.5127.5%
DouglasMissouri2915600185.979.6%
DunklinMissouri9544957211.390.5%
FranklinMissouri6733868197.884.7%
GasconadeMissouri2412414193.382.8%
GentryMissouri3513359262.0112.2%
GreeneMissouri18690541205.488.0%
GrundyMissouri3415716216.392.7%
HarrisonMissouri3016525181.577.8%
HenryMissouri5322313237.5101.7%
HickoryMissouri86506123.052.7%
HoltMissouri3012476240.5103.0%
HowardMissouri2713026207.388.8%
HowellMissouri7322270327.8140.4%
IronMissouri2510440239.5102.6%
JacksonMissouri1045477828218.793.7%
JasperMissouri19478705246.5105.6%
JeffersonMissouri7432023231.199.0%
JohnsonMissouri4621617212.891.2%
KnoxMissouri168878180.277.2%
LacledeMissouri4318718229.798.4%
LafayetteMissouri8227856294.4126.1%
LawrenceMissouri3824637154.266.1%
LewisMissouri2511490217.693.2%
LincolnMissouri3514395243.1104.1%
LinnMissouri4721416219.594.0%
LivingstonMissouri2918000161.169.0%
MaconMissouri4221396196.384.1%
MadisonMissouri249656248.6106.5%
MariesMissouri158638173.774.4%
MarionMissouri7231576228.097.7%
McdonaldMissouri4015749254.0108.8%
MercerMissouri248766273.8117.3%
MillerMissouri2314798155.466.6%
MississippiMissouri4323149185.879.6%
MoniteauMissouri2711775229.398.2%
MonroeMissouri1913195144.061.7%
MontgomeryMissouri2712442217.093.0%
MorganMissouri3011140269.3115.4%
New MadridMissouri8139787203.687.2%
NewtonMissouri5829039199.785.6%
NodawayMissouri6225556242.6103.9%
OregonMissouri2813390209.189.6%
OsageMissouri2812375226.396.9%
OzarkMissouri2510766232.299.5%
PemiscotMissouri8746857185.779.5%
PerryMissouri2615358169.372.5%
PettisMissouri6133336183.078.4%
PhelpsMissouri4417437252.3108.1%
PikeMissouri3118327169.172.5%
PlatteMissouri3413862245.3105.1%
PolkMissouri4217400241.4103.4%
PulaskiMissouri2210775204.287.5%
PutnamMissouri1711327150.164.3%
RallsMissouri1510040149.464.0%
RandolphMissouri4824458196.384.1%
RayMissouri5118584274.4117.6%
ReynoldsMissouri219370224.196.0%
RipleyMissouri2612606206.388.3%
SalineMissouri7429416251.6107.8%
SchuylerMissouri206627301.8129.3%
ScotlandMissouri198557222.095.1%
ScottMissouri7430377243.6104.3%
ShannonMissouri2011831169.072.4%
ShelbyMissouri1411224124.753.4%
St CharlesMissouri4325562168.272.1%
St ClairMissouri2513146190.281.5%
St.e. GenevieveMissouri2710905247.6106.1%
St FrancoisMissouri7135950197.584.6%
St LouisMissouri453274230165.270.8%
St Louis (city)Missouri1636816048200.585.9%
St.oddardMissouri5333009160.668.8%
St.oneMissouri2611298230.198.6%
SullivanMissouri3413701248.2106.3%
TaneyMissouri2010323193.783.0%
TexasMissouri4819813242.3103.8%
VernonMissouri6625586258.0110.5%
WarrenMissouri167734206.988.6%
WashingtonMissouri3917492223.095.5%
WayneMissouri2812794218.993.7%
WebsterMissouri3117226180.077.1%
WorthMissouri156345236.4101.3%
WrightMissouri3917967217.193.0%
AdamsMississippi3627238132.256.6%
AlcornMississippi5926969218.893.7%
AmiteMississippi3121892141.660.7%
AttalaMississippi5130227168.772.3%
BentonMississippi2410429230.198.6%
BolivarMississippi676757499.242.5%
CalhounMississippi5220893248.9106.6%
CarrollMississippi2920651140.460.2%
ChickasawMississippi3721427172.774.0%
ChoctawMississippi3113548228.898.0%
ClaiborneMississippi1812810140.560.2%
ClarkeMississippi3220596155.466.6%
ClayMississippi3019030157.667.5%
CoahomaMississippi5048333103.444.3%
CopiahMississippi5833974170.773.1%
CovingtonMississippi3217030187.980.5%
De SotoMississippi262666397.541.8%
ForrestMississippi8834901252.1108.0%
FranklinMississippi3012504239.9102.8%
GeorgeMississippi228704252.8108.3%
GreeneMississippi239512241.8103.6%
GrenadaMississippi4219052220.494.4%
HancockMississippi2311328203.087.0%
HarrisonMississippi11950799234.3100.3%
HindsMississippi222107273206.988.6%
HolmesMississippi4439710110.847.5%
HumphreysMississippi4226257160.068.5%
IssaquenaMississippi76433108.846.6%
ItawambaMississippi4519922225.996.8%
JacksonMississippi6120601296.1126.8%
JasperMississippi3519484179.676.9%
JeffersonMississippi1613969114.549.1%
Jefferson DavisMississippi91586956.724.3%
JonesMississippi8449227170.673.1%
KemperMississippi3321867150.964.6%
LafayetteMississippi4621257216.492.7%
LamarMississippi4012096330.7141.6%
LauderdaleMississippi11158247190.681.6%
LawrenceMississippi2613983185.979.6%
LeakeMississippi4224570170.973.2%
LeeMississippi10138838260.1111.4%
LefloreMississippi5953406110.547.3%
LincolnMississippi4327506156.367.0%
LowndesMississippi5535245156.166.8%
MadisonMississippi373750498.742.3%
MarionMississippi4424085182.778.3%
MarshallMississippi182552270.530.2%
MonroeMississippi6237648164.770.5%
MontgomeryMississippi3715703235.6100.9%
NeshobaMississippi3327882118.450.7%
NewtonMississippi4524249185.679.5%
NoxubeeMississippi252566997.441.7%
OktibbehaMississippi3822151171.573.5%
PanolaMississippi3734421107.546.0%
Pearl RiverMississippi4819125251.0107.5%
PerryMississippi9929296.941.5%
PikeMississippi7035002200.085.7%
PontotocMississippi4322904187.780.4%
PrentissMississippi3820921181.677.8%
QuitmanMississippi3527191128.755.1%
RankinMississippi212793475.232.2%
ScottMississippi3723144159.968.5%
SharkeyMississippi101543364.827.8%
SimpsonMississippi4322024195.283.6%
SmithMississippi4019403206.288.3%
St.oneMississippi146155227.597.4%
SunflowerMississippi576100793.440.0%
TallahatchieMississippi303416687.837.6%
TateMississippi191930998.442.1%
TippahMississippi5219680264.2113.2%
TishomingoMississippi4316974253.3108.5%
TunicaMississippi152261066.328.4%
UnionMississippi5321867242.4103.8%
WalthallMississippi2217534125.553.7%
WarrenMississippi5239595131.356.3%
WashingtonMississippi7167576105.145.0%
WayneMississippi3016928177.275.9%
WebsterMississippi2614160183.678.7%
WilkinsonMississippi2315955144.261.7%
WinstonMississippi4022751175.875.3%
YalobushaMississippi3718387201.286.2%
YazooMississippi4640091114.749.1%
BeaverheadMontana186943259.3111.1%
Big HornMontana2210419211.290.4%
BlaineMontana319566324.1138.8%
BroadwaterMontana173451492.6211.0%
CarbonMontana4411865370.8158.8%
CarterMontana213280640.2274.2%
CascadeMontana11441999271.4116.3%
ChouteauMontana257316341.7146.4%
CusterMontana3010422287.9123.3%
DanielsMontana104563219.293.9%
DawsonMontana368618417.7178.9%
Deer LodgeMontana4113627300.9128.9%
FallonMontana143719376.4161.2%
FergusMontana4214040299.1128.1%
FlatheadMontana8124271333.7143.0%
GallatinMontana5818269317.5136.0%
GarfieldMontana132641492.2210.8%
GlacierMontana279034298.9128.0%
Golden ValleyMontana81607497.8213.2%
GraniteMontana113401323.4138.5%
HillMontana4113304308.2132.0%
JeffersonMontana104664214.491.8%
Judith BasinMontana73655191.582.0%
LakeMontana3513490259.5111.1%
Lewis And ClarkMontana5622131253.0108.4%
LibertyMontana32209135.858.2%
LincolnMontana167882203.087.0%
MadisonMontana117294150.864.6%
McconeMontana103798263.3112.8%
MeagherMontana52237223.595.7%
MineralMontana62135281.0120.4%
MissoulaMontana7729038265.2113.6%
MusselshellMontana155717262.4112.4%
ParkMontana3311566285.3122.2%
PetroleumMontana31083277.0118.7%
PhillipsMontana307892380.1162.8%
PonderaMontana176716253.1108.4%
Powder RiverMontana43159126.654.2%
PowellMontana136152211.390.5%
PrairieMontana102410414.9177.7%
RavalliMontana3712978285.1122.1%
RichlandMontana2510209244.9104.9%
RooseveltMontana379806377.3161.6%
RosebudMontana166477247.0105.8%
SandersMontana136926187.780.4%
SheridanMontana177814217.693.2%
Silver BowMontana12053207225.596.6%
St.illwaterMontana105694175.675.2%
Sweet GrassMontana83719215.192.1%
TetonMontana186922260.0111.4%
TooleMontana196769280.7120.2%
TreasureMontana41499266.8114.3%
ValleyMontana3015181197.684.6%
WheatlandMontana153286456.5195.5%
WibauxMontana82161370.2158.6%
YellowstoneMontana9941182240.4103.0%
Yellowstone Np (pt)Montana1432325.6996.2%
AlamanceNorth Carolina15357427266.4114.1%
AlexanderNorth Carolina4813454356.8152.8%
AlleghanyNorth Carolina218341251.8107.8%
AnsonNorth Carolina3928443137.158.7%
AsheNorth Carolina5322664233.9100.2%
AveryNorth Carolina4213561309.7132.7%
BeaufortNorth Carolina5636431153.765.8%
BertieNorth Carolina3426201129.855.6%
BladenNorth Carolina3927156143.661.5%
BrunswickNorth Carolina2517125146.062.5%
BuncombeNorth Carolina255108755234.5100.4%
BurkeNorth Carolina10938615282.3120.9%
CabarrusNorth Carolina17159393287.9123.3%
CaldwellNorth Carolina8735795243.1104.1%
CamdenNorth Carolina5544091.939.4%
CarteretNorth Carolina2618284142.260.9%
CaswellNorth Carolina2320032114.849.2%
CatawbaNorth Carolina11451653220.794.5%
ChathamNorth Carolina3624726145.662.4%
CherokeeNorth Carolina4718813249.8107.0%
ChowanNorth Carolina1611572138.359.2%
ClayNorth Carolina126405187.480.3%
ClevelandNorth Carolina12258055210.190.0%
ColumbusNorth Carolina8845663192.782.5%
CravenNorth Carolina3431298108.646.5%
CumberlandNorth Carolina12859320215.892.4%
CurrituckNorth Carolina76709104.344.7%
DareNorth Carolina5604182.835.5%
DavidsonNorth Carolina12153377226.797.1%
DavieNorth Carolina3714909248.2106.3%
DuplinNorth Carolina6639739166.171.1%
DurhamNorth Carolina15780244195.783.8%
EdgecombeNorth Carolina5149162103.744.4%
ForsythNorth Carolina265126475209.589.8%
FranklinNorth Carolina263038285.636.7%
GastonNorth Carolina25487531290.2124.3%
GatesNorth Carolina1210060119.351.1%
GrahamNorth Carolina176418264.9113.5%
GranvilleNorth Carolina3429344115.949.6%
GreeneNorth Carolina2018548107.846.2%
GuilfordNorth Carolina355153916230.698.8%
HalifaxNorth Carolina7956512139.859.9%
HarnettNorth Carolina6544239146.962.9%
HaywoodNorth Carolina10034804287.3123.1%
HendersonNorth Carolina6026049230.398.7%
HertfordNorth Carolina2619352134.457.5%
HokeNorth Carolina141493793.740.1%
HydeNorth Carolina147860178.176.3%
IredellNorth Carolina9750424192.482.4%
JacksonNorth Carolina5519366284.0121.7%
JohnstonNorth Carolina9863798153.665.8%
JonesNorth Carolina91092682.435.3%
LeeNorth Carolina5318743282.8121.1%
LenoirNorth Carolina6841211165.070.7%
LincolnNorth Carolina7124187293.5125.7%
MaconNorth Carolina4415880277.1118.7%
MadisonNorth Carolina4322522190.981.8%
MartinNorth Carolina3126111118.750.9%
McdowellNorth Carolina6222996269.6115.5%
MecklenburgNorth Carolina363151826239.1102.4%
MitchellNorth Carolina3515980219.093.8%
MontgomeryNorth Carolina4016280245.7105.2%
MooreNorth Carolina7130969229.398.2%
NashNorth Carolina9255608165.470.9%
New HanoverNorth Carolina9447935196.184.0%
NorthamptonNorth Carolina222829977.733.3%
OnslowNorth Carolina4117939228.697.9%
OrangeNorth Carolina4223072182.078.0%
PamlicoNorth Carolina129706123.653.0%
PasquotankNorth Carolina2620568126.454.1%
PenderNorth Carolina2217710124.253.2%
PerquimansNorth Carolina139773133.057.0%
PersonNorth Carolina5325029211.890.7%
PittNorth Carolina8061244130.656.0%
PolkNorth Carolina3411874286.3122.7%
RandolphNorth Carolina8644554193.082.7%
RichmondNorth Carolina6336810171.173.3%
RobesonNorth Carolina14176860183.578.6%
RockinghamNorth Carolina13157898226.396.9%
RowanNorth Carolina14669206211.090.4%
RutherfordNorth Carolina8845577193.182.7%
SampsonNorth Carolina5647440118.050.6%
ScotlandNorth Carolina3823232163.670.1%
St.anlyNorth Carolina7632834231.599.1%
St.okesNorth Carolina3922656172.173.7%
SurryNorth Carolina11341783270.4115.8%
SwainNorth Carolina4312177353.1151.3%
TransylvaniaNorth Carolina3512241285.9122.5%
TyrrellNorth Carolina85556144.061.7%
UnionNorth Carolina8939097227.697.5%
VanceNorth Carolina6729961223.695.8%
WakeNorth Carolina198109544180.777.4%
WarrenNorth Carolina3523145151.264.8%
WashingtonNorth Carolina2012323162.369.5%
WataugaNorth Carolina3518114193.282.8%
WayneNorth Carolina8258328140.660.2%
WilkesNorth Carolina9743003225.696.6%
WilsonNorth Carolina8750219173.274.2%
YadkinNorth Carolina3520657169.472.6%
YanceyNorth Carolina2917202168.672.2%
AdamsNorth Dakota84664171.573.5%
BarnesNorth Dakota4117814230.298.6%
BensonNorth Dakota3412629269.2115.3%
BillingsNorth Dakota92531355.6152.3%
BottineauNorth Dakota3213253241.5103.4%
BowmanNorth Dakota133860336.8144.3%
BurkeNorth Dakota217653274.4117.5%
BurleighNorth Dakota4722736206.788.5%
CassNorth Dakota14752849278.2119.1%
CavalierNorth Dakota3313923237.0101.5%
DickeyNorth Dakota259696257.8110.4%
DivideNorth Dakota157086211.790.7%
DunnNorth Dakota248376286.5122.7%
EddyNorth Dakota155741261.3111.9%
EmmonsNorth Dakota2411699205.187.9%
FosterNorth Dakota155824257.6110.3%
Golden ValleyNorth Dakota113498314.5134.7%
Grand ForksNorth Dakota9534518275.2117.9%
GrantNorth Dakota138264157.367.4%
GriggsNorth Dakota165818275.0117.8%
HettingerNorth Dakota217457281.6120.6%
KidderNorth Dakota166692239.1102.4%
La MoureNorth Dakota2510298242.8104.0%
LoganNorth Dakota167561211.690.6%
MchenryNorth Dakota3114034220.994.6%
McintoshNorth Dakota208984222.695.4%
MckenzieNorth Dakota228426261.1111.8%
McleanNorth Dakota4516082279.8119.9%
MercerNorth Dakota9961193.640.1%
MortonNorth Dakota4320184213.091.3%
MountrailNorth Dakota2510482238.5102.2%
NelsonNorth Dakota249129262.9112.6%
OliverNorth Dakota3385977.733.3%
PembinaNorth Dakota3815671242.5103.9%
PierceNorth Dakota199208206.388.4%
RamseyNorth Dakota3615626230.498.7%
RansomNorth Dakota2810061278.3119.2%
RenvilleNorth Dakota155533271.1116.1%
RichlandNorth Dakota4120519199.885.6%
RoletteNorth Dakota3212583254.3108.9%
SargentNorth Dakota228693253.1108.4%
SheridanNorth Dakota136616196.584.2%
SiouxNorth Dakota114419248.9106.6%
SlopeNorth Dakota72932238.7102.3%
St.arkNorth Dakota3915414253.0108.4%
St.eeleNorth Dakota206193322.9138.3%
St.utsmanNorth Dakota5723495242.6103.9%
TownerNorth Dakota177200236.1101.1%
TraillNorth Dakota3712300300.8128.9%
WalshNorth Dakota6620747318.1136.3%
WardNorth Dakota8231981256.4109.8%
WellsNorth Dakota3311198294.7126.2%
WilliamsNorth Dakota5816315355.5152.3%
AdamsNebraska6424576260.4111.5%
AntelopeNebraska3013289225.896.7%
ArthurNebraska1104595.741.0%
BannerNebraska014030.00.0%
BlaineNebraska41538260.1111.4%
BooneNebraska2212127181.477.7%
Box ButteNebraska101073693.139.9%
BoydNebraska76060115.549.5%
BrownNebraska125962201.386.2%
BuffaloNebraska4823655202.986.9%
BurtNebraska3312546263.0112.7%
ButlerNebraska2713106206.088.2%
CassNebraska3716992217.793.3%
CedarNebraska3415126224.896.3%
ChaseNebraska155310282.5121.0%
CherryNebraska329637332.1142.2%
CheyenneNebraska179505178.976.6%
ClayNebraska1910445181.977.9%
ColfaxNebraska3110627291.7125.0%
CumingNebraska1913562140.160.0%
CusterNebraska4722591208.089.1%
DakotaNebraska249836244.0104.5%
DawesNebraska2610128256.7110.0%
DawsonNebraska5417890301.8129.3%
DeuelNebraska123580335.2143.6%
DixonNebraska1810413172.974.0%
DodgeNebraska5223799218.593.6%
DouglasNebraska595247562240.3103.0%
DundyNebraska105122195.283.6%
FillmoreNebraska2411417210.290.0%
FranklinNebraska197740245.5105.2%
FrontierNebraska116417171.473.4%
FurnasNebraska2410098237.7101.8%
GageNebraska7529588253.5108.6%
GardenNebraska124680256.4109.8%
GarfieldNebraska153444435.5186.6%
GosperNebraska103687271.2116.2%
GrantNebraska91327678.2290.5%
GreeleyNebraska166845233.7100.1%
HallNebraska7827523283.4121.4%
HamiltonNebraska169982160.368.7%
HarlanNebraska87130112.248.1%
HayesNebraska62958202.886.9%
HitchcockNebraska166404249.8107.0%
HoltNebraska4816552290.0124.2%
HookerNebraska51253399.0170.9%
HowardNebraska158422178.176.3%
JeffersonNebraska3815532244.7104.8%
JohnsonNebraska198662219.394.0%
KearneyNebraska116854160.568.7%
KeithNebraska198333228.097.7%
Keya PahaNebraska53235154.666.2%
KimballNebraska93913230.098.5%
KnoxNebraska3216478194.283.2%
LancasterNebraska233100585231.699.2%
LincolnNebraska7125425279.3119.6%
LoganNebraska151742861.1368.8%
LoupNebraska31777168.872.3%
MadisonNebraska5224269214.391.8%
McphersonNebraska1117585.136.5%
MerrickNebraska249354256.6109.9%
MorrillNebraska219436222.695.3%
NanceNebraska117653143.761.6%
NemahaNebraska4512781352.1150.8%
NuckollsNebraska2110446201.086.1%
OtoeNebraska3918994205.388.0%
PawneeNebraska168514187.980.5%
PerkinsNebraska5519796.241.2%
PhelpsNebraska118452130.155.7%
PierceNebraska2110211205.788.1%
PlatteNebraska4020191198.184.9%
PolkNebraska128748137.258.8%
Red WillowNebraska2011951167.471.7%
RichardsonNebraska4419178229.498.3%
RockNebraska93977226.396.9%
SalineNebraska3315010219.994.2%
SarpyNebraska1610835147.763.3%
SaundersNebraska3717892206.888.6%
Scotts BluffNebraska5933917174.074.5%
SewardNebraska2914167204.787.7%
SheridanNebraska229869222.995.5%
ShermanNebraska147764180.377.2%
SiouxNebraska3400175.032.1%
St.antonNebraska126887174.274.6%
ThayerNebraska3212262261.0111.8%
ThomasNebraska51553322.0137.9%
ThurstonNebraska2210243214.892.0%
ValleyNebraska158163183.878.7%
WashingtonNebraska2511578215.992.5%
WayneNebraska189880182.278.0%
WebsterNebraska148071173.574.3%
WheelerNebraska2217092.239.5%
YorkNebraska2314874154.666.2%
BelknapNew Hampshire5024328205.588.0%
CarrollNew Hampshire3415589218.193.4%
CheshireNew Hampshire9234953263.2112.7%
CoosNew Hampshire9939274252.1108.0%
GraftonNew Hampshire12444645277.7119.0%
HillsboroughNew Hampshire360144888248.5106.4%
MerrimackNew Hampshire11360710186.179.7%
RockinghamNew Hampshire13458142230.598.7%
St.raffordNew Hampshire10843553248.0106.2%
SullivanNew Hampshire8025442314.4134.7%
AtlanticNew Jersey236124066190.281.5%
BergenNew Jersey1054409646257.3110.2%
BurlingtonNew Jersey24397013250.5107.3%
CamdenNew Jersey608255727237.8101.8%
Cape MayNew Jersey7628919262.8112.6%
CumberlandNew Jersey15273184207.789.0%
EssexNew Jersey2000837340238.9102.3%
GloucesterNew Jersey18372219253.4108.5%
HudsonNew Jersey1602652040245.7105.2%
HunterdonNew Jersey7736766209.489.7%
MercerNew Jersey517197318262.0112.2%
MiddlesexNew Jersey673217077310.0132.8%
MonmouthNew Jersey355161238220.294.3%
MorrisNew Jersey302125732240.2102.9%
OceanNew Jersey8537706225.496.6%
PassaicNew Jersey759309353245.4105.1%
SalemNew Jersey9142274215.392.2%
SomersetNew Jersey18274390244.7104.8%
SussexNew Jersey8729632293.6125.8%
UnionNew Jersey851328344259.2111.0%
WarrenNew Jersey12050181239.1102.4%
BernalilloNew Mexico35469391510.2218.5%
CatronNew Mexico144881286.8122.9%
ChavesNew Mexico9323980387.8166.1%
ColfaxNew Mexico6118718325.9139.6%
CurryNew Mexico8418159462.6198.1%
De BacaNew Mexico183725483.2207.0%
Dona AnaNew Mexico9830411322.3138.0%
EddyNew Mexico11624311477.2204.4%
GrantNew Mexico10820050538.7230.7%
GuadalupeNew Mexico298646335.4143.7%
HardingNew Mexico134374297.2127.3%
HidalgoNew Mexico144821290.4124.4%
LeaNew Mexico6521154307.3131.6%
LincolnNew Mexico348557397.3170.2%
LunaNew Mexico586457898.2384.8%
MckinleyNew Mexico10323641435.7186.6%
MoraNew Mexico4110981373.4159.9%
OteroNew Mexico3710522351.6150.6%
QuayNew Mexico2412111198.284.9%
Rio ArribaNew Mexico6025352236.7101.4%
RooseveltNew Mexico4514549309.3132.5%
SandovalNew Mexico4113898295.0126.4%
San JuanNew Mexico4517115262.9112.6%
San MiguelNew Mexico7127910254.4109.0%
Santa FeNew Mexico11730826379.5162.6%
SierraNew Mexico256962359.1153.8%
SocorroNew Mexico3611422315.2135.0%
TaosNew Mexico6918528372.4159.5%
TorranceNew Mexico3311026299.3128.2%
UnionNew Mexico319095340.8146.0%
ValenciaNew Mexico8220245405.0173.5%
ChurchillNevada205317376.2161.1%
ClarkNevada6916414420.4180.1%
DouglasNevada72056340.5145.8%
ElkoNevada3210912293.3125.6%
EsmeraldaNevada015540.00.0%
EurekaNevada41361293.9125.9%
HumboldtNevada124743253.0108.4%
LanderNevada61745343.8147.3%
LincolnNevada124130290.6124.5%
LyonNevada114076269.9115.6%
MineralNevada162342683.2292.6%
NyeNevada113606305.0130.7%
PershingNevada82713294.9126.3%
St.oreyNevada31216246.7105.7%
WashoeNevada8832476271.0116.1%
White PineNevada2512377202.086.5%
AlbanyNew York556221315251.2107.6%
AlleganyNew York12539681315.0134.9%
BronxNew York20141394711144.461.9%
BroomeNew York438165749264.3113.2%
CattaraugusNew York19172652262.9112.6%
CayugaNew York17265508262.6112.5%
ChautauquaNew York345123580279.2119.6%
ChemungNew York19473718263.2112.7%
ChenangoNew York10336454282.5121.0%
ClintonNew York11854006218.593.6%
ColumbiaNew York9641464231.599.2%
CortlandNew York7333668216.892.9%
DelawareNew York11040989268.4115.0%
DutchessNew York314120542260.5111.6%
ErieNew York2077798377260.2111.4%
EssexNew York11434178333.5142.9%
FranklinNew York10444286234.8100.6%
FultonNew York10848597222.295.2%
GeneseeNew York11344481254.0108.8%
GreeneNew York7727926275.7118.1%
HamiltonNew York224188525.3225.0%
HerkimerNew York16559527277.2118.7%
JeffersonNew York22084003261.9112.2%
KingsNew York58402698285216.492.7%
LewisNew York6122815267.4114.5%
LivingstonNew York7138510184.479.0%
MadisonNew York10339598260.1111.4%
MonroeNew York1051438230239.8102.7%
MontgomeryNew York17559142295.9126.7%
NassauNew York855406748210.290.0%
New YorkNew York49101889924259.8111.3%
NiagaraNew York515160110321.7137.8%
OneidaNew York534203636262.2112.3%
OnondagaNew York787295108266.7114.2%
OntarioNew York12955307233.299.9%
OrangeNew York305140113217.793.2%
OrleansNew York10027760360.2154.3%
OswegoNew York19271275269.4115.4%
OtsegoNew York11046082238.7102.2%
PutnamNew York4416555265.8113.8%
QueensNew York29971297634231.098.9%
RensselaerNew York282121834231.599.1%
RichmondNew York346174441198.385.0%
RocklandNew York15874261212.891.1%
SaratogaNew York17865606271.3116.2%
SchenectadyNew York278122494226.997.2%
SchoharieNew York3520812168.272.0%
SchuylerNew York3712979285.1122.1%
SenecaNew York5025732194.383.2%
St.eubenNew York23284927273.2117.0%
St LawrenceNew York24691098270.0115.7%
SuffolkNew York325197355164.770.5%
SullivanNew York9137901240.1102.8%
TiogaNew York6327072232.799.7%
TompkinsNew York9742340229.198.1%
UlsterNew York19787017226.497.0%
WarrenNew York9636035266.4114.1%
WashingtonNew York11346726241.8103.6%
WayneNew York14052747265.4113.7%
WestchesterNew York1295573558225.896.7%
WyomingNew York6031394191.181.9%
YatesNew York4916381299.1128.1%
AdamsOhio5821705267.2114.5%
AllenOhio17173303233.399.9%
AshlandOhio7529785251.8107.9%
AshtabulaOhio16068674233.099.8%
AthensOhio12946166279.4119.7%
AuglaizeOhio7228037256.8110.0%
BelmontOhio25295614263.6112.9%
BrownOhio4321638198.785.1%
ButlerOhio307120249255.3109.4%
CarrollOhio4117449235.0100.6%
ChampaignOhio4725258186.179.7%
ClarkOhio21895647227.997.6%
ClermontOhio7134109208.289.2%
ClintonOhio4822574212.691.1%
ColumbianaOhio24790121274.1117.4%
CoshoctonOhio6830594222.395.2%
CrawfordOhio7435571208.089.1%
CuyahogaOhio30041217250246.8105.7%
DarkeOhio9138831234.3100.4%
DefianceOhio5224367213.491.4%
DelawareOhio5326780197.984.8%
ErieOhio8943201206.088.2%
FairfieldOhio9648490198.084.8%
FayetteOhio6021385280.6120.2%
FranklinOhio890388712229.098.1%
FultonOhio5423626228.697.9%
GalliaOhio6124930244.7104.8%
GeaugaOhio4519430231.699.2%
GreeneOhio7735863214.792.0%
GuernseyOhio8238822211.290.5%
HamiltonOhio1357621987218.293.5%
HancockOhio9440793230.498.7%
HardinOhio7727061284.5121.9%
HarrisonOhio5720313280.6120.2%
HenryOhio6622756290.0124.2%
HighlandOhio5927099217.793.3%
HockingOhio4321504200.085.7%
HolmesOhio3417876190.281.5%
HuronOhio9734800278.7119.4%
JacksonOhio6127004225.996.8%
JeffersonOhio27098129275.1117.9%
KnoxOhio7731024248.2106.3%
LakeOhio13150020261.9112.2%
LawrenceOhio8946705190.681.6%
LickingOhio12262279195.983.9%
LoganOhio5229624175.575.2%
LorainOhio321112390285.6122.3%
LucasOhio763344333221.694.9%
MadisonOhio5421811247.6106.1%
MahoningOhio654240251272.2116.6%
MarionOhio10944898242.8104.0%
MedinaOhio6433034193.783.0%
MeigsOhio7024104290.4124.4%
MercerOhio6026256228.597.9%
MiamiOhio14452632273.6117.2%
MonroeOhio4818641257.5110.3%
MontgomeryOhio688295480232.899.7%
MorganOhio2514227175.775.3%
MorrowOhio2515646159.868.4%
MuskingumOhio16669795237.8101.9%
NobleOhio2614587178.276.3%
OttawaOhio10324360422.8181.1%
PauldingOhio3215527206.188.3%
PerryOhio7931087254.1108.9%
PickawayOhio4627889164.970.7%
PikeOhio3616113223.495.7%
PortageOhio13946660297.9127.6%
PrebleOhio7723329330.1141.4%
PutnamOhio5025016199.985.6%
RichlandOhio16873853227.597.4%
RossOhio11152147212.991.2%
SanduskyOhio9141014221.995.0%
SciotoOhio18386565211.490.6%
SenecaOhio10548499216.592.7%
ShelbyOhio7426071283.8121.6%
St.arkOhio673234887286.5122.7%
SummitOhio940339405277.0118.6%
TrumbullOhio397132315300.0128.5%
TuscarawasOhio16868816244.1104.6%
UnionOhio4320012214.992.0%
Van WertOhio7126759265.3113.7%
VintonOhio2611573224.796.2%
WarrenOhio7529894250.9107.5%
WashingtonOhio11443537261.8112.2%
WayneOhio9750520192.082.2%
WilliamsOhio4525510176.475.6%
WoodOhio11551796222.095.1%
WyandotOhio4219218218.593.6%
AdairOklahoma4615755292.0125.1%
AlfalfaOklahoma3014129212.391.0%
AtokaOklahoma4118702219.293.9%
BeaverOklahoma178648196.684.2%
BeckhamOklahoma5522169248.1106.3%
BlaineOklahoma3918543210.390.1%
BryanOklahoma8338138217.693.2%
CaddoOklahoma8941567214.191.7%
CanadianOklahoma4827329175.675.2%
CarterOklahoma8543292196.384.1%
CherokeeOklahoma6321030299.6128.3%
ChoctawOklahoma5828358204.587.6%
CimarronOklahoma153654410.5175.8%
ClevelandOklahoma7527728270.5115.9%
CoalOklahoma1612811124.953.5%
ComancheOklahoma9338988238.5102.2%
CottonOklahoma3212884248.4106.4%
CraigOklahoma5021083237.2101.6%
CreekOklahoma11855503212.691.1%
CusterOklahoma6023068260.1111.4%
DelawareOklahoma2518592134.557.6%
DeweyOklahoma3011981250.4107.3%
EllisOklahoma288466330.7141.7%
GarfieldOklahoma11945484261.6112.1%
GarvinOklahoma7431150237.6101.8%
GradyOklahoma7941116192.182.3%
GrantOklahoma3413128259.0110.9%
GreerOklahoma3614550247.4106.0%
HarmonOklahoma3010019299.4128.3%
HarperOklahoma166454247.9106.2%
HaskellOklahoma4317324248.2106.3%
HughesOklahoma7129189243.2104.2%
JacksonOklahoma6422708281.8120.7%
JeffersonOklahoma3215107211.890.7%
JohnstonOklahoma3115960194.283.2%
KayOklahoma13147084278.2119.2%
KingfisherOklahoma2015617128.154.9%
KiowaOklahoma4422817192.882.6%
LatimerOklahoma3112380250.4107.3%
Le FloreOklahoma10545866228.998.1%
LincolnOklahoma6929529233.7100.1%
LoganOklahoma4925245194.183.1%
LoveOklahoma2111433183.778.7%
MajorOklahoma2511946209.389.6%
MarshallOklahoma2412384193.883.0%
MayesOklahoma5421668249.2106.8%
McclainOklahoma4319205223.995.9%
MccurtainOklahoma9441318227.597.5%
McintoshOklahoma5124097211.690.7%
MurrayOklahoma2113841151.765.0%
MuskogeeOklahoma14465914218.593.6%
NobleOklahoma4214826283.3121.3%
NowataOklahoma4115774259.9111.3%
OkfuskeeOklahoma5826279220.794.5%
OklahomaOklahoma580244159237.6101.8%
OkmulgeeOklahoma12850101255.5109.4%
OsageOklahoma10641502255.4109.4%
OttawaOklahoma7735849214.892.0%
PawneeOklahoma5517395316.2135.4%
PayneOklahoma10736057296.8127.1%
PittsburgOklahoma10748985218.493.6%
PontotocOklahoma10339792258.8110.9%
PottawatomieOklahoma10754377196.884.3%
PushmatahaOklahoma5519466282.5121.0%
Roger MillsOklahoma1910736177.075.8%
RogersOklahoma4921078232.599.6%
SeminoleOklahoma11361201184.679.1%
SequoyahOklahoma4923138211.890.7%
St.ephensOklahoma6331090202.686.8%
TexasOklahoma269896262.7112.5%
TillmanOklahoma3420754163.870.2%
TulsaOklahoma511193363264.3113.2%
WagonerOklahoma4521642207.989.1%
WashingtonOklahoma9130559297.8127.6%
WashitaOklahoma4122279184.078.8%
WoodsOklahoma4314915288.3123.5%
WoodwardOklahoma3616270221.394.8%
BakerOregon4218297229.598.3%
BentonOregon5518629295.2126.5%
ClackamasOregon11157130194.383.2%
ClatsopOregon4524697182.278.0%
ColumbiaOregon5020971238.4102.1%
CoosOregon7532466231.099.0%
CrookOregon145533253.0108.4%
CurryOregon124301279.0119.5%
DeschutesOregon4918631263.0112.7%
DouglasOregon6725728260.4111.5%
GilliamOregon72844246.1105.4%
GrantOregon146380219.494.0%
HarneyOregon115374204.787.7%
Hood RiverOregon2111580181.377.7%
JacksonOregon11636213320.3137.2%
JeffersonOregon112042538.7230.7%
JosephineOregon3816301233.199.9%
KlamathOregon11340497279.0119.5%
LakeOregon216293333.7142.9%
LaneOregon17769096256.2109.7%
LincolnOregon2814549192.582.4%
LinnOregon8330485272.3116.6%
MalheurOregon4519767227.797.5%
MarionOregon16375246216.692.8%
MorrowOregon134337299.7128.4%
MultnomahOregon965355099271.8116.4%
PolkOregon3719989185.179.3%
ShermanOregon132321560.1239.9%
TillamookOregon4912263399.6171.2%
UmatillaOregon8626030330.4141.5%
UnionOregon3717399212.791.1%
WallowaOregon197623249.2106.8%
WascoOregon2213069168.372.1%
WashingtonOregon9239194234.7100.5%
WheelerOregon132974437.1187.2%
YamhillOregon7226336273.4117.1%
AdamsPennsylvania11039435278.9119.5%
AlleghenyPennsylvania39821411539282.1120.8%
ArmstrongPennsylvania26481087325.6139.5%
BeaverPennsylvania479156754305.6130.9%
BedfordPennsylvania10940809267.1114.4%
BerksPennsylvania619241884255.9109.6%
BlairPennsylvania453140358322.7138.2%
BradfordPennsylvania11850615233.199.9%
BucksPennsylvania264107715245.1105.0%
ButlerPennsylvania22887590260.3111.5%
CambriaPennsylvania696213459326.1139.7%
CameronPennsylvania266852379.5162.5%
CarbonPennsylvania21561735348.3149.2%
CentrePennsylvania13652608258.5110.7%
ChesterPennsylvania314135626231.599.2%
ClarionPennsylvania11238410291.6124.9%
ClearfieldPennsylvania26392094285.6122.3%
ClintonPennsylvania11534557332.8142.5%
ColumbiaPennsylvania17551413340.4145.8%
CrawfordPennsylvania16671644231.799.2%
CumberlandPennsylvania19974806266.0113.9%
DauphinPennsylvania447177410252.0107.9%
DelawarePennsylvania754310756242.6103.9%
ElkPennsylvania10334443299.0128.1%
EriePennsylvania514180889284.2121.7%
FayettePennsylvania639200999317.9136.2%
ForestPennsylvania175791293.6125.7%
FranklinPennsylvania18469378265.2113.6%
FultonPennsylvania2710673253.0108.4%
GreenePennsylvania12344671275.3117.9%
HuntingdonPennsylvania12941836308.3132.1%
IndianaPennsylvania26279854328.1140.5%
JeffersonPennsylvania15754090290.3124.3%
JuniataPennsylvania3915373253.7108.7%
LackawannaPennsylvania846301243280.8120.3%
LancasterPennsylvania453212504213.291.3%
LawrencePennsylvania28096877289.0123.8%
LebanonPennsylvania20472641280.8120.3%
LehighPennsylvania391177533220.294.3%
LuzernePennsylvania1216441518275.4118.0%
LycomingPennsylvania25293633269.1115.3%
MckeanPennsylvania16456673289.4124.0%
MercerPennsylvania239101039236.5101.3%
MifflinPennsylvania9742993225.696.6%
MonroePennsylvania8129802271.8116.4%
MontgomeryPennsylvania654289247226.196.9%
MontourPennsylvania4315466278.0119.1%
NorthamptonPennsylvania474168959280.5120.2%
NorthumberlandPennsylvania407126887320.8137.4%
PerryPennsylvania5623213241.2103.3%
PhiladelphiaPennsylvania43921931334227.497.4%
PikePennsylvania237452308.6132.2%
PotterPennsylvania3318201181.377.7%
SchuylkillPennsylvania680228331297.8127.6%
SnyderPennsylvania5020208247.4106.0%
SomersetPennsylvania28184957330.8141.7%
SullivanPennsylvania277504359.8154.1%
SusquehannaPennsylvania8833893259.6111.2%
TiogaPennsylvania10335004294.3126.0%
UnionPennsylvania4120247202.586.7%
VenangoPennsylvania14363958223.695.8%
WarrenPennsylvania12342789287.5123.1%
WashingtonPennsylvania649210852307.8131.8%
WaynePennsylvania8129934270.6115.9%
WestmorelandPennsylvania940303411309.8132.7%
WyomingPennsylvania3616702215.592.3%
YorkPennsylvania396178022222.495.3%
BristolRhode Island5925548230.998.9%
KentRhode Island16058311274.4117.5%
NewportRhode Island9046696192.782.6%
ProvidenceRhode Island1258550298228.697.9%
WashingtonRhode Island7632493233.9100.2%
AbbevilleSouth Carolina4722931205.087.8%
AikenSouth Carolina6749916134.257.5%
AllendaleSouth Carolina1813040138.059.1%
AndersonSouth Carolina18188712204.087.4%
BambergSouth Carolina181864396.641.4%
BarnwellSouth Carolina192013894.340.4%
BeaufortSouth Carolina3122037140.760.3%
BerkeleySouth Carolina2827128103.244.2%
CalhounSouth Carolina161622998.642.2%
CharlestonSouth Carolina166121105137.158.7%
CherokeeSouth Carolina7233290216.392.6%
ChesterSouth Carolina5032579153.565.7%
ChesterfieldSouth Carolina5935963164.170.3%
ClarendonSouth Carolina4531500142.961.2%
ColletonSouth Carolina4626268175.175.0%
DarlingtonSouth Carolina7745198170.473.0%
DillonSouth Carolina4329625145.162.2%
DorchesterSouth Carolina2819928140.560.2%
EdgefieldSouth Carolina1917894106.245.5%
FairfieldSouth Carolina3624187148.863.8%
FlorenceSouth Carolina11670582164.370.4%
GeorgetownSouth Carolina2926352110.047.1%
GreenvilleSouth Carolina324136580237.2101.6%
GreenwoodSouth Carolina9040083224.596.2%
HamptonSouth Carolina2617465148.963.8%
HorrySouth Carolina7051951134.757.7%
JasperSouth Carolina111101199.942.8%
KershawSouth Carolina6932913209.689.8%
LancasterSouth Carolina6433542190.881.7%
LaurensSouth Carolina10044185226.396.9%
LeeSouth Carolina222490888.337.8%
LexingtonSouth Carolina7635994211.190.4%
MarionSouth Carolina5830107192.682.5%
MarlboroSouth Carolina4933281147.263.1%
MccormickSouth Carolina1810367173.674.4%
NewberrySouth Carolina6533577193.682.9%
OconeeSouth Carolina10436512284.8122.0%
OrangeburgSouth Carolina6763707105.245.0%
PickensSouth Carolina9737111261.4112.0%
RichlandSouth Carolina199104843189.881.3%
SaludaSouth Carolina2717192157.067.3%
SpartanburgSouth Carolina316127733247.4106.0%
SumterSouth Carolina7152463135.358.0%
UnionSouth Carolina7231360229.698.3%
WilliamsburgSouth Carolina5141011124.453.3%
YorkSouth Carolina11558663196.084.0%
ArmstrongSouth Dakota1422381.01019.9%
AuroraSouth Dakota85387148.563.6%
BeadleSouth Dakota5019648254.5109.0%
BennettSouth Dakota143983351.5150.6%
Bon HommeSouth Dakota2110241205.187.8%
BrookingsSouth Dakota5016560301.9129.3%
BrownSouth Dakota5529676185.379.4%
BruleSouth Dakota126195193.783.0%
BuffaloSouth Dakota41853215.992.5%
ButteSouth Dakota218004262.4112.4%
CampbellSouth Dakota75033139.159.6%
Charles MixSouth Dakota1913449141.360.5%
ClarkSouth Dakota148955156.367.0%
ClaySouth Dakota169592166.871.5%
CodingtonSouth Dakota3617014211.690.6%
CorsonSouth Dakota166755236.9101.5%
CusterSouth Dakota216023348.7149.3%
DavisonSouth Dakota3515336228.297.8%
DaySouth Dakota3713565272.8116.8%
DeuelSouth Dakota158450177.576.0%
DeweySouth Dakota165709280.3120.0%
DouglasSouth Dakota156348236.3101.2%
EdmundsSouth Dakota197814243.2104.2%
Fall RiverSouth Dakota288089346.1148.3%
FaulkSouth Dakota135168251.5107.8%
GrantSouth Dakota1710552161.169.0%
GregorySouth Dakota199554198.985.2%
HaakonSouth Dakota63515170.773.1%
HamlinSouth Dakota137562171.973.6%
HandSouth Dakota197166265.1113.6%
HansonSouth Dakota105400185.279.3%
HardingSouth Dakota83010265.8113.8%
HughesSouth Dakota106624151.064.7%
HutchinsonSouth Dakota2612668205.287.9%
HydeSouth Dakota73113224.996.3%
JacksonSouth Dakota31955153.565.7%
JerauldSouth Dakota144752294.6126.2%
JonesSouth Dakota102509398.6170.7%
KingsburySouth Dakota2810831258.5110.7%
LakeSouth Dakota3912412314.2134.6%
LawrenceSouth Dakota4619093240.9103.2%
LincolnSouth Dakota1513171113.948.8%
LymanSouth Dakota105045198.284.9%
MarshallSouth Dakota228880247.7106.1%
MccookSouth Dakota209793204.287.5%
McphersonSouth Dakota228353263.4112.8%
MeadeSouth Dakota269735267.1114.4%
MelletteSouth Dakota84107194.883.4%
MinerSouth Dakota116836160.968.9%
MinnehahaSouth Dakota12457697214.992.1%
MoodySouth Dakota169341171.373.4%
PenningtonSouth Dakota6223799260.5111.6%
PerkinsSouth Dakota126585182.278.1%
PotterSouth Dakota144614303.4130.0%
RobertsSouth Dakota2515887157.467.4%
SanbornSouth Dakota125754208.689.3%
ShannonSouth Dakota155366279.5119.7%
SpinkSouth Dakota2012527159.768.4%
St.anleySouth Dakota31959153.165.6%
SullySouth Dakota62668224.996.3%
ToddSouth Dakota155714262.5112.4%
TrippSouth Dakota349937342.2146.6%
TurnerSouth Dakota2713270203.587.2%
UnionSouth Dakota2211675188.480.7%
WalworthSouth Dakota167274220.094.2%
Washabaugh (ext)South Dakota31980151.564.9%
WashingtonSouth Dakota51789279.5119.7%
YanktonSouth Dakota2716725161.469.2%
ZiebachSouth Dakota72875243.5104.3%
AndersonTennessee5426504203.787.3%
BedfordTennessee4523151194.483.3%
BentonTennessee3211976267.2114.5%
BledsoeTennessee238358275.2117.9%
BlountTennessee11441116277.3118.8%
BradleyTennessee7428498259.7111.2%
CampbellTennessee10431131334.1143.1%
CannonTennessee209880202.486.7%
CarrollTennessee5425978207.989.0%
CarterTennessee8935127253.4108.5%
CheathamTennessee359928352.5151.0%
ChesterTennessee2211124197.884.7%
ClaiborneTennessee5924657239.3102.5%
ClayTennessee2110904192.682.5%
CockeTennessee4624083191.081.8%
CoffeeTennessee4818959253.2108.4%
CrockettTennessee3317330190.481.6%
CumberlandTennessee4915592314.3134.6%
DavidsonTennessee534257267207.688.9%
DecaturTennessee2310261224.196.0%
DekalbTennessee2214588150.864.6%
DicksonTennessee4419718223.195.6%
DyerTennessee7434920211.990.8%
FayetteTennessee273032289.038.1%
FentressTennessee5514262385.6165.2%
FranklinTennessee5823892242.8104.0%
GibsonTennessee9444835209.789.8%
GilesTennessee6229240212.090.8%
GraingerTennessee2914356202.086.5%
GreeneTennessee9839405248.7106.5%
GrundyTennessee2511552216.492.7%
HamblenTennessee5318611284.8122.0%
HamiltonTennessee410180478227.297.3%
HancockTennessee1411231124.753.4%
HardemanTennessee3623590152.665.4%
HardinTennessee5517806308.9132.3%
HawkinsTennessee8028523280.5120.1%
HaywoodTennessee252769990.338.7%
HendersonTennessee4119220213.391.4%
HenryTennessee6625877255.1109.3%
HickmanTennessee4114873275.7118.1%
HoustonTennessee116432171.073.3%
HumphreysTennessee3212421257.6110.4%
JacksonTennessee3615082238.7102.2%
JeffersonTennessee7918621424.3181.7%
JohnsonTennessee3412998261.6112.0%
KnoxTennessee454178468254.4109.0%
LakeTennessee2611235231.499.1%
LauderdaleTennessee4324461175.875.3%
LawrenceTennessee6428726222.895.4%
LewisTennessee185849307.7131.8%
LincolnTennessee5227214191.181.8%
LoudonTennessee6319838317.6136.0%
MaconTennessee3614904241.5103.5%
MadisonTennessee9154115168.272.0%
MarionTennessee4319140224.796.2%
MarshallTennessee2616030162.269.5%
MauryTennessee8240357203.287.0%
McminnTennessee7930781256.7109.9%
McnairyTennessee4620424225.296.5%
MeigsTennessee136393203.387.1%
MonroeTennessee6724275276.0118.2%
MontgomeryTennessee6133346182.978.4%
MooreTennessee84093195.583.7%
MorganTennessee4415242288.7123.7%
ObionTennessee5430978174.374.7%
OvertonTennessee4518883238.3102.1%
PerryTennessee157535199.185.3%
PickettTennessee166213257.5110.3%
PolkTennessee3815473245.6105.2%
PutnamTennessee6826250259.0111.0%
RheaTennessee4916353299.6128.3%
RoaneTennessee9227795331.0141.8%
RobertsonTennessee3729046127.454.6%
RutherfordTennessee5333604157.767.6%
ScottTennessee6015966375.8161.0%
SequatchieTennessee145038277.9119.0%
SevierTennessee6923291296.3126.9%
ShelbyTennessee662358250184.879.2%
SmithTennessee4016148247.7106.1%
St.ewartTennessee2513549184.579.0%
SullivanTennessee16869085243.2104.2%
SumnerTennessee6532719198.785.1%
TiptonTennessee4928036174.874.9%
TrousdaleTennessee126113196.384.1%
UnicoiTennessee5414128382.2163.7%
UnionTennessee139030144.061.7%
Van BurenTennessee94090220.094.3%
WarrenTennessee4419764222.695.4%
WashingtonTennessee13751631265.3113.7%
WayneTennessee3213638234.6100.5%
WeakleyTennessee5129498172.974.1%
WhiteTennessee4715983294.1126.0%
WilliamsonTennessee5625220222.095.1%
WilsonTennessee5225267205.888.2%
AndersonTexas7037092188.780.8%
AndrewsTexas81277626.5268.3%
AngelinaTexas7732201239.1102.4%
AransasTexas93469259.4111.1%
ArcherTexas267599342.2146.6%
ArmstrongTexas82495320.6137.3%
AtascosaTexas5019275259.4111.1%
AustinTexas4117384235.8101.0%
BaileyTexas126318189.981.4%
BanderaTexas144234330.7141.6%
BastropTexas5921610273.0116.9%
BaylorTexas217755270.8116.0%
BeeTexas2816481169.972.8%
BellTexas12344863274.2117.4%
BexarTexas1075338176317.9136.2%
BlancoTexas144264328.3140.6%
BordenTexas71396501.4214.8%
BosqueTexas3515761222.195.1%
BowieTexas13150208260.9111.8%
BrazoriaTexas6127069225.496.5%
BrazosTexas6226977229.898.4%
BrewsterTexas216478324.2138.9%
BriscoeTexas144056345.2147.9%
BrooksTexas196362298.6127.9%
BrownTexas10425924401.2171.8%
BurlesonTexas2818334152.765.4%
BurnetTexas3210771297.1127.3%
CaldwellTexas5924893237.0101.5%
CalhounTexas235911389.1166.7%
CallahanTexas3711568319.8137.0%
CameronTexas18283202218.793.7%
CampTexas2310285223.695.8%
CarsonTexas246624362.3155.2%
CassTexas7133496212.090.8%
CastroTexas54631108.046.2%
ChambersTexas147511186.479.8%
CherokeeTexas7243970163.770.1%
ChildressTexas3412149279.9119.9%
ClayTexas2912524231.699.2%
CochranTexas213735562.2240.8%
CokeTexas154590326.8140.0%
ColemanTexas5720571277.1118.7%
CollinTexas11747190247.9106.2%
CollingsworthTexas3010331290.4124.4%
ColoradoTexas3317812185.379.4%
ComalTexas2812321227.397.3%
ComancheTexas4719245244.2104.6%
ConchoTexas196192306.8131.4%
CookeTexas8124909325.2139.3%
CoryellTexas6220226306.5131.3%
CottleTexas277079381.4163.4%
CraneTexas72841246.4105.5%
CrockettTexas122809427.2183.0%
CrosbyTexas2110046209.089.5%
CulbersonTexas71653423.5181.4%
DallamTexas246494369.6158.3%
DallasTexas1038398564260.4111.6%
DawsonTexas4115367266.8114.3%
Deaf SmithTexas226056363.3155.6%
DeltaTexas3212858248.9106.6%
DentonTexas8333658246.6105.6%
De WittTexas4924935196.584.2%
DickensTexas247847305.8131.0%
DimmitTexas118542128.855.2%
DonleyTexas257487333.9143.0%
DuvalTexas3720565179.977.1%
EastlandTexas8230345270.2115.8%
EctorTexas3615051239.2102.5%
EdwardsTexas92933306.9131.4%
EllisTexas10747733224.296.0%
El PasoTexas369131067281.5120.6%
ErathTexas7520760361.3154.8%
FallsTexas5635984155.666.7%
FanninTexas9741064236.2101.2%
FayetteTexas6929246235.9101.1%
FisherTexas2912932224.296.1%
FloydTexas2310659215.892.4%
FoardTexas165237305.5130.9%
Fort BendTexas5432963163.870.2%
FranklinTexas218378250.7107.4%
FreestoneTexas3621138170.373.0%
FrioTexas159207162.969.8%
GainesTexas178136208.989.5%
GalvestonTexas17881173219.393.9%
GarzaTexas145678246.6105.6%
GillespieTexas2210670206.288.3%
GlasscockTexas41193335.3143.6%
GoliadTexas218798238.7102.2%
GonzalesTexas6226075237.8101.9%
GrayTexas6023911250.9107.5%
GraysonTexas17969499257.6110.3%
GreggTexas12758027218.993.7%
GrimesTexas3521960159.468.3%
GuadalupeTexas4125596160.268.6%
HaleTexas5918813313.6134.3%
HallTexas4112117338.4144.9%
HamiltonTexas4313303323.2138.5%
HansfordTexas102783359.3153.9%
HardemanTexas2211073198.785.1%
HardinTexas2915875182.778.2%
HarrisTexas1059528961200.285.8%
HarrisonTexas5950900115.949.7%
HartleyTexas61873320.3137.2%
HaskellTexas4714905315.3135.1%
HaysTexas3615349234.5100.5%
HemphillTexas174170407.7174.6%
HendersonTexas7531822235.7101.0%
HidalgoTexas208106059196.184.0%
HillTexas9538355247.7106.1%
HockleyTexas2712693212.791.1%
HoodTexas216674314.7134.8%
HopkinsTexas6730274221.394.8%
HoustonTexas9131137292.3125.2%
HowardTexas6620990314.4134.7%
HudspethTexas73149222.395.2%
HuntTexas11748793239.8102.7%
HutchinsonTexas4219069220.394.3%
IrionTexas61963305.7130.9%
JackTexas3710206362.5155.3%
JacksonTexas2211720187.780.4%
JasperTexas3617491205.888.2%
Jeff DavisTexas52375210.590.2%
JeffersonTexas326145329224.396.1%
Jim HoggTexas105449183.578.6%
Jim WellsTexas5820239286.6122.8%
JohnsonTexas8130384266.6114.2%
JonesTexas6223378265.2113.6%
KarnesTexas3519248181.877.9%
KaufmanTexas7438308193.282.7%
KendallTexas105080196.984.3%
KenedyTexas4700571.4244.8%
KentTexas163413468.8200.8%
KerrTexas3111650266.1114.0%
KimbleTexas145064276.5118.4%
KingTexas010660.00.0%
KinneyTexas244533529.5226.8%
KlebergTexas3513344262.3112.4%
KnoxTexas2510090247.8106.1%
LamarTexas11650425230.098.5%
LambTexas4217606238.6102.2%
LampasasTexas289167305.4130.8%
La SalleTexas308003374.9160.6%
LavacaTexas9025485353.1151.3%
LeeTexas2112751164.770.5%
LeonTexas4217733236.8101.5%
LibertyTexas5224541211.990.8%
LimestoneTexas7633781225.096.4%
LipscombTexas103764265.7113.8%
Live OakTexas149799142.961.2%
LlanoTexas135996216.892.9%
LovingTexas42851403.5601.2%
LubbockTexas17151782330.2141.5%
LynnTexas3511931293.4125.7%
MadisonTexas1312029108.146.3%
MarionTexas101145787.337.4%
MartinTexas155556270.0115.6%
MasonTexas145378260.3111.5%
MatagordaTexas4720066234.2100.3%
MaverickTexas3010071297.9127.6%
MccullochTexas4213208318.0136.2%
MclennanTexas291101898285.6122.3%
McmullenTexas81374582.2249.4%
MedinaTexas2316106142.861.2%
MenardTexas214521464.5199.0%
MidlandTexas4111721349.8149.8%
MilamTexas7333120220.494.4%
MillsTexas197951239.0102.4%
MitchellTexas3512477280.5120.2%
MontagueTexas5620442273.9117.3%
MontgomeryTexas4423055190.881.7%
MooreTexas134461291.4124.8%
MorrisTexas229810224.396.1%
MotleyTexas104994200.285.8%
NacogdochesTexas8135392228.998.0%
NavarroTexas11651308226.196.8%
NewtonTexas131370094.940.6%
NolanTexas6417309369.7158.4%
NuecesTexas24492661263.3112.8%
OchiltreeTexas124213284.8122.0%
OldhamTexas81385577.6247.4%
OrangeTexas5217382299.2128.1%
Palo PintoTexas4818456260.1111.4%
PanolaTexas3422513151.064.7%
ParkerTexas6220482302.7129.7%
ParmerTexas155890254.7109.1%
PecosTexas238185281.0120.4%
PolkTexas4320635208.489.3%
PotterTexas16654265305.9131.0%
PresidioTexas2910925265.4113.7%
RainsTexas167334218.293.4%
RandallTexas177185236.6101.3%
ReaganTexas81997400.6171.6%
RealTexas72420289.3123.9%
Red RiverTexas8429769282.2120.9%
ReevesTexas238006287.3123.1%
RefugioTexas2810383269.7115.5%
RobertsTexas51289387.9166.2%
RobertsonTexas4725710182.878.3%
RockwallTexas177051241.1103.3%
RunnelsTexas4618903243.3104.2%
RuskTexas8651023168.672.2%
SabineTexas2110896192.782.6%
San AugustineTexas2212471176.475.6%
San JacintoTexas159056165.670.9%
San PatricioTexas4928871169.772.7%
San SabaTexas2111012190.781.7%
SchleicherTexas3308397.341.7%
ScurryTexas4511545389.8167.0%
ShackelfordTexas156211241.5103.4%
ShelbyTexas8529235290.7124.5%
ShermanTexas52026246.8105.7%
SmithTexas11569090166.471.3%
SomervellTexas53071162.869.7%
St.arrTexas4113312308.0131.9%
St.ephensTexas3312356267.1114.4%
St.erlingTexas41404284.9122.0%
St.onewallTexas145589250.5107.3%
SuttonTexas133977326.9140.0%
SwisherTexas266528398.3170.6%
TarrantTexas584225521259.0110.9%
TaylorTexas13544147305.8131.0%
TerrellTexas162952542.0232.2%
TerryTexas3611160322.6138.2%
ThrockmortonTexas184275421.1180.4%
TitusTexas4619228239.2102.5%
Tom GreenTexas10139302257.0110.1%
TravisTexas231111053208.089.1%
TrinityTexas3113705226.296.9%
TylerTexas2911948242.7104.0%
UpshurTexas3826178145.262.2%
UptonTexas84297186.279.7%
UvaldeTexas4413246332.2142.3%
Val VerdeTexas4315453278.3119.2%
Van ZandtTexas7031155224.796.2%
VictoriaTexas7423741311.7133.5%
WalkerTexas3619868181.277.6%
WallerTexas1810280175.175.0%
WardTexas279575282.0120.8%
WashingtonTexas3925387153.665.8%
WebbTexas12345916267.9114.7%
WhartonTexas6136158168.772.3%
WheelerTexas3612411290.1124.2%
WichitaTexas18973604256.8110.0%
WilbargerTexas5220474254.0108.8%
WillacyTexas2513230189.080.9%
WilliamsonTexas7441698177.576.0%
WilsonTexas3917066228.597.9%
WinklerTexas176141276.8118.6%
WiseTexas5419074283.1121.3%
WoodTexas7624360312.0133.6%
YoakumTexas75354130.756.0%
YoungTexas6519004342.0146.5%
ZapataTexas73916178.876.6%
ZavalaTexas2811603241.3103.4%
BeaverUtah145014279.2119.6%
Box ElderUtah5918832313.3134.2%
CacheUtah8229797275.2117.9%
CarbonUtah5518459298.0127.6%
DaggettUtah3564531.9227.8%
DavisUtah4015784253.4108.6%
DuchesneUtah278958301.4129.1%
EmeryUtah167072226.296.9%
GarfieldUtah155253285.6122.3%
GrandUtah82070386.5165.5%
IronUtah218331252.1108.0%
JuabUtah127392162.369.5%
KaneUtah72561273.3117.1%
MillardUtah289613291.3124.8%
MorganUtah122611459.6196.9%
PiuteUtah32203136.258.3%
RichUtah92028443.8190.1%
Salt LakeUtah520211623245.7105.3%
San JuanUtah104712212.290.9%
SanpeteUtah4316063267.7114.7%
SevierUtah1712112140.460.1%
SummitUtah108714114.849.2%
TooeleUtah269133284.7121.9%
UintahUtah309898303.1129.8%
UtahUtah14957382259.7111.2%
WasatchUtah185754312.8134.0%
WashingtonUtah319269334.4143.3%
WayneUtah32394125.353.7%
WeberUtah16056714282.1120.8%
AccomackVirginia4333030130.255.8%
AlbemarleVirginia10824652438.1187.7%
AlleghanyVirginia7622688335.0143.5%
AmeliaVirginia168495188.380.7%
AmherstVirginia3920273192.482.4%
AppomattoxVirginia149020155.266.5%
ArlingtonVirginia22557040394.5169.0%
AugustaVirginia12542772292.2125.2%
BathVirginia297191403.3172.7%
BedfordVirginia8029687269.5115.4%
BlandVirginia196731282.3120.9%
BotetourtVirginia1916447115.549.5%
BrunswickVirginia2419575122.652.5%
BuchananVirginia6531477206.588.5%
BuckinghamVirginia2713398201.586.3%
CampbellVirginia17026048652.6279.6%
CarolineVirginia1413945100.443.0%
CarrollVirginia5725904220.094.3%
Charles CityVirginia74275163.770.1%
CharlotteVirginia4915861308.9132.3%
ChesterfieldVirginia5231183166.871.4%
ClarkeVirginia267159363.2155.6%
CraigVirginia83769212.390.9%
CulpeperVirginia2613365194.583.3%
CumberlandVirginia107505133.257.1%
DickensonVirginia6421266300.9128.9%
DinwiddieVirginia10018166550.5235.8%
Elizabeth CityVirginia8732283269.5115.4%
EssexVirginia197006271.2116.2%
FairfaxVirginia7040929171.073.3%
FauquierVirginia5521039261.4112.0%
FloydVirginia3411967284.1121.7%
FluvannaVirginia187088254.0108.8%
FranklinVirginia5025864193.382.8%
FrederickVirginia5714008406.9174.3%
GilesVirginia4714635321.1137.6%
GloucesterVirginia149548146.662.8%
GoochlandVirginia158454177.476.0%
GraysonVirginia6921916314.8134.9%
GreeneVirginia165218306.6131.3%
GreensvilleVirginia1714866114.449.0%
HalifaxVirginia7641271184.178.9%
HanoverVirginia3318500178.476.4%
HenricoVirginia483419601151.1493.1%
HenryVirginia9726481366.3156.9%
HighlandVirginia184875369.2158.2%
Isle Of WightVirginia121338189.738.4%
James CityVirginia204907407.6174.6%
King And QueenVirginia146954201.386.2%
King GeorgeVirginia155431276.2118.3%
King WilliamVirginia137855165.570.9%
LancasterVirginia168786182.178.0%
LeeVirginia10139296257.0110.1%
LoudounVirginia3620291177.476.0%
LouisaVirginia2013665146.462.7%
LunenburgVirginia3913844281.7120.7%
MadisonVirginia218465248.1106.3%
MathewsVirginia107149139.959.9%
MecklenburgVirginia5231933162.869.8%
MiddlesexVirginia116673164.870.6%
MontgomeryVirginia10721206504.6216.1%
Nansemond (ext)Virginia4322771188.880.9%
NelsonVirginia4516241277.1118.7%
New KentVirginia64092146.662.8%
Norfolk (city)Virginia502144332347.8149.0%
NorthamptonVirginia4617597261.4112.0%
NorthumberlandVirginia1210463114.749.1%
NottowayVirginia3515556225.096.4%
OrangeVirginia2312649181.877.9%
PageVirginia1914863127.854.8%
PatrickVirginia3516613210.790.2%
PittsylvaniaVirginia19961697322.5138.2%
PowhatanVirginia205671352.7151.1%
Prince EdwardVirginia4014922268.1114.8%
Prince GeorgeVirginia4012226327.2140.1%
Prince WilliamVirginia2917738163.570.0%
PulaskiVirginia5222767228.497.8%
RappahannockVirginia147208194.283.2%
RichmondVirginia546634814.0348.7%
RoanokeVirginia31542897734.3314.5%
RockbridgeVirginia6022384268.0114.8%
RockinghamVirginia8931289284.4121.8%
RussellVirginia6726627251.6107.8%
ScottVirginia5926989218.693.6%
ShenandoahVirginia5220898248.8106.6%
SmythVirginia7628861263.3112.8%
SouthamptonVirginia2826442105.945.4%
SpotsylvaniaVirginia469905464.4198.9%
St.affordVirginia159548157.167.3%
SurryVirginia96193145.362.2%
SussexVirginia1512485120.151.5%
TazewellVirginia13041607312.4133.8%
WarrenVirginia2711352237.8101.9%
WarwickVirginia10192481092.1467.8%
WashingtonVirginia12038197314.2134.6%
WestmorelandVirginia209512210.390.1%
WiseVirginia16552458314.5134.7%
WytheVirginia6622721290.5124.4%
YorkVirginia7885779.033.9%
AddisonVermont5317944295.4126.5%
BenningtonVermont5222286233.399.9%
CaledoniaVermont5024320205.688.1%
ChittendenVermont14052098268.7115.1%
EssexVermont226490339.0145.2%
FranklinVermont6329601212.891.2%
Grand IsleVermont103802263.0112.7%
LamoilleVermont2811028253.9108.8%
OrangeVermont2117048123.252.8%
OrleansVermont6421718294.7126.2%
RutlandVermont11045638241.0103.2%
WashingtonVermont8641546207.088.7%
WindhamVermont5827850208.389.2%
WindsorVermont10237862269.4115.4%
AdamsWashington136209209.489.7%
AsotinWashington258365298.9128.0%
BentonWashington3412053282.1120.8%
ChelanWashington6134412177.375.9%
ClallamWashington4521848206.088.2%
ClarkWashington15049852300.9128.9%
ColumbiaWashington195549342.4146.7%
CowlitzWashington9240155229.198.1%
DouglasWashington178651196.584.2%
FerryWashington114701234.0100.2%
FranklinWashington216307333.0142.6%
GarfieldWashington73383206.988.6%
GrantWashington2514668170.473.0%
Grays HarborWashington12153166227.697.5%
IslandWashington106098164.070.2%
JeffersonWashington168918179.476.9%
KingWashington1106504980219.093.8%
KitsapWashington14244387319.9137.0%
KittitasWashington5720230281.8120.7%
KlickitatWashington2211357193.783.0%
LewisWashington11041393265.7113.8%
LincolnWashington2811361246.5105.6%
MasonWashington2811603241.3103.4%
OkanoganWashington4524546183.378.5%
PacificWashington3315928207.288.7%
Pend OreilleWashington157156209.689.8%
PierceWashington417182081229.098.1%
San JuanWashington53157158.467.8%
SkagitWashington8137650215.192.2%
SkamaniaWashington4463386.337.0%
SnohomishWashington18988754212.991.2%
SpokaneWashington396164652240.5103.0%
St.evensWashington5219275269.8115.6%
ThurstonWashington6737285179.777.0%
WahkiakumWashington3428670.030.0%
Walla WallaWashington7030547229.298.2%
WhatcomWashington11460355188.980.9%
WhitmanWashington4527221165.370.8%
YakimaWashington22499019226.296.9%
AdamsWisconsin108449118.450.7%
AshlandWisconsin6821801311.9133.6%
BarronWisconsin6934289201.286.2%
BayfieldWisconsin3815827240.1102.8%
BrownWisconsin18583109222.695.3%
BuffaloWisconsin2416090149.263.9%
BurnettWisconsin2411382210.990.3%
CalumetWisconsin2917618164.670.5%
ChippewaWisconsin7840703191.682.1%
ClarkWisconsin8033972235.5100.9%
ColumbiaWisconsin7332517224.596.2%
CrawfordWisconsin3818328207.388.8%
DaneWisconsin330130660252.6108.2%
DodgeWisconsin9554280175.075.0%
DoorWisconsin4019095209.589.7%
DouglasWisconsin14347119303.5130.0%
DunnWisconsin6127375222.895.4%
Eau ClaireWisconsin8446999178.776.6%
FlorenceWisconsin104177239.4102.5%
Fond Du LacWisconsin12762353203.787.2%
ForestWisconsin3111805262.6112.5%
GrantWisconsin8840639216.592.8%
GreenWisconsin232314699.442.6%
Green LakeWisconsin2914092205.888.1%
IowaWisconsin3420595165.170.7%
IronWisconsin3410049338.3144.9%
JacksonWisconsin3916599235.0100.6%
JeffersonWisconsin7638868195.583.8%
JuneauWisconsin4118708219.293.9%
KenoshaWisconsin15163505237.8101.9%
KewauneeWisconsin3216680191.882.2%
La CrosseWisconsin12559653209.589.8%
LafayetteWisconsin3918695208.689.4%
LangladeWisconsin6823227292.8125.4%
LincolnWisconsin5922536261.8112.1%
ManitowocWisconsin13161617212.691.1%
MarathonWisconsin15275915200.285.8%
MarinetteWisconsin7836225215.392.2%
MarquetteWisconsin179097186.980.0%
MilwaukeeWisconsin1684766885219.694.1%
MonroeWisconsin7330080242.7104.0%
OcontoWisconsin6027075221.694.9%
OneidaWisconsin6118938322.1138.0%
OutagamieWisconsin15570032221.394.8%
OzaukeeWisconsin4418985231.899.3%
PepinWisconsin117897139.359.7%
PierceWisconsin5621471260.8111.7%
PolkWisconsin5426197206.188.3%
PortageWisconsin8535800237.4101.7%
PriceWisconsin6918467373.6160.0%
RacineWisconsin24594047260.5111.6%
RichlandWisconsin3820381186.479.9%
RockWisconsin23780173295.6126.6%
RuskWisconsin3417737191.782.1%
SaukWisconsin8933700264.1113.1%
SawyerWisconsin3911540338.0144.8%
ShawanoWisconsin7435378209.289.6%
SheboyganWisconsin15376221200.786.0%
St CroixWisconsin4624842185.279.3%
TaylorWisconsin3920105194.083.1%
TrempealeauWisconsin4824381196.984.3%
VernonWisconsin5129940170.373.0%
VilasWisconsin238894258.6110.8%
WalworthWisconsin6433103193.382.8%
WashburnWisconsin2612496208.189.1%
WashingtonWisconsin5728430200.585.9%
WaukeshaWisconsin12162744192.882.6%
WaupacaWisconsin5634614161.869.3%
WausharaWisconsin2114268147.263.0%
WinnebagoWisconsin16480507203.787.3%
WoodWisconsin12344465276.6118.5%
BarbourWest Virginia4019869201.386.2%
BerkeleyWest Virginia7729016265.4113.7%
BooneWest Virginia7728556269.6115.5%
BraxtonWest Virginia6821658314.0134.5%
BrookeWest Virginia8725513341.0146.1%
CabellWest Virginia20897459213.491.4%
CalhounWest Virginia2412455192.782.5%
ClayWest Virginia4815206315.7135.2%
DoddridgeWest Virginia2910923265.5113.7%
FayetteWest Virginia22380628276.6118.5%
GilmerWest Virginia2312046190.981.8%
GrantWest Virginia188805204.487.6%
GreenbrierWest Virginia8838520228.597.9%
HampshireWest Virginia3612974277.5118.9%
HancockWest Virginia11131572351.6150.6%
HardyWest Virginia2510813231.299.0%
HarrisonWest Virginia20182911242.4103.8%
JacksonWest Virginia3816598228.998.1%
JeffersonWest Virginia3316762196.984.3%
KanawhaWest Virginia500195619255.6109.5%
LewisWest Virginia5622271251.4107.7%
LincolnWest Virginia6922886301.5129.1%
LoganWest Virginia16767768246.4105.6%
MarionWest Virginia17368683251.9107.9%
MarshallWest Virginia10340189256.3109.8%
MasonWest Virginia5822270260.4111.6%
McdowellWest Virginia23594354249.1106.7%
MercerWest Virginia17368289253.3108.5%
MineralWest Virginia7622215342.1146.5%
MingoWest Virginia8940802218.193.4%
MonongaliaWest Virginia15651252304.4130.4%
MonroeWest Virginia4413577324.1138.8%
MorganWest Virginia258743285.9122.5%
NicholasWest Virginia5824070241.0103.2%
OhioWest Virginia21673115295.4126.5%
PendletonWest Virginia3510884321.6137.7%
PleasantsWest Virginia156692224.196.0%
PocahontasWest Virginia3813906273.3117.1%
PrestonWest Virginia7330416240.0102.8%
PutnamWest Virginia4119511210.190.0%
RaleighWest Virginia20086687230.798.8%
RandolphWest Virginia8430259277.6118.9%
RitchieWest Virginia4815389311.9133.6%
RoaneWest Virginia4920787235.7101.0%
SummersWest Virginia5320409259.7111.2%
TaylorWest Virginia3619919180.777.4%
TuckerWest Virginia3513173265.7113.8%
TylerWest Virginia3412559270.7116.0%
UpshurWest Virginia5418360294.1126.0%
WayneWest Virginia8235566230.698.8%
WebsterWest Virginia4818080265.5113.7%
WetzelWest Virginia5522342246.2105.4%
WirtWest Virginia186475278.0119.1%
WoodWest Virginia10762399171.573.5%
WyomingWest Virginia7429774248.5106.5%
AlbanyWyoming3913946279.7119.8%
Big HornWyoming2712911209.189.6%
CampbellWyoming156048248.0106.2%
CarbonWyoming4812644379.6162.6%
ConverseWyoming186631271.5116.3%
CrookWyoming105463183.078.4%
FremontWyoming3516095217.593.1%
GoshenWyoming2912207237.6101.8%
Hot SpringsWyoming124607260.5111.6%
JohnsonWyoming134980261.0111.8%
LaramieWyoming9833651291.2124.7%
LincolnWyoming2110286204.287.5%
NatronaWyoming5223858218.093.4%
NiobraraWyoming85988133.657.2%
ParkWyoming3210976291.5124.9%
PlatteWyoming258013312.0133.6%
SheridanWyoming4619255238.9102.3%
SubletteWyoming62778216.092.5%
SweetwaterWyoming5019407257.6110.4%
TetonWyoming62543235.9101.1%
UintaWyoming187223249.2106.7%
WashakieWyoming195858324.3138.9%
WestonWyoming154958302.5129.6%
Yellowstone Np (pt)Wyoming04160.00.0%

Graphing the counties according to these statistics reveals something of a “normal” distribution. I should note that sparsely populated counties often exceeded the national norm, although that is often simply a function of math. When Private First Class Keith E. Eberl of Armstrong County, South Dakota, population 42, was killed in action, Armstrong, a county that no longer exists, endured a per capita loss of 2,380 per 100k.

However, as we shall see, what is interesting is that the highly populated counties throughout the country (except for the South, more on that later) fell along the national per capita. Highly populated areas like Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City sent their boys to fight and die at rates largely in line with the national average (graphic two). The boroughs of New York sent so many of its residents that Army records broke out their losses separately from that of the state of New York. 27,659 New Yorkers were killed in the war.

Graphic 2: This graphic depicts U.S. counties and their relative and absolute Army and Army Air Forces fatalities suffered during the Second World War. Unlike the later wars of the 20th century, the Second World War, thanks to mass mobilization and conscription, led to a generally well-distributed burden in military fatalities. Each dot represents a U.S. county. Each county is colorized and faceted by its region and sized by the number of absolute losses it endured. Each dot is situated on an x-axis determined by its population in 1940 and a y-axis that denotes it’s per capita loss. The national average of 232 and the mean county population in 1940, 83,674 are highlighted.

These regional trends began to change first with Korea and then with Vietnam, but not as dramatically as what would come later. During the Big One, of the top 50 most populated counties, 44 were within 90% (or higher) of the national per 100.2 By the Korean War, it fell dramatically to 14 of the top 50 populated counties but rose again in Vietnam to 23. While the geographical spread had indeed changed by Vietnam, a number of America’s most populous counties still pulled their weight. Los Angeles (26.6), Wayne County, MI (which contains Detriot, 30.97), and Kings County, New York (52.6)3, to name a few, all nearly matched or exceeded the national average (graphic 3).

Graphic 3: This graphic depicts U.S. counties and their relative and absolute military suffered during the Vietnam War. The geographical pattern of Vietnam differed slightly from that of WWII, despite the presence of a draft. Yet, unlike the Global War on Terror, most highly populated counties fell only slightly below the national average, with many exceeding it. Each county is colorized and faceted by its region and sized by the number of absolute losses it endured. Each dot is situated on an x-axis determined by its population in 1970 and a y-axis that denotes its per capita loss. The national average of 28.6 and the mean county population in 1970, 127,285, are highlighted.

This would change dramatically with the end of conscription in 1973, coupled with socioeconomic and cultural changes associated with military service that arose thereafter. The All-Volunteer Force fundamentally transformed the face of the American military. As the Institute for Defense Analyses has noted, starting in the mid-1980s, recruitment in the Northeast dropped off the table and was largely replaced by Southern and Western states. In the wake of Vietnam, many of the North’s elite schools, including the Ivies, pushed ROTC programs off of their campuses. This slack was taken up by schools in the South and the West and contributed to the shift of identifying military service with their respective regions and political cultures.

The result was the accelerated decline of relative military fatalities from America’s most populated places, especially in the North. Only three of the 25 most populated counties during WWII failed to hit 90% of the national per capita average (Bronx County, St. Louis, and Harris County, Texas, 144, 200, and 200, respectively). If we fast forward to the Global War on Terror, only two of the 25 counties exceeded the national per capita average of 2.10 per 100k (using the 2020 census). See graphic 4.

Those two are Erie County, New York, which lost 27 of its residents (2.27 per 100k), and Baltimore City, which lost 25 (4.25 per 100k). Both are “Rusbelt” cities (the former contains Buffalo) that have bled off residents and their respective industrial bases. The economic landscapes of these counties, like rural areas, incentivized military service.

Graphic 4: This graphic depicts the 25 five most populous counties in the United States during World War II and their subsequent relative losses during Korea, Vietnam, and the Global War on Terror. Of the 25, only three failed to meet the national average, but by the GWOT, only two did. Each county’s relative losses are depicted in rows and titled according to war, from left to right: WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the GWOT. Each county’s per capita loss in each war is depicted by its percentage in relation to the national average and colorized on a green-to-red ramp. Those in yellow did not differ from the national average in their respective war. The redder the tile, the higher the county’s relationship to the national average; the lower the relationship, the greener the tile.

The trend is reinforced by looking at modern population data. Of the 50 most populated counties in the United States (as defined by 2020 data), only seven met or exceeded the national per capita of military fatalities endured in the Global War on Terror. Two of them, San Diego, CA, and Bexar, TX, are military towns, examples of America’s now strained multigenerational military caste.

These transformations have pushed the burden of military fatalities down to less populated counties in the suburbs and exurbs (graphic 5). It should be noted, though, that most large counties still have lost a number of their resident in absolute terms. Los Angeles sacrificed 158, Cook County, 61. Yet these fatalities have been absorbed by massive populations and obscured by the growing socio-economic divide associated with military service. And, in an extreme example, Kings County, New York, population 2.7 million, lost no one in the Global War on Terror.

Graphic 5: This graphic depicts U.S. counties and their relative and absolute military suffered during the Global War on Terror. Each county is colorized and faceted by its region and sized by the number of absolute losses it endured. Each dot is situated on an x-axis determined by its population in 2020 and a y-axis that denotes its per capita loss. The national average of 2.10 and the mean county population in 2020, 103.922, are highlighted.

And now for the not-at-all controversial topic of race.

Remember earlier when I noted that the South lost significantly fewer of its residents relative to its population during WWII? Well, there is a reason for that: racism. A combination of exclusionary practices with the draft coupled with a general antipathy towards black combat troops meant a low number of black American wartime fatalities. Despite a number of notable black combat units in armor, infantry, and aviation, a relatively low number of black Americans died in WWII, an estimated 708.

I say estimated because, interestingly enough, the Army fatality records do not record the race (or sex, for that matter) of the deceased. Therefore, tracking racial statistics (an already fraught practice) is especially tough, and it is made tougher still given the black-and-white manner in which racial statistics were gathered in the U.S. in the 1940s (pardon the tasteless pun). Adding to the confusion was the ambiguity of Latinos in the American racial hierarchy of 1940. Latinos were, however, classified as white and served in integrated units.

Yet, if we plot per capita losses against the white population percentage, the South had a lower per capita loss rate as a region because half of its population was (largely) barred from combat (graphic 6). There were outliers, of course, particularly for a few counties in Virginia, but the general pattern holds.

Graphic 6: This graphic depicts the relative losses endured by states against their white populations in World War Two. A segregated military, hesitancy to draft black Americans, and general hostility toward sending blacks into combat meant fewer black fatalities and, therefore, lower per capita losses endured in the South. Each dot represents a state, colorized by its region, and is situated on an x-axis that depicts the percentage of its population defined as white and on a y-axis that shows its per 100k fatality rate.

The racial patterns of American combat changed after WWII with the continuation of the draft coupled with the integration of the military. While comparisons across time are difficult due to the changing and often capricious nature of American racial statistics, looking at the DoD’s own fatality statistics, it is clear that by Vietnam, the racial breakdown of American combat largely mirrored that of the county at large (see below).

Yet, since the advent of the All-Volunteer Force, the color of combat has become increasingly white. The elimination of the draft and the adoption of volunteer enlistment coupled with a contract system have created de-facto occupational segregation within the U.S. military, a fact that the Army has itself lamented (if for its own political reasons).

This systematic difference in career paths has led to racial disparities in fatalities endured during the Global War on Terror. As the Department of Defense has acknowledged in its own reporting and its own statistics, around 70% of the country’s GWOT fatalities are white, which is higher than the U.S. military and the nation at large.

There are exceptions, of course. While the DCAS data does not list racial statistics for individual soldiers, the records themselves are enlightening. Looking at the names of the fallen in heavily Latino counties, like Los Angeles, reveals a preponderance of Hispanic surnames, and Baltimore, a predominately black city, lost 32 of its residents, a per capita of 4.2, double the national average.

Yet these are the exceptions that prove the rule: America’s combat fatalities, for the first time since WWII, have become disproportionately white even as the military and, indeed, the country at large are becoming less so. They’ve also become disproportionately rural and underrepresented among America’s upper class. Long gone are the days of UCLA or Harvard sending its students and faculty to fight America’s wars.

The elimination of the draft, moral considerations aside, constructed a military caste within the United States, one served by a volunteer system. After 20 years of lost wars and amplifying domestic issues, that system is heavily under strain. As I argued in my earlier piece for antiwar.com:

These disparities in wartime losses expounded upon another conflict, the culture war. Conservatives, who are overrepresented among veterans, have come to view the foreign policy class and similar coastal elites (to include large swaths of the GOP) with abject disdain. While it is true that the US has been awash in militaristic pageantry since 2001, the right sees the national mood as inherently hostile if not downright contemptuous of them and their values. In their eyes, conservative principles are routinely mocked by the same social class which has sent them or their children to die needlessly abroad. Their home states are referred to derisively as “fly over country.” They have been called “bitter clingers” and “deplorables.” Their religion and patriotism are routinely mocked, as are their cultural values on abortion and guns. Their views on constitutional government are ridiculed as both ahistorical and outdated. They are routinely labeled as racists, sexists, Nazis, homophobes, and so on. Worst of all, they are increasingly compared to those that they fought and are seen as a growing terror threat.

Bear Any Burden: Military Sacrifice and Rise of American Populism – Antiwar.com

It appears that America’s martial caste is now discouraging its sons and daughters from enlisting, draining the U.S. military’s strongest enlistment pool. Now, the smart set, on both the right and left, is floating the idea of bringing back the draft, often invoking World War II nostalgia, framing conscription as a form of “democracy.”

It should go without saying that the United States is not the same place that it was in 1940. Reinstating the draft would create more problems than it would solve. There is, of course, another less draconian solution to the question of who shall bear the burden of America’s future, one rarely floated by the smart set: lighten the load.

Lower the demand by bringing our troops home, make America’s “allies” pay for their own defense, and return to the republic we’re supposed to be. It’s a novel and perhaps impossible idea, but one worth clinging to lest we resign ourselves to future generations buckling under this imperious burden.

  1. Steven Manson, Jonathan Schroeder, David Van Riper, Katherine Knowles, Tracy Kugler, Finn Roberts, and Steven Ruggles. IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 18.0 [1915-1941 Vital Statistics: Natality & Mortality Data [States & Counties]]. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS. 2023. http://doi.org/10.18128/D050.V18.0 ↩︎
  2. I used this cut-off for World War II in order to account for the likelihood that naval losses would have put a given country over the threshold of meeting the national average. ↩︎
  3. That number is likely inflated by an error in the DCAS dataset, one that did not record deaths for New York County. I suspect that residents of New York County were recorded as residing in Kings County, hence the elevated number. ↩︎

Honesty in Advertising: “To be killed in action.”

The recent drip of think pieces regarding the resurrection of conscription inspired me to revisit the antiwar ads featured below.

They are some haunting stuff designed to tug at the heartstrings. I first ran into them while researching at the Hoover Presidential Library, specifically while pouring through the Senator Gerald Nye Papers. As you can see, the images feature a mother tossing their smiling child with the text “To be Killed in Action” superimposed above.

The center image and the one on the right are posters/flyers related to a speaking tour put on by Senator Gerald Nye in order to sell the public on the newly proposed Neutrality Act, itself the result of his famed “Special Committee on Investigation of the Munitions Industry,” colloquially known as the Nye Committee.

The Nye speaking tour poster and flyer make explicit and repeated references to the Great War as a mistake, one not to be repeated. Lost in the “Good War,” mythologizing the once apolitical and visceral opposition to the war in the United States in the wake of World War I, sentiments that carried through in Congress.

I’ve looked into the ad’s origins and cannot pin it down for certain, although it appears that it at least ran in Esquire magazine. 

I have not found anything on the ad’s origins except for one other appearance on a vintage ad blog that places its origins in 1939, which can’t be correct as the copies I ran into have it at least as early as 1935. According to said blog:

The ad from a group called World Peaceways, in NYC is from 1939 before America entered WWII is remarkable in the fact that it ran as a full-page advertisement in an issue of  “Woman’s Home Companion,” a mainstream woman’s magazine. It appeared alongside recipes for the 1930’s housewife for husband pleasin’ meals and advise on hanging dainty curtains. The contrasts between the usual vintage advertising to women and a daring war protest ad was startling.

War, What is it Good For? | Envisioning The American Dream

If you’ve come this far, read the ads; they’re jarring historical documents. And even if you possess a completely orthodox view of “isolationism” and America’s entry into the war, I hope you can glean a modicum of sympathy for those who desired to stay out of Europe’s growing travails. Most simply didn’t want their children to die half a world away.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

Three Degrees of Extremism: How Adjacency is Manufactured and Used in American Politics

While researching chapter four of my dissertation, “Partisans of the Old Republic,” I stumbled upon a speech given by Representative Ronald Brooks Cameron (D-CA), entitled Who is Doing the Devil’s Work in American Politics?” on 20 May 1963. In his address, Cameron he lambasted the John Birch Society and its influence on conservative politics. His use of rhetoric, guilt by association, arguments from hypotheticals, and hyperbole is a useful window into the era’s crazed political climate and a useful tool for understanding our own political inanities.

A copy of Cameron’s speech within the Congressional Record can be found on the congress.gov website, and I uploaded a copy here.

The Birchers became a tool of political rhetoric and discipline, one used to limit the Overton Window and rein in the then-growing conservative movement. In a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, Cameron[i] used the specter of the far-right to assail the John Birch Society and other conservative organizations and individuals within its orbit. Cameron’s speech, “Who is Doing the Devil’s Work in American Politics?” sought to tie the already controversial Birchers to the openly antisemitic Gerald L. K. Smith and his periodical Cross and the Flag. Cameron then used the fear of these two groups to question the legitimacy of the emerging conservative movement, declaring, “[w]e are all aware that democracy is under attack by the radical right.” After warning about the fate of democracy, he prefaced his accusations with a reminder of Robert Welch’s more outlandish claims; among them, President Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles were agents of the international communist conspiracy. Cameron further warned that the members of the society had already “infiltrated” Congress.

As with the America First Committee three decades earlier, Cameron highlighted and amplified the tenuous connection between these two camps of the right and then used the proximity of other conservative figures to the John Birch Society to control the Overton Window. His evidence of such a connection was Smith’s professed affinity for the John Birch Society due to its staunch anti-communism. He quoted Smith as declaring that “[f]ollowers of mine who have access to our literature should attend the John Birch Society meetings in their community.” However, Cameron noted that Smith complained that the society did not center its conspiracism on antisemitism. Cameron quoted Smith as lamenting that the Birchers “not only do not discuss the Jewish issue but once in a while they are tempted to bite a little flesh out of some of us who have dared to discuss the Jewish issue.” 

Despite Welch’s refusal to cross the line of open antisemitism, Cameron nevertheless saw these connections as profoundly troubling. He declared that “[t]hus we have evidence that the parasites of religious and racial prejudice are crawling into bed with the John Birch Society”. He added, “I shudder to think of the hideous offspring of such a mating.”

With the toxicity of the John Birch Society magnified, Cameron warned that society continued to use its influence to shape policy and governance. Cameron’s target of choice was the Americans for Constitutional Action (ACA) and their access to members of Congress. He asserted that half of the ACA leadership were members of the John Birch Society and that the ACA maintained numerous other financial connections with the society. He stated that the ACA attached itself “like a political leech” to Congress and could “transfer the image of respectable conservatism to radical rightwing extremism.” Throughout the rest of his speech, he called out the identities of alleged Birchers, including several prominent Old Right noninterventionists and members of the Citizen’s Foreign Aid Committee (CFAC). Among the names mentioned by Cameron were the “enthusiastic Bircher,” former congressman Howard Buffet and CFAC member General Bonner Fellers. He also noted that the ACA distributed materials from the “reactionary” Dan Smoot. 

To cap off his speech, Cameron invoked the recent history of Europe’s experiences with totalitarianism. He warned that while the danger of such organizations was minimal during regular times, he caveated this by asserting Americans were enduring an environment perilously close to those which ushered in communism and Nazism. For him, the Cold War constituted “a crisis” that could empower those with “extremist panaceas [to] become a real threat to democracy.” While Cameron did not explicitly claim that groups like the John Birch Society were plotting a fascist takeover of the U.S., his speech did much to connect their” extremism” and the eventual destruction of the American way of life. 

Cameron’s speech was proliferated by the Associated Press and republished in local newspapers in his home state of California and throughout the country. The speech was also reprinted via the Congressional Printing office and distributed by Birch-watchers. A copy of Cameron’s address is located in the papers of Bryan W. Stevens, a noted Birch reporter; it was in Stevens’s papers where I initially encountered the speech. 

Its destination serves as proof of its intent to serve as a means of political propaganda. To be fair, the printed congressional speech was a typical political messaging tactic in the days before the internet, one that the right also engaged in. The scheme often worked one of two ways. First, a political figure would deliver an address, sometimes in conjunction with an outside, nominally independent political organization. Then, said the organization would pay to print copies of the speech (portions of the Congressional Record could not be printed at taxpayer expense). Printed copies would then be circulated through mailing lists, handed out at events, etc. Conversely, political groups would often write ideologically aligned congressional members and ask them to enter a written item into the Congressional Record and then provide the funds to print it. 

Either way, the relationship added a veneer of state authority to a partisan political goal. And such is the case with Cameron’s speech, with its title “Who is Doing the Devil’s Work in American Politics?” emblazoned upon an official government document (see below).

Page one of the printed version of Rep. Cameron’s address. Note the provocative title prominently depicted beneath the authoritative congressional masthead. Source: Stevens, Bryan W. The John Birch Society in California politics, 1966: by Bryan W. Stevens. The Publius Society, c 1966. Political Extremism and
Radicalism, link.gale.com/apps/doc/RAICBF251389805/PLEX?u=viva_gmu&sid=bookmark-PLEX&xid=370d8729&pg=183. Accessed 3 Feb.
2022

And what was the political goal? To use the John Birch Society (JBS) as a bludgeon to be used against the conservative movement writ large. By 1963, the JBS was clearly serving that function for Cold War liberals and progressives. And to be fair, the society and its leader, Robert B. Welch, did not do themselves many favors. From Welch’s insinuation that Eisenhower was a commie, to their generous use of the “communist” label, to some of their more outlandish conspiracist claims, the JBS and Welch gave their detractors plenty of rope to hang themselves with. However, despite these angles of attack, the group’s eccentricities were not enough to make them uniquely toxic.

 Despite the labels applied to them, the Birchers embodied a then-declining bourgeois Americanist social order at odds with the ascending postwar managerial state. The society was considerably more antielite and often antistatist than attacks leveled upon them would otherwise suggest. They similarly embraced a view of economic relations and a conspiratorial view of history that, while in 1963 was considered “extreme,” would have seemed banal or downright ordinary 30 years prior. And thus, as during the First Brown Scare, the JBS’ ideological proximity to other, more objectively and explicitly illiberal or antisemitic organizations was used by their opponents to achieve their political ends. The group’s real and imagined proximity to odious actors like Gerald L. K. Smith became essential for the political attacks against them. Despite the admitted distance between Smith and Welch, their shared anti-elitism and the occasional rightward drift of some former Birchers was enough to rope the two groups together.

In this formulation, we see one example of a common adjacency attack meant to shrink the political coalition of one’s political opponents. In 1963, Smith and his publication had no political clout. However, the Birchers did. Therefore, Smith and co. became the ammunition used to make the JBS even more radioactive than they were on their own. Once completed, the society was then used as a weapon against other political targets further inside the Overton Window. Conservative power brokers like William F. Buckley then furthered the process along and exiled the society and, as a result, aided liberals in moving the Overton Window ever leftward (see my crude graphic below).

This graphic depicts the relationship between different ideological parties as it relates to an outside political force and their attempts to control the political discourse of their opponents. The “weapon,” in this case, the John Birch Society, stood astride the rightward edge of the Overton Window. Their opponents used their proximity, real and exaggerated, to make them a radioactive bludgeon, which could then be used to discipline “the Target,” the rest of the political right.

This three-degree tactic is, of course, not limited to the left. The right, for a time during the McCarthy era, used the same approach to varying degrees of success, and indeed even the Birchers themselves tried to do the same to their opponents. The difference, however, is that after the inglorious end to the career of Tail gunner Joe, McCarthyite became a slur; no such pejorative exists to describe the reverse. “Cameronite” isn’t a thing.

And it isn’t a thing because the Birchers and other targets of the Second Brown Scare are not traditionally treated as sympathetic characters due to their opposition to key components of the modern liberal program, chiefly Civil Rights. Despite a brief period of nuance in the 1990s and early 2000s, the historiography of these events has reverted back to a narrative largely resembling that of Cameron’s speech. The double whammy of Brexit and Trump has provided incentives to justify current moral and political panics but resuscitate those of yesteryear.

  [i] According to the data analysis I have conducted for this project, Rep Cameron’s opposition rate to U.S. foreign policy during his four-year congressional career (1963-1967) was a mere 7%, a statistic of note given Cameron’s politics and political targets.

When “Isolationism” Won: The Other World War and the Ascent of Dissent

The following is a chapter that I was forced to cut from my dissertation projection, “Partisans of the Old Republic: Rightwing Opposition to U.S. Foreign Policy.”

Writing long-form pieces like a dissertation can force one to make painful editorial decisions. Due to demands on my time and brevity, I needed to conflate much of the following into an earlier chapter. Rather than leave this work to languish in the recesses of my computer, I decided to post it here on my blog.

The essay argues that American involvement in, the conduct of, and the end of the Great War led to the Republican Party developing a synthesized foreign policy worldview that drew elements from its two sectional wings, a compromised position that informed American foreign policy during the interwar period.

For those well-versed in the history of American involvement in World War I, the following may not prove revelatory. However, for the uninitiated, the following will provide a helpful primer on American entry into the war and the backlash that it created. I believe that firmly rooting the history of “isolationism” in American involvement in World War I (if not earlier) is essential to understanding Americans’ traditional reluctance to participate in overseas conflicts and commitments.

On 25 January 1928, Theodore Burton, a Republican Representative from Ohio, introduced House Joint Resolution 183, “To prohibit the exportation of arms, munitions, or implements of war to belligerent nations.” The seasoned politician was a vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy. Like most Republicans of his generation and region, Burton came to oppose American interventionism by living through the Spanish-American War, engaging in debates about American naval power, and witnessing the catastrophic Great War. He opposed the U.S. government’s occupation of the Philippines, challenged the need for a large global navy, and served as the president of the American Peace Society towards the end of his life. In response to the horrors of World War I, Burton introduced legislation to bar “the exportation of arms, munitions, or implements of war to any nation which is engaged in war with another.” Unbeknownst to Burton, who died in 1929, the resolution would be the basis for what became colloquially known as the Neutrality Act. The act, which served to constrain the president’s authority to act in international crises, served as the crescendo of American noninterventionism. The passage of Burton’s legislation, a bill that outlived its creator, was also a testament to the rising popularity and continuity of a spirit of American noninterventionism born during America’s ascent to global power.

The Neutrality Act passed Congress via voice vote in the House and the Senate by a decisive, bipartisan vote of 72-9. It was signed into law by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on 31 August 1935. Directly informed by America’s entry into the Great War, the law placed a general embargo on all munitions exports to belligerents engaged in war and warned Americans that those who traveled upon warring vessels did so at their peril. The law and its decisive passage represented the zenith of American noninterventionism. Its bipartisan and national endorsement also characterized the success of what was a previously predominately Midwestern and largely partisan Republican position on American intervention in global affairs.    

This essay will argue that American entry into, prosecution, and conclusion of the Great War created an amalgamated foreign policy vision for the Republican Party that took aspects from the party’s two sections that determined American foreign policy during the interwar period. At the beginning of the war, the sectional differences within the GOP remained, with Midwesterners predominately opposing American involvement in the conflict and Old Guard members supporting entry. However, the excesses of the war on the home front forced these two sections together, as both found reason to oppose the Wilson administration’s prosecution of the war. Similarly, their shared opposition to the League of Nations over the issue of American sovereignty created an intraparty détente that killed the treaty and helped to usher in the defeat of Wilsonianism and the triumph of the Republican Party in the interwar period.

The restored Republican Party would guide American foreign policy according to impulses taken from each of its sections. Learning from the horror of the Great War, they sought to keep European politics at arm’s length. The Republican administrations of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover guided American Pacific policy by attempting to fuse the Old Guard’s desire for market access with the Midwest’s desire for demilitarization and political disentanglement. Lastly, on Latin American issues, Republican political ascendency mirrored the paradigms of the pre-Great War era, with a policy of economic dominance interspersed with military intervention. Yet, even here, Midwestern Republicans, backed by an interwar zeitgeist of antimilitarism, eventually forced the Hoover administration to moderate long-standing American policies in Latin America. This ascendant attitude of antimilitarism and noninterventionism outlived the dominance of the Republican Party. The Great Depression amplified these critiques, a process that culminated in the signing of the Neutrality Act.

Both the Old Guard and the Midwestern progressive wing of the party responded to the war and President Woodrow Wilson’s prosecution and proposed postwar settlement in ways that would define American foreign policy of the interwar period. It informed the foreign policy views in the forthcoming ‘Old Right’ and their opposition to American entry into World War II and early Cold War policy.

Historians of American foreign policy and noninterventionism often confine their work to WWII and treat World War I, and the resistance it garnered as an abbreviated preface. These scholars also often argue that noninterventionism in the interwar period, particularly its sizeable Midwestern component, was primarily motivated by the section’s large German population and latent affinity for their homeland in the Old World.[i] Scholars and journalists, therefore, typically work their way backward, explaining the advent of noninterventionism as a near-term reaction to the horrors of the Great War.[ii] Lastly, an immediate postwar interpretation, one which has regained popularity in recent years, places xenophobia and antisemitism as central motivations for American opposition to entry into World War II.[iii] Instead, this essay will show that the Great War and its aftermath were a conduit for existing noninterventionist critiques, a mechanism that made them politically and intellectually palatable at a national scale. The overseas and domestic horror of the Great War mainstreamed existing discourse on executive authority and conspiracism, the particularity of American republicanism, antimilitarism, sovereignty, Anglophobia, and the wickedness of the Old World.

Debates about US entry into World War I solidified the trends unleashed by the late 19th century, ultimately bringing them to the national fore. As with domestic opposition to the Spanish-American war, opponents of American entry into the Great War were a heterogenous movement. Opposition to the war motivated people from all sections of the county and all corners of political life. Antiwar activism and antimilitarism found support amongst the ranks of labor and capital, suffragists and antisuffragists, “old stock” and immigrants, cosmopolitans and particularists, and people of all religions, ethnic and racial groups.[iv]

However, among the war’s dissenters, the largest coherent political bloc was that of the Republican Midwest. As with their earlier criticism of American military buildup, Midwestern opponents to the war were often motivated by their suspicions of what they deemed a self-interested Atlanticist Eastern elite class that believed British interests were more important than tending to American business at home. Earlier class and regional divides Anglophobia entrenched as the U.S. became more involved in Europe’s Great War. The nature of America’s entry into, execution, and resolution of the Great War exacerbated the Midwest’s sectional tendencies. The war brought new noninterventionists into the fold and made noninterventionism a national norm as the two halves of the Republican Party reconciled their differences to defeat the League of Nations and resumed their electoral dominance after the 1918 and 1920 elections.

Early American policy towards the Great War held that of strict neutrality. Upon the start of the war in 1914, President Woodrow Wilson’s earliest public statements were for Americans to be “neutral in fact, as well as name.”[v] Wilson was keenly aware of the divided nature of American public opinion. He came to occupy the oval office via a contentious 1912 presidential election that saw the GOP ticket split between its conservative standard bearer Taft and former President and Bull-Moose Party candidate Theodore Roosevelt and an active campaign of Socialist Party Eugene V. Debs. The split GOP ticket allowed Wilson to secure a sizeable electoral win despite winning only 40% of the popular vote. His party endured rough midterm elections in 1914, and as late as the 1916 presidential campaign, Wilson preferred to focus on domestic issues. His surrogates championed the incumbent as putting “America first” and as possessing the leadership that “kept us out of war,” [vi] and went so far as to claim a Republican victory would mean be sucked “into the embroilments of the European war.”[vii] Wilson secured his 1916 reelection victory, albeit it on carrying California by a mere 3,773 votes.

Privately, however, President Wilson’s sympathies lay with the Allies and especially the British. Throughout his early life, Wilson showed a great appreciation for England’s parliamentary system and Europe’s progressive politics[viii] and had direct familial ties to the British Isles, as his mother hailed from the town of Carlisle in Northern England.[ix] Wilson’s cabinet and inner circle were also staffed with those who held Allied sympathies. Among them was his chief (and non-appointed) advisor, Colonel William House. House similarly viewed the British with affection and privately advocated for supporting the Allied cause while the White House took an official stance of neutrality.

Segments of the Republican Party paralleled the White House’s support for the Allies. Northern members of the party, particularly those with nationalist tendencies, like former President Teddy Roosevelt, considered the war an opportunity. He viewed the conflict in Europe as an avenue for masculine renewal, a means of hardening the nation’s men, made flabby by decades of industrialization.[x] Like their views on the Spanish-American War, these Roosevelt Republicans saw the war as a means of solidifying America’s economic and social growth and a mechanism for the U.S. to take its “rightful” place in the world. The former president and those in his circle believed that American entry would further the quest for national greatness, an international form of manifest density. Whether it was on the issue of national preparedness, or entry into the war, the aging Rough Rider never missed an opportunity to skewer the sitting Democratic president. His passion for the war played well for the Northern portion of his traditional base but alienated his more progressive or populist Midwestern supporters.[xi]

Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge mirrored many of Roosevelt’s views of the war and the prospect of American entry into it. Like Roosevelt, Lodge, the child of a prominent Boston family, believed in an assertive American foreign policy beyond the parameters of the Western hemisphere. And, like Roosevelt, he loathed Wilson’s seeming hesitancy to embrace the moment and believed in the utility and righteousness of American leadership and, at times, unilateralism.[xii] However, unlike the bold and progressive Roosevelt, Lodge was a shrewd political figure closer to the conservative wing of the GOP. Rather than seeing the war as a means to bring the GOP together, as Roosevelt vainly attempted, Lodge understood he could use the conflict to embarrass Wilson and the Democrats while finally purging his party of progressive antimilitarists and antiimperialists.[xiii]

Lodge’s views on American power overseas were, however, complicated. While he was a vocal supporter of American entry into the war, his position was animated by his long-established unilateralism and exceptionalism. Unlike Anglophiles in the liberal and progressive camps, Lodge’s views of Europe were closer to that of his populist, Midwestern colleagues. For him and other Republican unilateralists, America should fight in Europe not to join it but to redeem it.[xiv]  Lodge’s public positions and voting records on executive power, if only because of partisan acrimony and personal disdain for President Wilson, also put him slightly within the noninterventionist camp. Similarly, as we will see, his crucial role in the postwar settlement provided noninterventionism the means to prevail after the war.[xv]

One of Lodge’s Midwestern opponents within his party was Wisconsin Senator Robert “Fighting Bob” La Follette. La Follette was the patriarch of a progressive political family that blended a populist view of American domestic politics with that of noninterventionism. A persistent irritant to the Republican Party’s Old Guard, La Follette supported enacting child labor laws, using federal power to break up trusts, and progressive taxation. Midwestern sectional politics informed his views on domestic issues, which saw the Northeast as pursuing a foreign policy for its benefit. La Follette believed that American entry into the war, either as a pseudo-belligerent or official member of the Allies, would profit American capital and industry at the expense of the median American. La Follette was joined in his dissent in Congress by a cadre of fellow Midwestern Republicans, like Nebraskan George Norris, and a smattering of Southern Democrats, such as House majority leader Claude Kitchin.[xvi]

The battle between Lodge and LaFollette paralleled similar rifts within America’s larger progressive movement. Like the Republican Party, arguments over the war split progressives. The divergence endured in the progressive movement foreshadowed the divides of the following world war and helped set the stage for political realignment that birthed the Old Right. American progressives approached the war over debates about whether it would serve national interests at the expense of public interests.[xvii]

Central to this progressive divide over the war was a debate about whether it would serve as positive means of furthering the growth of a managed economy or as a negative force for the curtailment of civil liberties and social justice. Progressive supporters of the war viewed it as a means to implement a permanently managed economy, a welcomed alternative to the turmoil of industrialized, free-market economics. In the progressive antiwar camp, were who believed that war would be detrimental to the cause of social justice and would empower capital and the centralized state at the expense of the individual. Such figures included reformer, social activist Jane Addams, and New Republic writer Randolph Bourne. Progressive and other left-wing war opponents also had significant portions of America’s unions in their camp, such as the rank and file of the American Federal of Labor (AFL) and especially the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW).

In the pro-intervention camp were key progressive figures like Professor John Dewey, who asserted that the war could make the world safe from German militarism and shepherd the American political economy towards a fairer, less individualistic, managed state.[xviii] Another such progressive war supporter was journalist Walter Lippmann. Lippman was one of the founding editors of the New Republic, a progressive magazine that declared itself dedicated to “a liberalism centered in humanitarian and moral passion, and one based in an ethos of scientific analysis.”[xix] Lippmann, like Dewey, saw the war and America’s entry into it as an opportunity to remake the global order and awaken Americans from what he viewed as its apathy towards international relations. He often framed and wrote about the war in nearly messianic terms as a part of a global struggle. Writing in the New Republic in 1917, he opined that out “of this horror,” the Allies could create “nothing less than a Federation of the World.”[xx]

Another prominent prowar progressive who would go on to impact the ascent of the Old Right was historian Charles Beard. By 1914, Beard was a long-established academic historian with popular appeal. A Midwesterner by birth, Beard defied regional trends through his academic training at Oxford, becoming an anglophile. At the start of the Great War, Beard was among the progressives who supported US entry into the conflict.[xxi] Mirroring the sentiments of his educational class and anglophilia, Beard advocated for American support to the Allies and American entry into the war. Beard believed confronting the Central Powers could quash a pernicious “Prussian militarism” and lead to a more democratic Europe.[xxii]

The mechanics of American entry into the war drew on much of America’s prewar populism, anglophobia, and sectional politics. Opponents of American entry pointed to the extension of American private capital to Allied debtors, the selling of American arms and supplies to the Allies, and the physical transport of said materials across the Atlantic. All three issues opened debates about the limits of American neutrality. While the federal government officially took no side, private firms sold arms, munitions, food, and raw materials to all parties in the conflict. However, a British blockade of German imports and a general affinity for Great Britain and France tilted American support for the Triple Entente.[xxiii] Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, attempted to keep America out of the war and truly neutral. The prairie populist was able, for a time, to persuade private banks to abstain from lending money to belligerent nations.[xxiv] Nevertheless, by the summer of 1915, Secretary Bryan felt that American economic and sympathetic ties were drawing the country close to the Allied orbit and into the war. The old hand of the Democratic Party resigned in protest.

By the time of Bryan’s resignation, the United States was a de facto member of the Entente powers, supplying them with munitions and critical lifelines of capital. Despite both warring parties engaging in different forms of naval blockade, the British on the surface, and the Germans below, Washington backed down on protesting the former. Regardless of the alleged illegality of the British blockading neutral shipping, the superiority of the British fleet, and the latent Anglophilia within Wilson’s administration, meant few American claims on its neutrality rights visa vie the British. In a common journalistic quip of the time, “Britain rules the waves and waives the rules.”[xxv]

From the summer of 1915 until 1917, the United States government took incremental steps towards active entry into the war. The mechanisms for this incrementalism were issuing credit and shipments of military supplies to Europe. U.S. banks, like those of American financial magnate and anglophile J.P. Morgan. Morgan’s banking house provided a vital credit lifeline to Great Britain, who hung by a fiscal thread, and France, who by 1916 was effectively broke.[xxvi] Similarly, American industry came to rescue the Entente long before official American entry into the war. U.S. armament manufacturers produced the arms, ammunition, and supplies that kept the Allied armies equipped and combat-ready. By 1916, American industry supplied the Allies with 40% of their war material.[xxvii] The United States, while officially neutral, was an unofficial backer of the Allied side and benefited significantly in the process. In the wake of the Great War, these capital transfers and armaments would fuel the critiques of the noninterventionists.

American supply of arms and munitions and the passage of American citizens on belligerent vessels came into conflict with the German Empire’s use of unrestricted submarine warfare. It was the official policy of the Wilson administration that Americans had a right to travel on belligerent ships free from wartime violence.[xxviii] Such a right was fought in Congress by both Midwestern Republicans and a handful of dissenting Southern Democrats. In the House, Republican minority leader James R. Mann snapped that the U.S. was being maneuvered into war by Americans who went for a “joy ride.”[xxix] Robert La Follette fought to introduce legislation in the Senate to ban Americans traveling in war zones on belligerent ships. Such legislation failed on the Hill as the White House’s influence on the Democratic majority was enough to shelve these efforts.[xxx] A similar issue arose with the issue of arming merchant vessels. Once again, Robert La Follette led the effort to prevent the escalation of American involvement by filibustering legislation allowing merchant vessels to transverse the Atlantic while armed. To quote President Wilson, La Follette and his “little group of willful men” held up armed merchant vessel legislation until the President made the issue moot by circumventing Congress via executive order.[xxxi] The President’s willingness to evade Congress with the power of the pen fueled antiwar dissents that saw it as proof of Wilson’s descent into dictatorship.

The issue of German U-boat action was defused for a time after the outage of the sinking of the Lusitania. After recognizing its naval shortcomings, German leadership renounced its use of unrestricted submarine warfare in May 1915.[xxxii]However, as Europe’s battlefield stalemate slogged on, coupled with the worsening effects of the British blockade, in January 1917, German leadership reversed itself and announced that it resumed its U-Boat campaign. German officials reasoned that since American the government was, in effect, a pseudo-belligerent, risking their active involvement in the war was an acceptable tradeoff for the chance of disrupting the arms and munitions flow to the Allies.[xxxiii] The German resumption of their naval campaigns, coupled with the interception of the Zimmermann Telegram, boosted public support for the Allies and provided the casus belli for American entry into the conflict. [xxxiv]  

Even as official American entry laid a mere vote away, a sizeable number of holdouts remained within Congress. In his dissent, Senator La Follette remained unmoved in his positions and attacked the high-minded rhetoric of President Wilson. “Fighting Bob” assaulted the hypocrisy of the Allied powers, especially Great Britain. He called the British blockade an inhumane tool that starved the old, the young, and the sick. La Follette argued that to enter the war was to “endorse the violations of international law by Great Britain” and its “shameful methods of warfare.”[xxxv] Again, La Follette assailed Wilson’s democratic rhetoric by claiming that the Allies were no paragons of democracy. He again aimed at Great Britain and contended that to enter the war would mean allying with a government headed by “a hereditary monarchy, with a hereditary ruler, [and] with a hereditary House of Lords.”[xxxvi] He further dismissed the notion that the United States had conducted itself as a true neutral power, having only sought to enforce its neutral rights against Germany and accepting the implementation of Great Britain’s blockade.

La Follette also argued against entering the war on domestic grounds. He asserted that it would cost the ordinary person the benefit of the elite. He foresaw the war imposing financial hardship upon the median American in higher taxes and prices. Such fiscal hardship would support the elite’s bottom line, as the median American’s tax dollars that would “pay the interest on the nontaxable bonds held by Morgan and his combinations.”[xxxvii] Representative Ernest Lundeen (R-MN) echoed such sentiments in the House. In a foreshadowing of the national mood to come, he blamed the banking and arms industries for creating and profiting from the war. He provocatively declared that “munition makers desire to make more munitions, to deliver them and receive their money in return at high war prices” and added that “[o]ur financiers desire that Uncle Sam underwrite these and other huge loans and fight to defend their financial interests.”[xxxviii]

Other dissenters argued that entering the war would upset the nation’s governing status quo. Rep. Harry Hull (R-IA) registered his dissent as stemming from localist politics that centered the needs of the median American over the lofty goals appended the war. He asserted that he felt his opposition was in keeping with the opinion of the average American resident of his district. Like Lundeen, Hull noted the common person would bear the brunt of the war and lamented at the prospect of sacrificing “the flower of American manhood to swell the fleshpots of the few.” Additionally, he rejected the high-minded internationalism or knee-jerk militaristic rationales for going to war. Instead, Hull asserted that “the test of loyalty is not the answer to the bugle call, but is rather in the exercise of that calm, impassive judgment that will bring health, happiness, and honor to your home, your community, your State, and your country.”[xxxix]

Fear that the war would permanently disfigure the country ran throughout dissenting bodies in Congress. William Mason, the veteran Republican antiimperialist from Ohio, now in the House of Representatives, again opposed the prospect of Americans fighting a foreign war. As he had 18 years prior, Mason asserted that entry into the war would deface the republic. “The danger of entering into war […] means an entrance on our part into European war and European politics, the dangers of which were foreshadowed by Washington and are familiar to every student of the history of the United States.”[xl] The fear of a disfigured republic was a bipartisan one. In his objection to the declaration, Democratic Senator from Missouri William J. Stone stated, “I won’t vote for this war because if we go into it, we will never again have the same old Republic.”[xli]

Despite these pleas against the declaration, the declaration passed more comfortably than the passions involved would have indicated. A noticeable pocket of Democratic opposition to the war, particularly in the South and West, shrank as Wilson was able to keep most of the party in line.[xlii] The pressure to vote for the war fell some antiwar Republicans from the party’s progressive wing. Even Senator Borah, once elected on an anti-imperialism platform, relented. Commenting on his support, Borah asserted that the vote did not signify an act of aggression but rather “a war for the defense of American rights and the American people.”[xliii] despite these pressures, six Senators voted against the declaration of war against the German Empire in 1917, three Republicans (all Midwesterners) and three Democrats. In the House, 32 Republicans and 16 Democrats opposed the measure. All 32 Republicans represented districts in the Midwest, Rockies, or the west coast. None of the nay votes in Congress from either major party originated from the country’s Northern states.[xliv]

With American entry into the conflict secured, debate in Congress centered on the means of waging the American war effort, and a heated debate around conscription began in earnest. Although the federal government successfully implemented its first mass draft during World War I, it found resistance across the political spectrum from both major parties and throughout the Midwest, West, and South. Even the Democratic House Majority Leader, Claude Kitchin of North Carolina, defied the president. Opposition to the draft was so strident that even for congressmen who supported entry into the war, conscription was too similar to the compulsory service regimes of the Old World, particularly that of the German empire.[xlv] One dissenter on the measure was Democratic Congressman Charles H. Brand of Georgia. Rep. Brand, who had voted for the war resolution, opposed conscription on moral and ideological grounds. He asserted his belief that implementing nationalized conscription would lead to establishing a large, standing army, long the bane of America’s idealized Jeffersonian tradition. “We should be careful lest in attempting to destroy militarism and autocracy abroad we will do those things which will have a tendency to destroy democracy at home,” he remarked in his dissent.[xlvi]

Brand also believed that establishing a large standing army would erase each state’s particularity and facilitate the creation of mass society, the same sort of society that had fueled the Old World’s descent into total war. Undergirding Brand’s commentary was another reason for opposing the draft, which particularly animated the Solid South, the fear of black violence subsidized by the federal government. One Democratic politician who was not shy of making his opposition explicit was Mississippi Senator James K. Vardman, who groused that conscription would enable “arrogant strutting representatives of the black soldiery in every community.”[xlvii] Southern resistance to the sinews of American imperial power in 1917, as with their opposition to the occupation of the Philippines, was often animated by a desire to maintain white republican rule. The prospect of black soldiers, like Filipino labor, threatened to undermine the established racial order.

Race and republicanism overlapped with fears that the draft would create a permanent martial caste, similar to that of the fear of German Junkers, the alleged seedbed for German militarism. Congressional opponents to the draft believed that, if enacted, it would fundamentally transform American society and turn it into an imitation of what it was mobilizing to fight, a martial society. Brand remarked that the conscription bill, as proposed, exempted government officers. According to Brand, these officials would enjoy the fruits of “life, liberty, and freedom” while deciding “who shall go to war and who shall remain at home.”[xlviii]

Brand’s fellow opponents shared echoed sentiments. One such dissenter was Rep. Ernest Lundeen (R-MN), who opposed conscription as fervently as he did American entry into the war. Like Brand, Lundeen asserted that the draft was undemocratic, as it left Congress untouched. According to Lundeen, this disparity in sacrifice undermined the lofty ideals for which the U.S. was to enter the war and undermined the difference between America and its Old-World adversaries. A veteran of the Spanish-American War, Lundeen mockingly declared that “I volunteer here and now to lead an untrained but war-like and war-voting company of volunteer Congressmen into the trenches of Europe” and added, when “you vote for war, send your name to Uncle Sam as a volunteer.”[xlix] While the conscription passed into law, every section of the country registered some level of dissent in the House of Representatives, with the highest levels of opposition stemming from the Midwestern and Western states.[l]

Public opposition to the draft paralleled those in Congress, and the federal government had a plan to curtail it, the Sedition Act.[li] Passed shortly after conscription, the Sedition Act amended the earlier Espionage Act. Despite not containing the direct free speech abridgments Wilson desired, the Sedition Act effectively illegalized dissent directed at the federal government and its prosecution of the war. Provisions of the act made it a felony to incite disloyalty within the U.S. military, use written or verbal language which was disloyal to the U.S. government, advocate strikes related to war industries, or “by word or act enemy support or favor the cause of any country with which, the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States.”[lii] The act afforded federal and state authorities, often supported by vigilante groups, the means to quash antiwar dissenters long before American troops entered the fray on the Western Front.[liii]

The federal government used the act as a pretext for cracking down on left-leaning unions, particularly the International Workers of the World (IWW). The use of federal authority, often coupled with vigilantism, was used to discipline the antiwar wing of the labor movement, which resulted in numerous cases of street violence[liv] and, in the case of union leader Frank Little, murder by lynching.[lv] While the Wilson administration attempted and failed to prove that the I.W.W. was in the pocket of the German empire, the broad proscripts of the Sedition Act provided the means to suppress the organization. And, on 28 September 1918, 166 members of the union were federally indicted to, in the words of one prosecutor, “put the I.W.W. out of business.”[lvi] The Sedition Act provided the federal government the means of waging the final battle of the American labor wars as it geared up to wage war in Europe.

The Sedition Act was enforced by a culture of war fever, largely stewed by the federal government. Upon entering the Great War, the Wilson administration desired to shape public opinion on war by proliferating its official line on the war, that it was an endeavor in self-defense brought on by the “sinister power” of German militarism.[lvii] Wilson created the Committee for Public Information (CPI) via executive order to achieve this end and appointed his progressive political ally and former investigative journalist George Creel as its head. Creel’s organization proliferated pro-Allied and xenophobic anti-German messaging through its press releases, the covert subsidizing of newspapers, public speakers, and even church sermons. The CPI presented a picture of the war which demonized “the Hun” abroad and war resisters at home. The CPI also pressured American media to censor their content and coordinated with other government agencies, including the Postal Service, to restrict dissident content.[lviii] In addition to boosting the U.S. government’s position on the war, the CPI inflated the domestic threat of German agents, framed calls for a negotiated peace as “spy talk,” and coerced newspaper editors who considered running articles critical of the war.[lix]

Unbeknownst to the American public, Creel’s efforts with the CPI were paralleled by a similar campaign waged by the British government. Even before the United States formally entered the war, British intelligence worked to move American public opinion towards the Triple Entente. British agents amplified accusations of German war crimes in Belgium to elicit American sympathies for the Allies.[lx] Not content to merely draw Americans towards Great Britain, their agents, through contacts with local police and journalists, sought to drive a wedge between the United States and Germany. Before American entry into the conflict, British agents amplified the presence of German agents and sympathizers within the United States while minimizing the visibility of their own intelligence activities.[lxi]

The Sedition Act and British and American propaganda cultivated a wartime culture of anti-German sentiment and other xenophobic campaigns tied up with the war effort. As with labor, the federal government used its power to prosecute religiously motivated pacifists, many of whom belonged to historical German protestant denominations. Dozens of members of Anabaptist subsects, such as Mennonites and Hutterites, were charged under the auspices of the Espionage Act for refusing to register for the draft or making statements critical of the American war effort.[lxii]

The Sedition Act similarly incentivized intolerant and illiberal attitudes directed at the wider German-American community. Once held up as the prototypical “model minority,” German immigrants and German Americans quickly became viewed as an enemy within.[lxiii] Taking their cues from Washington and Woodrow Wilson’s rhetoric promoting “100% Americanism,” local governments passed various bans on speaking German in public, teaching German in school, and other measures to limit displays of German culture in American society.[lxiv] Private businesses went so far as to engage in the pedantic practice of renaming German cuisine. American towns changed German-sounding street names and, in several cases, entire placenames. And individual German Americans, once proud of their collective contributions to American society, hid their heritages and often changed their surnames.[lxv] Beyond petty assault and intimidation, mob violence on several occasional resulted in the lynching of several German immigrants.[lxvi] America’s orgy of xenophobia and violence during the Great War would inform American noninterventionism upon the end of the war and serve as a living example of what mass war can unleash on the home front.[lxvii]

Due to the downstream effects of the Sedition Act and other government rhetoric on the war, political violence became a norm during America’s involvement in the conflict. Even in the Midwest, a bastion of noninterventionism, prowar vigilantes, taking their informal ques from the White House, intimidated antiwar political figures. One such Midwestern Republican was former Minnesota Representative and Swedish immigrant Charles Lindbergh Sr. The elder Lindbergh, the father to the future famous-turned-infamous aviator and noninterventionist, was an outspoken opponent of American entry into the Great War. Like others of his section, Lindbergh Sr., a progressive Republican and agrarian radical opposed American entry into the war on populist grounds. In his 1917 book, Why Is Your Country at War, he asserted that the “special interests” of Wall Street, the money trust, were the financial interests responsible for inching Americans into war.[lxviii]

Lindbergh Sr.’s rationale and rhetoric mirrored those of his section and presaged that of his more notable and infamous son. “It is impossible according to the big press to be a true American unless you are pro-British” he asserted in his antiwar tome, and added, “[i]f you are really for America first, last, and all the time and solely for American and for the masses primarily, then you are classed as pro-German by the big press which are supported by the speculators.”[lxix] And, like his son, the elder’s noninterventionism was often met with hostility. Their Minnesota home was vandalized, and while on the 1918 Minnesota gubernatorial campaign trail, Lindbergh Sr. was often met by aggressive crowds. At one rally, he was hung in effigy, at another, he was pelted with eggs, and after one speaking engagement, he sped out of town, tailed gunfire, a young Charles A. Lindberg Jr. at the wheel.[lxx]

Violence at home paralleled political dissent from the changes in the American economy brought about by the active entry into the war. These economic grievances coincided with other sources of dissatisfaction that pushed the GOP further into a role as the de facto opposition party on the issue of foreign affairs and then further along the path as the nation’s conservative party. President Wilson’s industrial policy elicited howls from both wings of the GOP. Wilson’s strategies for war mobilization struck a middle path, relying on his strain of progressive ideology that sought to marshal private resources through technocratic planning.[lxxi] Despite the feelings of some of his detractors, Wilson had little appetite for the nationalization of productive industry or for their forced break up. Similarly, due to strident opposition to raising taxes, Wilson sought to buffer America from the costs of the war by relying on inflationary monetary policy rather than direct taxation.[lxxii]  

Wilson’s technocratic middle way pleased none of his detractors and resulted in forcing the two wings of the Republican Party closer together. Midwestern progressives like Senator Robert La Follette desired to avoid inflation and instead sought a graduated tax system to finance the war.[lxxiii] Though the war, for a time, created a boom in agricultural production, the collapse of the demand bubble led to an economic crisis in the heartland that preceded the Great Depression. Economic hard times deepened the existing populist disdain for the North, as Midwestern populists came to blame their financial problems on Eastern banks that artificially drove up demand and ended in a crash.[lxxiv] Upon the war’s conclusion, Midwestern Republicans increasingly viewed the conflict as a means of wealth transfer from the heartland to the coasts, thereby deepening their sectional resentment and noninterventionism.

The effects of inflation dovetailed with the advent of the Farm Bureau. Buttressed by the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, Farm Bureaus were conservative-leaning, business-orientated organizations that sought to aid agricultural concerns through market means. The bureaus eschewed the earlier era of agrarian radicalism and instead sought to compete with outside capital at their own game, market access, and lobbying of government.[lxxv] The advent of the bureaus as a political force for rural Republicans, coupled with the burdens of the war, started the process of the rural Midwest’s political transformation. On the eve of the next world war, the Midwest would become the GOP’s rightwing base, one that adapted its earlier populist worldview on foreign policy to its new conservative politics.

Wilson’s changes in the wartime political economy also angered the GOP’s northern conservatives. The Republican Old Guard, already predisposed to loathe President Wilson and progressivism, similarly opposed the president’s wartime economic policies regardless of its stripe. The growth in the size of technocratic government elicited a partisan backlash from Old Guard Republicans wary of permanent changes to the American economy. Of particular ire for Congressional Republicans was the Department Reorganization Act of 1918, colloquially known as the Overman Act. The act allowed the president to reorganize executive agencies without consulting Congress. In a prelude to future fights between Republicans in Congress and a Democrat in the White House, the former made liberal use of the “dictator” accusation and cast the struggle over wartime policy as one over executive authority of the nature of republican government.[lxxvi]

While congressional Republicans failed to stop the bill, its passage, growing discontent in the grain belt, and excesses on the home front, coupled with normal midterm election dynamics, led to sizable GOP gains in the 1918 congressional elections. While the dynamics of GOP’s intraparty politics did not create a unified political message on the war, such disorganization played to the party’s advantage as Northern Republicans campaigned on Wilson’s alleged weakness overseas and populist Midwestern Republicans assailed his heavy hand on the home front. Republicans with a national platform like Roosevelt and Lodge attacked the President as weak on the war and liable to cave on postwar planning.[lxxvii] Wilson and his surrogates responded with accusations of Republican disloyalty. During a campaign speech in Wisconsin, Vice President Thomas R. Marshall vindictively mirrored the “hyphened American rhetoric” of his boss. He declared Wisconsinites were “half for America, half for the kaiser, and all against Wilson.” He charged the Wisconsin Republican Party of disloyalty and compared the candidates on the state ballot to “sewage.”[lxxviii]

The success of Allied and American forces in Europe did not translate to Democratic electoral victory as Wisconsinites responded by electing the full suite of Republican candidates in November 1918. Wisconsin’s results were part of a Republican victory that secured control of the Senate, albeit by a slim two-seat margin. The GOP also garnered a 24-seat margin in the House. While in historical terms, the 1918 results were typical for a midterm election, they looked like a thrashing when compared to Wilson’s campaign rhetoric and broke his tenuous South-West coalition.[lxxix] The slim victory did not stop Senator Lodge from declaring a rout and placing a moral sheen on the results, claiming that it constituted “a country-wide revolt against dictatorship.”[lxxx] With both chambers secured and the senior body now under the control of Senate Leader Henry Cabot Lodge, the GOP was poised to influence the outcome of the war and postwar policy.[lxxxi]

While Lodge’s electoral success would contribute to his goal of frustrating the White House, it would not suppress the more fervent voices of noninterventionism within his party. Instead, the 1918 elections solidified the place of Midwestern noninterventionism within national politics. Democratic losses were the steepest in the Midwest as farmers groaned under the burden of price controls.[lxxxii] And Wisconsin and Nebraska voters were partly motivated in response to anti-German American animus brought about by the war.[lxxxiii] The GOP gained four Senate seats in the Midwest, flipped one in Colorado, and held their existing seats in all sections west of the Mississippi River. Additionally, 34 Republican House Representatives from the Midwest began their political careers with the 1918 midterms. Key members would survive politically well into the interwar period, solidifying noninterventionist foreign policy thinking within the GOP and the country. More immediately, however, the 1918 election results assured the death of Wilson’s dream, American participation in the League of Nations.

President Woodrow Wilson’s trip to Europe and attendance at the Paris peace conference were supposed to herald a new era of foreign relations that would permanently arouse America from its alleged absence on the global stage. The President’s vision for the postwar world was built on his ambitious 14 points, a program that outlined lasting peace in Europe and a template for a liberal global order. Among them was what became known as the League of Nations, an association of sovereign states designed to maintain territorial integrity and prevent the outbreak of another world war. However, Wilson’s diplomatic successes did not match his ambitions. Wilson’s points managed to be, at times, vague and contradictory. For instance, the President championed a universalized right to self-determination but failed to articulate how that would comport with point tFhree, which called for liberal free trade, or the creation of an independent Polish state with access to the sea, a goal only achievable by incorporating ethnic Germans into the new political territory.[lxxxiv]

Wilson’s postwar plans also ran into a maelstrom of self-interest among the war’s victorious power. His call for free trade on open seas contradicted Britain’s dependence upon naval supremacy to prop up its empire. Similarly, Wilson’s invocation of “peace without victory,” a formulation for the postwar world, rang hollow for victors of the Entente. Great Britain sacrificed over 800,000 souls, with 1.6 million wounded during the war. France lost over 1.1 million soldiers and 40,000 civilian casualties, with over 4 million wounded. Italy, a junior partner and late arrival to the Entente, lost over 480,000 troops and nearly 950,000 wounded. Europe had just herded a generation of its young into the abattoir; peace without victory was inconceivable and politically impossible. Despite America’s years of financial and material support and its own sacrifice in the blood, Wilson was in no position cajole the Allies into accepting his idealistic vision.[lxxxv]

What emerged from Versailles was an amalgamation of Wilsonian idealism and European realism that differed significantly from the promises of “peace without victory.” The League of Nations treaty contained several compromises with Wilson’s proposed vision and provisions that elicited strident opposition within Congress and in pockets of the American public. The treaty imposed crippling reparations penalties upon Germany, and under pressure from French prime minister George Clemenceau, the treaty contained colloquially known as the “war guilt clause” (Article 231). The clause declared that Germany was solely responsible for starting the war, thereby whitewashing the war’s complex origins of imperial competition and secret alliances.[lxxxvi] The treaty also awarded France territories seized by Prussia during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1 and Germany’s coal-rich Saar region, a section of Germany to which the French had no historical claim.

The treaty also made several compromises with Wilsonian idealism on the issue of colonized people. The treaty left untouched the victorious powers’ colonial holdings and did not mention Ireland’s colonial status. Both aspects of the treaty stuck critics as blatant hypocrisies and, in the case of Ireland, created significant opposition within America’s Irish American population, a key Democratic constituency.[lxxxvii] Lastly, on the issue of colonialism, the treaty seized all of German’s overseas possessions as well as a portion of the Ottoman Empire and awarded them to the Allies under the auspices of colonial “mandates.” For long-established American opponents of the war, their ranks of the newly disillusioned, the scheme bore little difference from the victor’s dividing the spoils for further world dominance, rather than “peace without victory,” Wilson ensured a victory without peace.

The outcome of the war and the peace process led many prominent Republicans who had been erstwhile supporters of American intervention to become leading proponents of American retrenchment in foreign affairs. The most strident of these opponents, particularly populist Republicans from the Midwest, was led by “the Great Opposer,” Republican Senator from Idaho William Borah. While Borah reluctantly voted for American entry into the war, its conclusion and the naked ambitions of the imperial power made him snap back into his previous noninterventionist position with the zeal of a born-again adherent. He and his fellow “Irreconcilables” tapped into a wellspring of populist angst with the war, sentiments amplified by its outcome and strongest held in the Midwest.[lxxxviii] For these opponents, the putative actions against Germany, the land seizures in Europe, and the spoils of transferred colonies made a mockery of Wilson’s declaration that Americans fought for the advancement of democracy.

The Irreconcilables also believed that joining the League would fundamentally corrupt the character of the American Republic. For Borah and his supporters like Senator Poindexter (R-WA), and James Reed (D-MO), the League was a tool of European colonialism. And, since Article 10 made no clear distinction about what constituted a member’s territory, for them, the provision was a European ploy to use American citizens to control their colonial subjects. To the Irreconcilables, this arrangement threatened to transfigure the U.S. into an Old-World imperialist state. During a Senate speech on his opposition to American involvement in the League, Borah asserted that the “virtues of a real republic you can not commingle with the discordant and destructive forces of the Old World and still preserve them.” He added, [y]ou can not yoke a government whose fundamental maxim is that of liberty to a government whose first law is that of force.”[lxxxix] To maintain America’s exceptionalist republican character, Borah and his colleagues vowed to stop the treaty in any form.

While the “Irreconcilables” were often motivated by moral concerns and reinvigorated disdain for Europe, they shared an objection to Article 10 with the party’s Old Guard, a commonality that created the party unity necessary to prevent the ratification of the treaty. For the Irreconcilables of the progressive wing and the “Reservationists” within the Old Guard, the threat to American sovereignty posed by Article 10 provided the overlap needed to prevent ratification.[xc] Lodge, like the Irreconcilables, viewed Article 10 as an impetus to entangle Americans into European conflicts. On the Article, he held that Americans “would not have our country’s vigor exhausted or her moral force abated, by everlasting meddling and muddling in in every quarrel, great and small, which effects the world.”[xci] However, for Lodge and other unilateralists within the Old Guard, their objections to the article stemmed from a foundational desire to maintain American freedom of maneuver in foreign affairs. Lodge, like Roosevelt, was a navalist who viewed American global power as a logical extension of America’s westward expansion.[xcii] For these unilateralists, involvement in the league, as initially proposed, would hamper their ambitions for American global prominence.

Despite these issues, Senator Lodge offered the White House a set of compromises known as the “Lodge Reservations.” Lodge’s list of 14 compromises would have guarded against the sovereignty concerns associated with Article 10. Chief among them would have subjected America’s commitment to collective defense to Congressional approval.[xciii] The president refused to entertain Lodge’s counterproposal and urged Democratic Senators to reject them. The standoff between the Democratic executive and Republican legislative majority dragged on throughout 1919 and caused Lodge and Wilson’s already strident and mutual animosity to fester.[xciv] The League Treaty was defeated in Senate, having failed to achieve the 2/3rd majority needed for ratification.

Undeterred by its defeat in the Senate, Wilson subsequently took to his message to the public in a series of addresses he hoped to create pressure for the treaty’s ratification. He was often shadowed by a self-described Republican “truth-squad” comprised of Senators Borah, Hiram Johnson of California, and Illinois conservative and member of the influential McCormick publishing family, Medill McCormick.[xcv] The pressure of the public relations campaign ultimately cost President Woodrow Wilson’s health, having suffered from a debilitating stroke in October 1919. The president’s poor health and the impasse between him and Lodge condemned the League of Nations treaty to defeat.

The collapse of the League coincided with other sources of popular discontent. Among them were revelations about the scale and influence of British and American propaganda operations throughout the war. Upon the war’s end, the American public learned about these campaigns through a series of self-congratulatory memoirs and postwar investigations. For those already predisposed against American noninvolvement, these revelations amplified their Anglophobia and suspicion of American Atlanticists. These revelations even disturbed former interventionists, combined with the league’s collapse, and created a mood of disenchantment with foreign affairs.[xcvi]

In 1918, Gilbert Parker, a Canadian born, British propagandist, asserted in an essay for Harper’s “the scope of my department was very extensive and its activities widely ranged” and supplied three hundred and sixty newspapers to the smaller States […] we utilized the friendly services and assistance of confidential friends [and] with influential and eminent people of every profession in the United States.”[xcvii] Not to be outdone, in George Creel’s own How We Advertised America, published in 1920, he boasted that the CPI’s efforts “reached deep into every American community” and “was no part of the great war machinery that we did not touch, no medium of appeal that we did not employ.”[xcviii] Creel viewed his charge as necessary, for in his view, “[w]ith the existence of democracy itself at stake, there was no time to think about the details of democracy.”[xcix]

The public and journalistic response to these revelations was one of transpartisan outrage. Media outlets across the political spectrum recoiled at the idea that the American and British governments had sustained efforts to guide public opinion and control dissent. The Nation, an erstwhile progressive supporter of American involvement in the war, came to view the conflict as providing the government with previously “undreamed of ways of fortifying their control over the masses of the people.” The Freeman, a classically liberal magazine, called these efforts “a poison gas attack.”[c] Similar commentary on the propaganda threat emanated from the Christian socialist The World Tomorrow and the liberal The New Republic. From his conservative perch at Saturday Evening Post, Garet Garrett called the propaganda threat “so new and so bewildering that not only has no solution for it been imagined but it has not been adequately defined.”[ci] The fallout from these revelations created a nationwide concern for the effects of propaganda and fed the belief that the British government dupped Americans into entering the war and were subsequently propagandized by their government into supporting it.

Over 100,00 Americans died in the Great War, and over 200,000 were wounded. While minor compared to the bloodletting endured by the European powers, the sacrifice of American lives for European spoils, combined with the inability of the war to meet a Wilsonian conclusion, led many Americans to ask why they entered the war in the first place. And, for many Europeans, the Great War did not end, with numerous internal conflicts and border skirmishes erupting in earnest.[cii] This spectacle of unabated bloodshed only compounded widespread American disillusionment with European politics. As editors from the Los Angeles Times lamented, “[i]t is quite impossible to tell what the war made the world safe for.”[ciii]  This anguish with the war “over there” paralleled anger with the war’s conduct on the home front. Labor strife, ethnic violence and intimidation, religious persecution, civil rights abuses, conscription, mass propaganda, price controls, economic disruptions, inflation, and a dangerous increase in executive authority, led most Americans to conclude that it was time again to keep the benighted Old World at arm’s length and ensure a “return to normalcy.”

The 1920 election served as a de facto referendum on the Wilson presidency, the war, and its domestic implications and would solidify a retrenchment of American power from European affairs. In the interests of playing it safe and keeping its own shaky house in order, the GOP avoided grand or pointed ideological appeals and took a milquetoast stance on entry into the League in its 1920 platform.[civ] Despite the Republicans’ conservative electoral strategy, the Democratic Party added to their unpopularity and sought to make the campaign partly about salvaging the league and American involvement in the war. The Democratic presidential candidate, former Ohio governor, and Congressman James M. Cox, like his predecessor, questioned the loyalty of the opposition party and its voters. On the campaign trail, Cox frequently spoke of “the enemies of America during the war,” the “pro-German party,” and on the eve of the election declared, “[e]very traitor in America will vote tomorrow for Warren G. Harding.”[cv] The following day, a wave of “traitors” turned out for Harding and the Republican ticket.

Republican nominee and former Ohio Senator Warren G. Harding won the presidency in the largest popular vote landslide in a century. His victory was also the most significant two-way electoral college victory since President Ulysses S. Grant’s 1872 reelection.[cvi] Harding garnered over 60% of the popular vote and 404 electoral votes to Cox’s 127, who failed to carry a state outside the South. The Republican Party faired equally well on the Hill. In the Senate, the Republican Party gained ten seats, with the Democrats unable to win a contest outside the South. The party gained 63 seats in the House to complete the most commanding Republican control of the federal government since Reconstruction. In the words of one California Republican, if the election were a boxing match, “the police would interfere on the grounds of brutality.”[cvii] The League of Nations treaty and the excesses of the war’s prosecution on the home front obliterated Wilson’s tenuous South-West alliance, alienated usually reliable urban voters of Italian, German, or Irish stock, and allowed the GOP’s sidestep its sectional issues. An exuberant Senator Henry Cabot Lodge declared, “[w]e have torn up Wilsonianism by its roots.”[cviii] 

The defeat of Wilsonianism and the detente between Republican factions fostered an American foreign policy that amalgamated the world views of the Old Guard and Midwestern progressives. Rather than burying his Midwestern, intraparty opponents, Lodge ended up accommodating their suspicions of overt military power, involvement with European politics, and overseas entanglements.[cix] While by no means “isolated” from international affairs, the American federal government implemented a foreign policy best described as neutrality.[cx] The coalition of Old Guard unilateralists with more stridently noninterventionist Midwestern Republicans created a foreign policy worldview that prioritized independence in political action and was comprised of different regional strategies.

On European affairs, the period of postwar Republican dominance sought strict nonalignment with the Old World and, by extension, their colonies. Upon taking office in 1921, with the momentum of a pivotal election and supported by both chambers of Congress, President Warren G. Harding signed a separate peace with Germany, legislation his predecessor stubbornly vetoed. President Harding also withdrew American occupation troops from postwar Germany, backpedaled on many of Wilson’s overseas commitments, and dismantled much of the domestic bureaucracy erected to run the war effort. Lastly, he plainly declared the League of Nations issue “as dead as slavery.”[cxi] Despite keeping Europe politically at arm’s length, the United States maintained trading and humanitarian relations with Europe. Through his Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, the United States government, through private actors, participated in postwar famine relief. Republican administrations used such international philanthropy as an agricultural subsidy that built goodwill overseas and boosted economic opportunity for American business.[cxii] Despite the transactional nature, these relief efforts fed approximately 10 million people, including those under Bolshevik rule in Russia. Hoover’s relief efforts earned him the moniker of the “Great Humanitarian,” boosted his political profile, and provided a model for future conservative thinking on American involvement in the world.[cxiii] 

In East Asia, sectional tensions within the Republican Party drove the Harding administration to seek a compromised position on American involvement in the Pacific. True to its thinking stretching back to the late 19th century, the Old Guard sought to maintain market access to China. In contrast, the Midwestern cohort held to its ire on the U.S. occupation of the Philippines and the military expenditures that it entailed. To appease both factions while attempting to ameliorate imperial competition in the region, the Harding administration initiated multilateral naval talks outside the confines of the League of Nations. The Washington Naval Conference involved Japan, China, France, Britain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Portugal and sought to limit the total tonnages of participants’ naval power. For the Harding administration, limiting its naval expenditures in concert with the conference mollified the Midwestern progressives while also securing market access, which secured the Old Guard’s central foreign policy goal.[cxiv]

The Harding administration hoped to use the arms control agreements to freeze regional imperial competition. While no mean, actively anti-imperial, Harding and his supporters expected to prevent further imperial expansion and thereby allow market forces to reign through the region.[cxv] The treaty was also widely favored by Congress and the larger antiwar movement. Fiscal conservatives and antimilitarists approved of the treaty for their respective reasons, and the broader antiwar movement viewed the agreement as a positive step toward disarmament.[cxvi] Additionally, the willingness of congressional Republicans to limit naval expenditures signaled that skepticism of antimilitarism had taken hold within American politics, even among conservative Republicans. Long the bastion of navalism, even the conservative Old Guard was willing to reduce naval spending and let private commerce do the work of public diplomacy.[cxvii] The treaty left one issue unresolved for antiimperialists within the Republican Party: the occupation of the Philippines .

While the Republicans found intraparty accommodations on broader Asian affairs, they remained divided on the Philippines’ independence. Through the 1920s until the early 1930s, Midwestern Republicans, supported by the bulk of the Democrats, increasingly pushed to grant independence to the Philippines, in contrast to their fellow Northern GOPers who supported maintaining the country as a formal colony. Members of the Old Guard continued to view the islands as a beachhead to greater market access to East Asia. After the successful conclusion of the Washington Naval Conference, a clique of Midwestern Republicans backed the bulk of the Democratic Party and attempted to shoehorn the issue of Philippines independence into the Four Power Treaty. Robert LaFollette opposed the treaty, believing that it solidified the U.S. as a “joint adventurer” in Asian imperialism.[cxviii] He posed a treaty amendment that would have made independence of the archipelago a stated goal of the U.S. government. La Follette’s amendment failed, only garnering three fellow Republican votes, George Norris of Nebraska, Edwin Ladd of North Dakota, and Hiram Johnson of California, all members of the party’s progressive cohort. Twenty-three additional supporting votes from the Democratic Party were insufficient to pass the measure.

Throughout the 1920s, the subject of Filipino independence remained at an impasse within the Republican Party and the federal government writ large. It would not be until the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and the Great Depression that the political will would manifest to jettison the Philippines from the fold.[cxix] The breakdown of imperial detente in the Pacific moved some Republicans to feel letting go of the islands would prevent further political entanglement and the possibility of being dragged into a Pacific war.[cxx] Such concerns paralleled a new wave of agricultural protectionism and longstanding politics of racial and labor exclusion and created the political space to cut the islands loose. With the deepening economic crisis and the threat of Japanese expansion, Democratic Congressman Butler Hare introduced H.R.7233, a bill to put the islands on a path to independence. The measure passed in both chambers of Congress and was again passed, overriding the presidential veto of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The measure enjoyed bipartisan support, and while the GOP was roughly split on the measure, recent economic and geopolitical issues were enough to shift the party towards independence, albeit for less the high-minded reasons offered by the occupation’s principled opponents.

Where the two halves of the GOP found their most significant differences were on U.S. policy in Latin America. While American policy in Asia struggled with the limitations of multilateral agreements, and America’s role in European affairs remained minimal, U.S. policy in Latin America continued economic dominance supported by selective military interventions. Throughout the 1920s, the Republican administrations viewed the Monroe Doctrine as sacrosanct and perceived Latin America as within America’s legitimate sphere of influence, one secured through economic means. However, the means of enforcement for such views remained contingent through the area of Republican pollical ascendancy. During a diplomatic crisis with Mexico, in which the country’s revolutionary government threatened to seize land owned by American oil companies, now President Calvin Coolidge’s ambassador successfully negotiated an end to the crisis and thereby avoided U.S. government intervention.[cxxi] Such was not the case for Nicaragua, where President Coolidge ordered American marines to return in order to back the conservative government led by Adolfo Díaz and to protect American economic interests.

Coolidge’s use of military force in Nicaragua elicited a backlash within Congress, particularly from the congressional veterans of the Irreconcilables and those whose careers began in the wake of the Spanish-American War. Among them was Senator Borah, who, upon the death of Henry Cabot Lodge in 1924, became the chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Couched with populist language, Borah had long held a dissenting view on using American force in Latin America. During the Harding administration’s first use of military force, Borah asserted that the “people of Nicaragua are being exploited in shameless fashion by American corporations protected by United States Marines.” Fellow Irreconcilables Robert La Follette and George Norris voiced similar concerns.[cxxii]

Borah’s views on Nicaraguan policy hardened after Coolidge’s redeployment of the Marines and subsequent skirmishes between them and Nicaraguan liberals. As with his views on America’s stance in the world, he regarded the federal government’s involvement in Nicaraguan affairs as a violation of that country’s sovereignty. In a speech delivered to the Senate on 13 January 1927, Borah took aim at the Coolidge administration and the logic of interventionism predicated upon the Monroe Doctrine. As in his earlier statements, Borah did not shy away from using controversial language to define American policy in Nicaragua. He described American actions in that country as “financial imperialism” and added that the “imperialist, whatever form his activities may take-oil or mahogany or bonds-appeals to the Monroe doctrine [sic] to protect and justify his course.”[cxxiii].

Borah framed his critique with a narrow reading of the Monroe Doctrine. While not free of his paternalistic thinking visa vie Latin America, Borah rejected the logic that political turbulence justified intervention based on the doctrine in Nicaraguan politics. Instead, he claimed that the doctrine’s sole purpose was to protect the sovereignty of Latin American countries from the machinations of the Old World, not to intervene in the country’s internal affairs. He asserted that there was no evidence that a foreign power was stirring up the country’s troubles; therefore, the doctrine did not apply. He further asserted that to extend the logic of the doctrine from external protection to internal meddling was to change it into a “dagger” and “not a shield to those people.”[cxxiv] Borah went so far as to assert that the U.S. government possessed no right to interfere with the country’s politics whatsoever, arguing that Nicaraguans had a right to embrace the government of their choosing, even if it was despotic or non-republican, “[W]hether [ José Santos Zelaya, Nicaragua previous liberal president] was a despot or a tyrant had nothing to do, or ought not to have anything to do, with a policy of the United States” he argued.[cxxv] Borah’s speech was picked up by the Associated Press, where it was carried by newspapers throughout the country.

Borah and his fellow dissenters would have to wait until the arrival of the Herbert Hoover administration for a substantive change in U.S. Latin American foreign policy. Hoover, the former food czar turned Commerce secretary, entered the Oval Office cognizant of the differences in opinion on Latin America within his own party. President Hoover, guided by these political aims, coupled with his own Quaker antimilitarism and experience seeing the Western Front after the Great War, reversed many of his predecessors’ interventionist Latin American policies. Hoover received a window to act after Nicaraguan rebels killed 12 American Marines on New Year’s Eve, 1930. The subsequent public uproar in Congress and among the public provided Hoover with the means to begin the withdrawal of American troops from Nicaragua. Hoover retrenched the use of hard power elsewhere in Latin America. Through a series of personal changes and early directives, Hoover began moves to withdraw American troops from Haiti, a course that would come to pass under his successor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.[cxxvi] Hoover’s policy changes, backed by an amenable Congress, laid the groundwork for FDR’s “Good Neighbor” policy.[cxxvii]

Maintaining noninterventionism in government was bolstered by a revisionist history movement that vowed to ensure that America would not make the same mistake of entering another European war, leading to broader critiques of government and commercial power in foreign affairs. American scholarly and popular reaction to the war would birth a tradition of historical revisionism which laid the intellectual foundation for the interwar noninterventionists.[cxxviii] Great War revisionists codified then popular views of the war, which laid significant blame for American entry into the war upon the feet of political leadership, industrial concerns, and financial interests. Revisionists coming out of the Great War provided a central narrative for future noninterventionists that they would use to analyze the Second World War and subsequent American foreign policy. A key figure in this revisionist movement, which would profoundly influence the formation of right-wing noninterventionism, came from a man of the Left, progressive historian Charles Beard.

Despite Beard’s early support for American involvement in the conflict, after the calamity of the war yielded an uneasy and vindictive peace that failed to live up to the Wilsonian dream, he came to regret his decision to support American intervention. In his ensuing journey of disillusionment, he became a key member of the revisionist school in American foreign policy. With his disenchantment with American foreign policy complete, Beard began consuming a growing body of literature critical of the Great War, material that he would later merge with his economic method to study American foreign policy. While Beard rarely published on the issue of foreign policy during the height of his academic career, the 1920s began his journey as a foreign policy revisionist.[cxxix] He commenced his study of the Great War after encountering the work of economist John Atkinson Hobson, particularly Hobson’s article “Why the War Came as a Surprise,” published in September 1920 in Political Science Quarterly. Beard was moved by Hobson’s analysis of Europe’s imperial motives and their internal machinations. Similarly, Beard eagerly read Philip Gibbs’s 1923 book, The Realities of War, a work that struggled to convey the grandiose and indescribable horror of the Western Front. By 1927, Beard admitted in his The Rise of American Civilization, co-written with his wife Mary Ritter Beard, that these works had transformed him into a foreign policy revisionist.[cxxx] In the ensuing years, Beard would craft his own revisionist accounts of recent history and the Great War. In doing so, he helped solidify a foreign policy perspective central to American noninterventionism in the interwar period.

Charles Beard was but one revisionist historian who had a direct influence on foreign policy thinking in the interwar period. A contemporary and friend of Beard, historian Harry Elmer Barnes played a similarly prominent role in codifying a revisionist view of the Great War, which would inform interwar noninterventionism. Barnes, who received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1918, also consumed the growing body of literature critical of the conflict and its origins. Like Beard, Barnes was an enthusiastic supporter of U.S. entry into the war, one who became disillusioned by the conflict’s end. In the immediate aftermath of the war, Barnes was colleagues with other prominent revisionists who pulled him into their dissenting camp. By 1923, Barnes was a full professor at Smith College and an outspoken critic of the orthodox view, which held the Germans were the sole initiator of the war.[cxxxi] In 1926, Barnes published his own revisionist take with his book, Genesis of the World War. In it, Barnes castigated the Versailles Treaty and its infamous Article 231, the German war guilt clause. The book cast the fault of the war at the feet of all the great powers but explicitly blamed the cadre of the leadership of the French and Russian empires for expanding the conflict and plunging the continent into war.[cxxxii]

Barnes also heaped scorn upon American governance, especially that provided by President Woodrow Wilson. In a foreshadowing of World War II revisionism, Barnes cast Wilson as a devious executive who withheld his desire to enter the war, not to uphold democracy but rather to save the British and the French from defeat. Additionally, Barnes discounted the illegality of German submarine warfare, which he considered “legitimate retaliation” for the British government’s blockade of German ports.[cxxxiii] Barnes’s characterization of war guilt as being shared by the allied powers and chiefly borne by the leadership class informed the Republican Right’s disdain for political leadership and shaped their future analysis of World War II.

The work of revisionists like Barnes and Beard was paralleled by that of journalists. One book, the provocatively titled Merchants of Death, captured the existing noninterventionist narratives and galvanized them for a national audience. The book, written by H.C. Engelbrecht and Frank Hannigan, seized the noninterventionist mood of the era and inspired political action that revived the languishing Neutrality Act within Congress. Merchants of Death explored the world of international arms manufacturing and its tangled connections to modern governance in what they called “the war system.” The work portrayed many prominent noninterventionist critiques, particularly the centrality of corporate-government marriage and the prevalence of Atlanticist influence within the American war-making establishment. The book further mainstreamed a conspiracist narrative of American entry into the Great War by arguing that the US entered the conflict due to the decisions of a discrete set of ideological actors pursuing their own ends.

Merchants of Death, primarily a work of history, cataloged the long ascent of European industrial trusts and arms manufacturers and their influence on the continent’s imperial affairs. For the United States, while the authors cautioned about laying the entirety of the blame at the feet of American capital, they asserted that by aiding the Allies, American business created the incentive for active entry into the Great War. “American finance had placed its bet on the Allied horse,” they asserted, “and if that should fail to reach the post first, the stakes were so enormous that none dared even think of what might happen.”[cxxxiv] What might have happened was a negotiated peace or a German victory, both of which have been determinantal to the then booming American economy, highly leveraged American banks, and armament manufacturers whose reported profits were “simply colossal.” Engelbrecht and Hanigan’s portrayal of a “war system” served as a capstone to the noninterventionism of the era and shepherded Congress into action to maintain American neutrality. 

The book’s muckraking authors also embodied the diverse political landscape of interwar noninterventionism. Henry Elmer Barnes forwarded the book. Barnes, a burgeoning revisionist historian in his own right, approvingly called the work a “contribution to industrial history, contemporary ethics, international relations, and the peace movement.” John T. Flynn’s Graft in Business, a work on bribery in the private sector, was among the book’s cited authors. Its creators, H.C. Engelbrecht and Frank Hannigan, represented the ideological diversity of the noninterventionist movement of the interwar period, as Engelbrecht was firmly a man of the left and Hanigan of the right. Engelbrecht was a regular contributor to The World Tomorrow.[cxxxv] Hanighen, then a foreign correspondent for the New York Times and a native of Omaha conservative tendencies. Later in the interwar period, Hanighen became a founding member of the America First Committee and along with writer Felix Morley, started one of the first avowedly conservative publications, Human Events, in 1944.

Merchants of Death did not merely make a historical argument about the recent past; it tapped into the mood of the present and fed an active desire to supply public policy. Despite the arrival of the Great Depression and the massive change in political fortunes it portended, noninterventionism remained a national norm, even with the Democratic Party guiding the ship of state. Indeed, the economic malaise of the early 1930s deepened many of the conditions that pushed Americans into nonintervention. The financial crisis soured most Americans on industry and Wall Street, the targets of much Great War revisionism and Merchants of Death. Additionally, the Depression caused the collapse of the Allied loan-Germany-reparations payment cycle, further feeding Americans’ frustrations with the war, the governments involved, and the private sector actors that armed and bankrolled them.[cxxxvi] And, unlike the nascent Third Reich in Hitler’s Germany, American antimilitarists saw their economic woes as an opening to permanently dismantle the “war system.”[cxxxvii]

With such fertile ground, Merchants of Death was met with commercial and critical success. Merchants of Death was selected as the Book of Month Club’s May 1934 and was featured on the New York Times’s best-seller list.[cxxxviii] In small towns and cities throughout the country, reading and lecture groups covered the book and its material. It inspired sermons and Sunday School lectures from New York to Alabama and Iowa. The combination of the economic and critical success of The Merchants of Death, coupled with the public spectacle surrounding the book, furthered the national mood of noninterventionism within the public and the political class.

Beyond readership, the Merchants of Death was a vehicle for political action and became synonymous with the career of one senator in particular, Gerald Nye of North Dakota. Born in Wisconsin in 1892 to a family with deep Republican roots (both of his grandfathers were Union veterans of the Civil War), Nye came of age in the wake of the Spanish-American War and the advent of the country’s growing sectional divide. While he, like Borah, at first supported intervention in World War I, the war’s economic and moral ramifications transformed him into a staunch non-interventionist. Like other cultural and media figures, Nye’s role as a journalist was instrumental in maintaining noninterventionist sentiment among the Midwest’s rural population and demonstrated the importance of small rural papers in shaping public perception.

From his low perch as a small-town journalist and editor, Nye embodied and reflected the Midwest’s socio-cultural anxieties that informed the region’s noninterventionism. His editorials and other journalistic works reflected the region’s populist tendencies, which came to view both big business and big government with suspicion. In his editorials, Nye assailed eastern and metropolitan business interests for the region’s agricultural economic woes. He similarly aimed his pen at the country’s political elite. While a Republican, he was one of progressive, decentralized stripe and bore no hesitancy in slinging mud at the party leadership, including upon the Harding administration during the Teapot Dome scandal or Midwest’s local political leaders. Through the experience of the war, he came to doubt the efficacy of the technocratic state in alleviating the region’s economic concerns. By 1921, he noted that the War Finance Corporation provided “farmers cheap money,” which was no better than the “corporation-money,” both of which were “a joke” that led to economic ruin.[cxxxix]

His disdain for business and political elites motivated his increasingly strident antiwar stance. By the early 1920s, the war ended, and the seemingly needless sacrifice of 117,000 American casualties to maintain Europe’s status quo forced him into the noninterventionist camp. He asserted to his readers that it was the state that had brought the plains’ latest economic ruin, remarking in one editorial “that the North Dakota farmer was well on his way in a program of diversification when the country plunged into the war” adding that the “war set the diversification program back eight years in North Dakota.” His editorial line also took issue with other organs of the warfare state made possible by the Great War. In one opinion piece, Nye claimed that military preparedness was only made possible by “[w]ar lords, munitions manufacturers and men who buy Liberty bonds.[cxl] With his transformation complete, in January of 1926, Nye would take his populist antimilitarism to Washington.

Nye, already established as an antimilitarist crusader by its publication 1936, channeled the cultural impact of Merchants of Death further his own brand of strident noninterventionism. On the floor of Congress, the Senator from South Dakota claimed that the Merchants of Death would “save our Nation billions and our people much suffering if it could be read by every American.”[cxli]  His targets of scorn were both private industry and the federal government. While he placed primacy upon the former, he characterized the relationship between the two entities as a source of world turmoil. In his address, Nye echoed the increasingly popular sentiment that military preparedness created the political and economic incentivizes for further war. Nye claimed that after “preparing defense program,” the U.S. government sent “their supersalesmen off to foreign lands to ply their trade” throughout the world and, in Latin America, had contributed to a political climate of “suspicion and fear.” Nye capped off his address by declaring the arms industry an “insane racket” and an “inhuman trade.” During this speech before the Senate, Nye promoted a resolution he had drafted with his colleague, Senator Arthur Vandenberg (R-OH), to investigate “the activities and methods resorted to by our munitions makers to fatten thin bank accounts in the name of preparedness.”

Nye did not act in isolation but rather made his efforts during a zeitgeist of noninterventionism and antimilitarism, one that cut across partisan boundaries, had support among elite media, and was unburdened by accusations of xenophobia.[cxlii] Among Nye supporters in the press was Oswald Garrison Villard desired answers via the committee. In a provocatively syndicated column entitled “Profiteers in Blood,” Villard argued that business and uniformed military established colluded to maintain combat power engineer war scares for their mutual benefit. This corporatist arrangement led to “a traffic in blood and lives of men the world over.”[cxliii] Like many in the now burgeoning antimilitarist movement, Villard hoped that the committee would create the public will to take private gains out of war. Beyond journalists, the activists too actively lobbied Nye for the hearings. Among them was a pacifist and national director Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Dorothy Detzer. Despite her left-wing and cosmopolitan politics, her efforts were supported by individuals and groups outside of her political orbit, like conservative businessman Henry Ford and the American Legion. The Legion was among the growing body of noninterventionist organizations that publicly called for taking the profits out of the war as early as 1920.[cxliv] And thus, with a transpartisan wind at its back, the so-called known Nye Committee hearings were born.

The Nye Committee was a set of congressional hearings held in the spring of 1934 and winter of 1936. The committee investigated the underlying banking and financial interests of American entry into the Great War and the armaments industry’s role in supplying the allies. The committee was also concerned with the role of profit-seeking in the armaments industry and those motives’ influence on American foreign policy. The committee makeup was amenable to Nye’s goals. Despite being in the minority party, he chaired the committee and was joined by two fellow Republicans, one of whom was Arthur Vandenberg, a fellow noninterventionist from Ohio. They were joined by a third member of the GOP, Senator William Warren Barbour, who possessed a divided voting pattern on foreign policy. Four Democrats rounded out the committee, Senators Homer T. Bone (WA), James P. Pope (ID), Bennett Champ Clark (MO), and Walter F. George (GA). While considered conservative Democrats, they displayed different inclinations on U.S. foreign policy. While none of the Democratic members demonstrated voting records like that of Nye or Vandenburg, only Senator Walter F. George’s voting record demonstrated clear support for the U.S. foreign goals of the White House, while the rest of his Democratic colleagues on the committee were split on the issue.[cxlv]

Despite generating captive headlines during the initial hearings, the committee’s second iteration of investigations in 1936 quickly unraveled. Partisan rivalry undid the committee, as its Democratic members took issue with Nye’s implications that the Wilson administration had deliberately lied about his ignorance of British and French self-interested war aims, a violation of his lofty wartime rhetoric. This assault on Wilson’s legacy and the FDR administration’s unease about the committee’s impact on its plans for American naval expansion ultimately killed the committee.[cxlvi]

Despite its lofty expectations and breathless coverage, the Nye Committee did not ultimately prove a causal relationship between the armaments industry interests and the United States government’s decision to enter the Great War. While the committee generated numerous shocking headlines, they could not prove that the arms industry was especially nefarious in its intent and often found exculpatory evidence. For instance, the committee discovered that arms manufacturers spent less advertising their wares than pacifist groups opposing them. Furthermore, the executives who testified at the committee often acquitted themselves well, so much so that journalists friendly to the noninterventionist cause were forced to admit that America’s arms manufacturers did not fit the archetype of a death merchant.[cxlvii] The committee’s shortcomings were seized upon by Nye’s critics and those who were skeptical of the merchants of death thesis. Such detractors of the committee accused its participants of running a sham more concerned with generating news copy than determining the facts about American civil-military relations. Liberal columnist Walter Lipmann called the committee a “falsification of history” and asserted that it seemed disinterested in what he deemed the proximate cause of American entry into the war, German use of unrestricted submarine warfare.[cxlviii]

Despite these shortcomings, the committee did produce testimony in support of two core revisionist claims, first that the U.S. government entered the Great War due to incentives from capital investment in the Western Allies and second, that the US was a “pseudo-belligerent” long before 1917.[cxlix] For supporters of the committee, these exchanges were enough to validate the hearings and their views of the war. Well into his turn as a war revisionist, Charles Beard was riveted by the committee hearings. In 1936 Beard wrote a book on the committee entitled The Devil Theory of War, in which he further popularized the notion of an economic incentive on the part of the United States government. John T. Flynn, an adviser to Nye and the committee, defended it and its findings. He asserted that its alleged failures were strawmen erected by its detractors. Instead, like Beard, Flynn asserted that the committee established a relationship between substantial American investment in the Allied cause and eventual American entry into the war. Writing in his New Republic column, Flynn asserted that this relationship “thus invited the train of events that bought us into the war.”[cl]

The Nye hearings, Merchants of Death, and their public response led directly to enacting the Neutrality Act. While the act had languished in committees since its original introduction, the public fervor created by the Nye hearings injected new political will into the act and the logic which initially animated it.[cli] The first session of the 74th Congress was the first congressional meeting to convene under a cloud of another possible European conflagration. While Japan had commenced its war against China in 1931, German repudiation of the Treaty of Versailles made the possibility of another world war a subject of continued congressional debate.

Reintroduced in the Senate by Gerald Nye and Democratic Senator from Missouri, Joel Clarke, the 1935 iteration of the act maintained the core of Theodore Burton’s version, submitted eight years prior. As with its predecessor, the new version of the act aimed to prevent the creation of incentives that may pull the United States into another world war. The act eschewed traditional neutrality rights and forbade material assistance to any belligerent side engaged in a war.[clii] As with its precursor, the act declared that Americans who traveled through war zones did so at their own risk. Both provisions codified into law the dissident-turned-mainstream view of American entry into the Great War and sought to eliminate the construction of the incentives to draw America into another European war. However, from the perspective of a noninterventionist, the act was not perfect as it did not embargo trade in raw materials or prevent loads to belligerent nations, and it contained a sunset provision of six months. The Neutrality Act was passed with support from all political parties and all sections of the country. While the act was passed via voice vote in the House and therefore had no rollcall, the Senate version passed 79-2 with the sole oppositional votes coming from two Democrats with five Republicans abstaining.[cliii]

The adoption of the Neutrality Act represented the political and cultural highwater mark of noninterventionism during the interwar period. The act legally codified a zeitgeist of foreign policy critique that had emerged from the Spanish-American and was mainstreamed by the anguish of the Great War. The entry into, execution, and end of the Great War reconciled the two sections of the Republican Party; a forced marriage normalized many dissenting views on America’s role in the world. Among them was conspiracism directed at the country’s political and business elites, a deep distrust of the munitions industry, and a belief that Europe was a corrupting political force to be kept at arm’s length.

The triumph of noninterventionism was strong enough to survive the political turmoil of the early Great Depression and the political seachange it caused. Despite the change in political leadership, an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress passed the acts, a testament to the prevailing mood of noninterventionism. Buoyed by popular acceptance of works like the Merchants of Death, the act and the Nye Committee that proceeded with it codified a revisionist view of the Great War, which located self-interest and deceit as the core of American involvement in the conflict.

This tide of noninterventionism would, however, recede. Shortly after the passage of the Neutrality Act, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia constituted the first of many tests of American commitment to neutrality. The late 1930s witnessed successive waves of authoritarian aggression that would test, crack, and ultimately dissolve popular determination to remain completely neutral in a world marching, once again, into war. As the United States inched itself into another world war, what was once a broad, ideological consensus on noninterventionism would be particularized. On the eve of American entry into World War II, noninterventionism would become “isolationism,” a reactionary force associated with a new conservative movement, later known as the “Old Right.”


[i]  Allen, Howard W. “Isolationism and German-Americans.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 57, no. 2 (1964): 143–149, Doenecke, Justus D. Nothing Less Than War: A New History of America’s Entry into World War I. University Press of Kentucky, 2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2jcfv4.

[ii] Blower, Brooke L. “From Isolationism to Neutrality: A New Framework for Understanding American Political Culture, 1919–1941.” Diplomatic history 38, no. 2 (2014): 345–376.

[iii] Churchwell, Sarah, Behold, America: The Entangled History of “America First” and “the American Dream” (New York: Basic Books, 2018), Dunn, Susan 1940: FDR, Willkie, Lindbergh, Hitler-the Election amid the Storm (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013). Such arguments have been further resurrected and popularized by such works of speculative fiction such as Philip Roth’s The Against America (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2004). An exhaustive historiography of “isolationism” can be found in Blower, “From Isolationism to Neutrality: A New Framework for Understanding American Political Culture, 1919–1941.”

[iv] Kazin, Michael War Against War: The American Fight for Peace, 1914-1918 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2017)

[v] Quoted in Kazin, p.21

[vi] Democratic Party Platform, 14 Jun 1916, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1916-democratic-party-platform

[vii] Quoted in Kupchan, Charles A. Isolationism: A History of America’s Efforts to Shield Itself From the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), p.227

[viii] Powell, p.74

[ix] Kazin, p.22

[x] Dawley, Alan Changing the World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), p.107-108, Gould, Grand Old Party, p. 206-207, Richardson, Heather Cox. To Make Men Free : a History of the Republican Party. (New York: Basic Books, 2014), p.240, and chapter 7 of Thompson, John H. Great Power Rising (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019)

[xi] Gould, Grand Old Party, p. 206-207

[xii] Fleming, p.92, Dueck, Colin Hard Line: The Republican Party and U.S. Foreign Policy Since World War II (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010) p.18

[xiii] Kennedy, p.19

[xiv] Kennedy, p.42

[xv] For more on the complexity of Lodge’s foreign policy opinions see Christopher McKnight Nichols’s Promise and Peril

[xvi] On the dissent Republican-Democrat alliance, see Kazin, War Against War.

[xvii] Dawley, p.123, See also chapter 1 of Kennedy, David M. Over Here the First World War and American Society. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982)

[xviii] See Gage, Beverly, The Day Wall Street Exploded (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) p.107, Leonard, Thomas, C. Illiberal Reformers (Princeton: Princeton University, 2016), p.46-49, Wiebe, Robert H. The Search for Order 1877-1920 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1967) p.286-302, Rothbard, Murray N. War Collectivism: Power, Business, and the Intellectual Class in World War I, and Kazin, p.196

[xix] Quoted in Nuechterlein, James A. “The Dream of Scientific Liberalism: The ‘New Republic’ and American Progressive Thought, 1914–1920. The Review of Politics, Vol. 42, No. 2 (April 1980), pp. 167–190

[xx] Quoted in Kennedy, p.39

[xxi] See chapter 2 of Drake, Richard Charles Austin Beard: The Return of the Master Historian (Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 2018), Nichols, p.127-129, chapter 1 of Radosh, Ronald Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975)

[xxii] Philbin, James P.  “Charles Austin Beard: Liberal Foe of American Internationalism,” Humanitas, Volume XIII, No. 2, 2000, Kennedy, Thomas C. “Charles A. Beard in Midpassage,”The Historian, February, 1968, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 179-198

[xxiii] Kupchan, p.226

[xxiv] Nichols, Christopher McKnight Promise and Peril: America at the Dawn of a Global Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011) p.139

[xxv] Quoted in Kazin, p.25, see also Doenecke, p.49

[xxvi] Fleming, Thomas The Illusion of Victory: America in World War I (New York: Basic Books, 2003), p.69-71, Kazin, p.25

[xxvii] Fleming, p.70

[xxviii] Powell, p.13, Kazin, p.105-106

[xxix] Quoted in Kazin, p.106

[xxx] Kazin, p.106

[xxxi] Kazin, p.171

[xxxii] Kazin, p.108

[xxxiii] Powell, p.67,

[xxxiv] Neiberg, Michael S. The Path to War: How the First World War Created Modern America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016)

[xxxv] P.126

[xxxvi] La Follette, Robert. “The People Do Not Want this War” 1917. In We Who Dare to Say No to War edited by Murray Polner and Thomas E. Woods (New York: Basic Books, 2008) P.127

[xxxvii] P.125

[xxxviii] Lundeen, Ernest, speaking on H.R. 5913, 65th Congress, 1st sess. Congressional Record 55, pt. 1, p.362

[xxxix] Hull, Harry, speaking on H.R. 5913, 65th Congress, 1st sess. Congressional Record 55, pt. 1, p.347

[xl] Mason, William speaking on H.R. 5913, 65th Congress, 1st sess. Congressional Record 55, pt. 1, p.327

[xli] Quoted in Kazin, p.146

[xlii] Kazin, p.184-185, Kupchan, p.239

[xliii] Quoted in The Idaho Statesman, 5 April 1917 Borah did however oppose other aspects of the war effort such as making large loans to the Allies, and the forthcoming Sedition Act.

[xliv] The sole exception to this sectional rule was from Meyer London, a member of the Socialist Party and Representative from New York’s 12th Congressional district.

[xlv] Kupchan, p.241

[xlvi] Brand, Charles H. speaking on H.R. 3545, 65th Congress, 1st sess. Congressional Record 55, pt.2, p.179

[xlvii] Quoted in Kennedy, p.159. For more on race and conscription, see also Fleming, p.87

[xlviii] Brand, p.179

[xlix] Lundeen, p.363

[l] 8 of 19 House Representatives from west coast states, 42% opposed 65 H.. 3545, “To authorize the President to increase temporarily the Military Establishment of the United States.” 5 of 12 Representatives from Rocky Mountain states opposed the bill, or 41%, 44 of 110 Southerners, or 40%, 43 of 142, 40% of Midwesterners, 4 of 28 those from the Southwest, 14%, and a mere 5 of 121 Representatives from Northern states, or 4% opposed the bill. Opposition was slightly higher among Democrats with 62 of 215 Representatives voting no, 28%, and 45 of 213 Republicans, 21%. See, Congressional Record vol. 55-2, p. 1555; House Journal vol. 65-1, p. 113

[li] See chapter 5 of Kazin, War Against War

[lii] Sedition Act, Pub. L. No. 65-150, 40 Stat. 553 (1918)

[liii] Kazin, p.189

[liv] Fleming, p.106-107, see also Kazin, p.188

[lv] Fleming, p.140

[lvi] Quoted in Fleming, p.140, see also Gage, p.111-113

[lvii] Woodrow Wilson, quoted in Olmsted, Kathryn S. Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) p.19

[lviii] Fondren, Elisabeth, and John Maxwell Hamilton. “The Universal Laws of Propaganda: World War I and the Origins of Government Manufacture of Opinion.” The Journal  of Intelligence History (2022): 1–19., see also Hamilton, Manipulating the Masses (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2020), Olmsted, p.18

[lix] Hamilton, p.459

[lx] Luff, Jennifer. “The Anxiety of Influence: Foreign Intervention, U.S. Politics, and World War I.” Diplomatic history 44, no. 5 (2020): 756–785.

[lxi] Luff, “The Anxiety of Influence: Foreign Intervention, U.S. Politics, and World War I.” See also, chapter six of Heineman, Elizabeth D., ed. Sexual Violence in Conflict Zones: From the Ancient World to the Era of Human Rights. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fhfgp.

[lxii] DeWitt, Petra. “‘Clear and Present Danger’: The Legacy of the 1917 Espionage Act in the United States.” Historical reflections 42, no. 2 (2016): 115–133.

[lxiii]  Kennedy, p.68,  Kazal, Russell A. Becoming Old Stock The Paradox of German-American Identity. (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2004).

[lxiv] DeWitt, “Clear and Present Danger,” see also chapter 1 of Kennedy.

[lxv] My family surname, Buck, was changed from Boch by my great-great-grandfather to escape the wartime hysteria of Baltimore, Maryland. For more on the practice, see Kazal, p.192-193

[lxvi] Kazal,p.176

[lxvii] Conservative media tycoon Henry Regnery cited anti-German sentiment and the fallout of the Versailles Treaty as the roots of his noninterventionism. See Hemmer, Messengers of the Right, p.10

[lxviii] Cole, Wayne S. Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974)p.18, see also Olmsted, p.13

[lxix] Quoted in Berg, Scott A. Lindbergh (New York: G.P. Putman’s Sons, 1998) p.49

[lxx] See Berg, p.49, Cole, p.18-19, Olmsted p.20

[lxxi] For a detailed analysis of Wilson’s wartime political economy see Chapter 2 of Kennedy, Over Here

[lxxii] Kennedy, p.102-103, Fleming, p.130-131

[lxxiii] Kennedy, p.106

[lxxiv] Aregood, Richard, Shafer Richard & Freedman Eric “American Isolationism and The Political Evolution of Journalist-Turned-US Senator Gerald P. Nye,” Journalism Practice, (2015) 9:2, 279-294, DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2014.941236, for the impacts of agricultural policy on sectionalism and the 1918 election, see Kennedy, p.244

[lxxv] Kennedy, p.120-121

[lxxvi] Kennedy, p.125-126

[lxxvii] Kennedy, p.278

[lxxviii] “Wisconsin on Trial Before United State,” The Richmond Item, p. 3, 27 March 1918, see also Fleming, p.239-240

[lxxix] Kennedy, p.244, Fleming, p.296 – 298, Busch, Andrew E. Horses in Midstream: U. S. Midterm Elections and Their Consequences (Pittsburg: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1999) p.89

[lxxx] Fleming, p.298

[lxxxi] Busch, Andrew E. Horses in Midstream: U. S. Midterm Elections and Their Consequences (Pittsburg: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1999) p.90

[lxxxii] Kazin, p.268

[lxxxiii] In addition to the aforementioned Wisconsin example,  historian Thomas Fleming cites Nebraska election postmortems as blaming the violence of the American Protective League for creating an anti-Wilson bloc in the Cornhusker state, see Fleming, p.297

[lxxxiv] Powell, Jim Wilson’s War: How Woodrow Wilson’s Great War Blunder Led To Hitler, Lenin, Stalin & World War II (New York: Crown Forum, 2005)p.135-136

[lxxxv] Kennedy, p.356-357, Powell, p.145, Fleming, p.320, Kazin p.144, see also MacMillan, Margaret. Paris 1919 : Six Months That Changed the World. (New York: Random House. 2003).

[lxxxvi] Fleming, p.373, Powell, p.3

[lxxxvii] Nichols, p.256, Fleming, p. 349-351

[lxxxviii] Nichols, p.232

[lxxxix] Borah, William, speaking on H.R. 5913, 66th Congress, 1st sess. Congressional Record 58, pt. 9, p.8783. For more on Borah’s post-WWI foreign policy worldview, see chapter 6 of Nichols, Promise and Peril.  Borah’s views were echoed outside of Congress. Oswald Garrison Villard, at the helm of the Nation magazine had his periodical take an editorial stance that opposed American entry into the League as it would have made the U.S. permanent military ally of the imperial Old World, see Radosh, Ronald Prophets on the Right (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975) p.71

[xc] Fleming, p.403, Gould, p.224

[xci] Quoted in Gould, p.234

[xcii] Nichols, p.24, p.60

[xciii] Kennedy, p.362

[xciv] Nichols, p.261

[xcv] Fleming, p.410

[xcvi] Hamilton, p.5, Fleming, p.425-426

[xcvii] Quoted in Luff, “The Anxiety of Influence: Foreign Intervention, U.S. Politics, and World War I.”

[xcviii] Creel, George. How We Advertised America. New York: Arno Press, 1972. https://archive.org/details/howweadvertameri00creerich/mode/2up

[xcix] Quoted in Hamilton, https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/story/meet-author-john-maxwell-hamilton

[c] Quoted in King, Erika G. “Exposing the ‘Age of Lies’: The Propaganda Menace as Portrayed in American Magazines in the Aftermath of World War I.” Journal of American Culture 12, no. 1 (1989): 35–40.

[ci] Quoted in King, Erika G. “Exposing the ‘Age of Lies’: The Propaganda Menace as Portrayed in American Magazines in the Aftermath of World War I.”

[cii] For a history of Europe’s interwar wars, see: Gerwarth, Robert The Vanquished (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016)

[ciii] Quoted in Fleming, p.449.

[civ]Gould, p.230, Fleming, p.453

[cv] Quoted in “Cox Ends Campaign with Appeal for League of Nations,” Herald and Review, 2 Nov 1920, see also Fleming, p.465

[cvi] Wilson’s 1912 electoral college victory was greater but benefited greatly from the Republican split between Taft and Roosevelt.

[cvii] Quoted in Richardson, p.250

[cviii] Quoted in Fleming, p.470

[cix] Gould, p.225

[cx] Blower, Brooke L. “From Isolationism to Neutrality: A New Framework for Understanding American Political Culture, 1919–1941.” Diplomatic history 38, no. 2 (2014): 345–376, Gould, p.250

[cxi] Continetti, Matthew. The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism (Basic Books: New York, 2022) p.18-19

[cxii] Rosenberg, Emily S. Spreading the American Dream (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982) p.117-120

[cxiii] For more on Hoover’s early relief work, see chapter 1 of Wert, Hal Elliott Hoover vs. Roosevelt (Essex: Stackpole Books, 2023)

[cxiv]McKercher, B. J. C.  “Chrysalis of Power: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Retreat from Isolationism, 1919–1941” in A Companion to U.S. Foreign Relations, edited by C.R.W. Dietrich (Wiley, 2020) https://doi-org.mutex.gmu.edu/10.1002/9781119166139.ch17 , Kupchan, Charles A. Isolationism: A History of America’s Efforts to Shield Itself From the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020) , p.263

[cxv] Foster, Anne L. Projections of Power (Durham: Duke University Press, 2010) p.20-21, Kupchan, p.260-261, Dueck, p.20-21

[cxvi] Zeman, Theodore J. “Military Interventions in the Coolidge Administration: Latin American and Asia” in A Companion to Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, edited by Katherine A.S. Sibley (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2014 ) p.283-283

[cxvii] See chapter 10 of Kupchan, Isolationism

[cxviii] La Follette, Robert M. “Treaty is Jap and British Victory” The Capital Times, 28 Mar 1922, p.9

[cxix] Kramer, p.424, Immerwahr, Daniel How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States (New York: Picador, 2019) p.158-159

[cxx] McKercher, p.362

[cxxi]Zeman p..278

[cxxii] Nichols, p.299

[cxxiii] Borah, William H. “The Nicaraguan Situation” 69th Congress, 2st sess. Congressional Record 68, pt. 2, p.1556

[cxxiv] Borah, William H. “The Nicaraguan Situation,” p.1556

[cxxv] Borah, William H. “The Nicaraguan Situation” p.1556

[cxxvi] Nichols, p.299-300

[cxxvii] McPherson, Alan. “Herbert Hoover, Occupation Withdrawal, and the Good Neighbor Policy.” Presidential studies quarterly 44, no. 4 (2014): 623–639.

[cxxviii] Stromberg, Joseph R. “Imperialism, Noninterventionism, and Revolution: Opponents of the Modern American Empire,” The Independent Review, Summer 2006, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Summer 2006), pp. 79- 113

[cxxix] See Philbin, p.50 – 51, and Campbell, Craig, “The Not-So-Strange Career of Charles Beard,” Diplomatic History, Spring 2001, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Spring 2001), pp. 251-274

[cxxx] Philbin, p.51

[cxxxi] Libstadt, Deborah. Denying the Holocaust (Plume: New York, 1994), p.32. Riggenbach, Jeff. Why American History Is Not What They Say (Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2009)p.106

[cxxxii] Philbin, p.64

[cxxxiii] Philbin, p.65

[cxxxvi] McKercher, p.348

[cxxxvii] Olmsted, p. 28-29, 34, see also McKercher, p.363

[cxxxviii] Doenecke, Justus D., Wilz John E. From Isolation to War 1931-1941 Third edition. (Wheeling: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 2003) p.57, Thompson, For God and Globe

[cxxxix] Aregood, Richard, Shafer Richard & Freedman Eric “American Isolationism and The Political Evolution of Journalist-Turned-US Senator Gerald P. Nye”

[cxl] Quoted in Aregood, Richard, Shafer Richard & Freedman Eric “American Isolationism and The Political Evolution of Journalist-Turned-US Senator Gerald P. Nye”

[cxli] Nye, Gerald, “War Profits-The Profits of War and Preparedness,” 74th Congress, 1st sess. Congressional Record 78, pt. 6,p. 6458

[cxlii] Similarly, Nye’s crusade, unlike his later Hollywood hearings during World War II were untainted by the pall of antisemitism Olmsted, p.30, 36

[cxliii] Villard, Oswald Garrison, “Profiters in Blood,” Herald and Review, 19 Sept 1934

[cxliv] “Should Wealth be Conscripted,” Herald and Review, 4 May 1935, Lyons, Louis. “Strongest Sentiment on Neutrality Seen in Legion, Middle West” Daily Boston Globe 1 Oct 1939. See also Olmsted, p.30

[cxlv] Of the 32 major rollcall votes on foreign or military affairs during the 74th Congress (1935-1937), Gerald Nye opposed all of them, Senator Walter George supported all of them. Other members of the Nye Committee opposed the same body of rollcall votes as follows, Arthur Vandenberg, 78%, Homer Bone, 63%, Joel Clark, 52%, William Barbour, 50%, and James Pope, 46%.

[cxlvi] Moser p.53-57

[cxlvii] Moser, p.52

[cxlviii] Quoted in, Olson, Lynne Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight over World War II, 1939-1941(New York: Random House Publishing, 2014) p.67, see all Lippmann, Walter. “Preparation for Neutrality,” The Detroit Free Press 11 Feb 1936, p.4

[cxlix] Drake, p.80, Wiltz, John Edward. “The Nye Committee Revisited,” The Historian, February, 1961, Vol. 23, No. 2 (February, 1961), pp. 211-233

 

[cli] Moser p.58

[clii] Nichols, p.318

[cliii] The two Democrats who opposed the act were Alabama’s John Bankhead, and Rhode Island’s Peter Gerry. The University of California at Los Angeles’s Voteview.com database refers to the Senate rollcall as a “[l]opsided vote with no ideological division.” https://voteview.com/rollcall/RS0740129

The Great War and Congressional “Isolationism”

I thought I’d take a detour from writing chapter one to craft a quick blog post on something which has been wracking my brain, how did the American experience in World War I impact “isolationism” on the eve of World War II? Of course, historians of noninterventionism have covered this topic, and I’ve touched on it myself. However, I am curious to see if this relationship was reflected in my dataset. Comparing the voting habits of those members who served during the 65th Congress (1915-1917) and the 77th Congress (1941-1943) revealed some interesting trends.

Looking at Voteview.com’s dataset, 20 Republicans who served in Congress, either in the House or the Senate, on the eve of U.S. entry into WWI and voted on the declaration of war with the German Empire were also in Congress as the U.S. entered WWII. Those 20 Republicans averaged 66% opposition to U.S. policy on the eve of WWII, whereas the 45 Democrats who served during both eras averaged just 25% opposition.

Only four of those 20 posted opposition percentages less than 60%, Allen T. Treadway (MA), Wallace White (ME), Fredrick Hale (ME), James Wadsworth Jr. (NY), and George Norris (NE)

Norris, the New Deal-supporting Republican, turned Independent, was the only member of the 20 who opposed U.S. entry into WWI but became a reliable supporter of U.S. policy entering WWII.

A “cast_code” of “1” means that they voted yay on SJR1, the declaration of war on the German Empire in 1917. A “cast_code” of 6 means that they opposed the measure. “oppo_per” refers to the level of opposition to U.S. foreign policy on the eve of U.S. entry into WWII. “congress_num” is the number of congresses each member served.

The remaining 16 posted opposition percentages between 61% and 92% to U.S. foreign policy between the 74th and 77th Congresses (before Pearl Harbor). Interestingly, when grouped by their position on entry into WWI, they posted similar opposition to the run-up to WWII. William Borah, “the Great Opposer,” was perhaps the most well know of the 14 and became known for his passionate opposition to the future involvement of the U.S. in foreign wars. And, for those who do not know, only Jeannette Rankin of Montana opposed U.S. entry into WWI and the declaration of war upon Japan after Pearl Harbor.

A “cast_code” of “1” means that they voted yay on SJR1, the declaration of war on the German Empire in 1917. A “cast_code” of 6 means that they opposed the measure. “Mean” is the average level of opposition to U.S. policy on the eve of U.S. entry into WWII.

The Great War and its aftermath solidified Republican opposition toward entry into the Second World War. Whether or not that was “good” or “bad” is irrelevant. “Isolationists” were not merely motivated by myopia, nativism, or antisemitism. Many, like these congresspeople, looked back upon American entry into the Great War and vowed not to do it again.

The Last Call for Midwestern Noninterventionism

I’m working through Chapter 4, “Confronting Vietnam, 1965-1975,” for my dissertation, “Partisans of the Old Republic.” Among the historical inquiries animating this chapter is how the Vietnam War impacted American conservatism. Now, this question has yielded some great scholarship. However, earlier work is primarily concerned with the emerging New Right, not the decline of the more noninterventionist, and largely Midwestern Old Right.

While I’ve previously broached this topic here on this blog, I recently ran into a primary source that got me thinking about this decline. Libertarian activist Leonard Liggio provided an analysis of the 1966 midterm elections for Vietnam News Service: Of the National Coordinating Committee to End the War in Vietnam.” In it, he notes that the electoral results could presage a swing towards foreign policy restraint, as had happened in the wake of the Korean War.

Liggio first cautioned the reader that he felt that the results “will not cause a change in the Johnson Administration’s foreign policy.” However, he later noted that the GOP, especially in the Midwest, that “traditional stronghold of isolationism and anti-imperialism,” picked up a number of seats. Liggio’s analysis was tinged with cautious optimism that perhaps the Republican Party’s noninterventionist wing would reassert itself in light of the horror in Vietnam.

For the noninterventionist movement, tragically, he was wrong. As I’ve talked about elsewhere on this blog, the new generation of Republican politicians was considerably more inclined towards interventionism, regardless of region or ideology. Rather than serving as a rebirth of Rightwing noninterventionism, Vietnam heralded its death…at least politically.

Of the 20 Midwestern Republicans who began their careers in the 90th Congress (as a result of the 1966 midterms), none would crack the 50% mark for foreign policy opposition throughout their congressional careers. As a cohort, these 20 Republicans averaged a mere 31% of opposition throughout their careers, which was actually lower (34%)than that of the other 38 from elsewhere in the U.S. who began their careers in the 90th Congress.

Perhaps unbeknownst to Liggio, the Republican Midwest was already undergrowing a political transformation visa vie its foreign policy worldviews. As a body, new Midwestern Republicans had not averaged a career opposition percentage over 50% since the 87th Congress (1960 general elections, see figure 1). The last Midwestern Republicans to begin their careers in 1960 were Robert T. McLoskey (IL-19) and Pete Abele (OH-10), who served only one term. While popular noninterventionist incumbents would serve throughout the 1960s, none would begin their careers in the decade. This has posed an interesting dichotomy that I am still trying to unpack.

Figure 1: This graphic depicts the life course of noninterventionist thought within the Midwestern Republican Party. The graphic illustrates the decline of Midwestern Republican noninterventionism. Centrist Republicans from the Midwest shed their noninterventionism earlier than their right-wing counterparts. As a body, Republican Representative centrists from the Midwest ceased to average 50% opposition throughout their careers, with those who began their careers in the 76th Congress on the eve of US entry into WWII. However, right-wing Republicans from the Midwest continued to send House members to Washington well after WWII and the Korean War. It would not be until the 88th Congress (1961) that new members of the Midwestern Republican House ceased to average 50% opposition throughout their careers. The x-axis of this graphic depicts the first congress served, from the 65th until the 93rd (1917 to 1975). The y-axis represents the average foreign policy opposition from 1935 until 1975 by each first congress served. Each dot is sized by the number of new members for the center and right wings, were are depicted by their trendlines, solid for the centrists and dotted for the rightwingers.

The decline of the House is interesting when juxtaposed with that of the Senate. Republican Midwestern Senators, as a body, shed their noninterventionism faster than colleagues in the House. This is of note because, on the eve of World War II, the Republican Senators from the Midwest were some of the most strident figures in the “isolationist” stable. However, with the exception of two gubernatorial appointments, Midwestern Republicans sent their last noninterventionist to the Senate in Andrew Frank Schoeppel in 1949. Again, some Senate incumbents continued to serve through the 1950s, but new members would not appear through the same period (figure 2).

Figure 2: This graphic depicts the life course of noninterventionist thought within the Midwestern Republican Party. The graphic illustrates the decline of Midwestern Republican noninterventionism. Noninterventionism with Republican Senators disappeared a decade earlier than their counterparts in the House. The x-axis of this graphic depicts the first congress served, from the 65th until the 93rd (1917 to 1975). The y-axis represents the average foreign policy opposition from 1935 until 1975 by each first congress served. Each dot is sized by the number of new members for the center and right wings, were are depicted by their trendlines, solid for the centrists and dotted for the rightwingers.

Liggio was incorrect in his hypothesis. Somehow the tradition of Midwestern noninterventionism died. The data suggest that it was a long, beleaguered, and contextual end. The electoral viability of noninterventionist incumbents, juxtaposed with the inability to create new members, poses a historical quandary, which I am excited to answer.

The Loneliness of Ron Paul: By the Numbers, 1975–1985

In 2022, the ideological landscape of American foreign policy opposition is the most dynamic and diverse it has been in over eight decades. This is especially true for the right, as a new crop of libertarian-leaning and populist Republicans are challenging key precepts of America’s mission in the world. For those who know their foreign policy history or who are old enough to remember the Cold War, this represents a seachange in the American right.

While the right has a long history of “isolationism,” that tradition of foreign policy restraint waned for much of the early Cold War. Caught under political pressure, generational turnover, and internal tension between anticommunism and restraint, right-wing noninterventionism effectively vanished from the GOP by the early 1970s. And it is in that vacuum that Ron Paul began his congressional career in 1975.

When Ron Paul began his political career in the 94th Congress he was a man after his time. With the retirement of Iowa Congressman H.R. Gross, the last of the so-called “Old Right” departed office. In their place arose the “New Right,” a new generation of conservatives more aligned with the goals of the Cold War and the technocratic liberal vision which undergirded them. During his first two stints in Congress (1975-1977 and 1979-1985), Paul served as the lone voice of right-wing opposition to U.S. foreign policy.

Of all of the 473 Representatives or Senators who began their careers between 1975 and 1985, Ron Paul posted the highest career opposition to U.S. foreign policy, at 72%. Of the 202 Republicans, his next highest competitor was Claudine Schneider (RI-2), a liberal GOPer who voted in opposition a relatively lower 47% (see below). Rep. Paul’s uniqueness was especially stark given his generation (Silent, born 1935) and ideology (libertarianism). The 35 right-wing Republicans of the Silent generation who began their careers between 1975 to 1985 averaged a career opposition percentage of a mere 29.4%.

RankNameWing of PartyCareer Opposition PercentageGenerationChamberState
1PAUL, Ronald ErnestRight0.728426396silentHouseTX
2SCHNEIDER, ClaudineLeft0.472081218boomerHouseRI
3LEACH, James Albert SmithCenter0.45245559silentHouseIA
4CAPUTO, Bruce FaulknerCenter0.4453125silentHouseNY
5TAUKE, Thomas JosephCenter0.434370771boomerHouseIA
6EVANS, Thomas CooperCenter0.43019943greatestHouseIA
7KELLY, RichardRight0.429648241greatestHouseFL
8ATKINSON, Eugene VincentCenter0.42519685greatestHousePA
9CRANE, Daniel BeverRight0.424silentHouseIL
10SENSENBRENNER, Frank James, Jr.Right0.417737789silentHouseWI
11PETRI, Thomas EvertCenter0.407979408silentHouseWI
12STEERS, Newton Ivan, Jr.Left0.402515723greatestHouseMD
13BROWN, George Hanks (Hank)Right0.395280236silentHouseCO
14BROWN, George Hanks (Hank)Right0.395280236silentSenateCO
15HINSON, Jon CliftonRight0.389705882silentHouseMS
16GREEN, Sedgwick William (Bill)Left0.381920904silentHouseNY
17DECKARD, Huey JoelCenter0.377192982silentHouseIN
18ROUKEMA, Margaret ScafatiCenter0.372093023silentHouseNJ
19JEFFRIES, James EdmundRight0.371541502greatestHouseKS
20McKERNAN, John Rettie, Jr.Center0.369477912boomerHouseME
21GOODLING, William FranklinCenter0.36809816greatestHousePA
22RIDGE, Thomas JosephCenter0.36802974silentHousePA
23DeNARDIS, Lawrence JosephCenter0.365384615silentHouseCT
24WALKER, Robert SmithRight0.364864865silentHousePA
25JEFFORDS, James MerrillCenter0.364798427silentHouseVT
26JEFFORDS, James MerrillCenter0.364798427silentSenateVT
27GRISHAM, Wayne RichardCenter0.362869198greatestHouseCA
28EMERY, David FarnhamCenter0.358boomerHouseME
29PURSELL, Carl DuaneCenter0.357623318silentHouseMI
30DANNEMEYER, William EdwinRight0.355527638silentHouseCA
31ZSCHAU, Edwin Van WyckCenter0.35443038silentHouseCA
32ERDAHL, Arlen IngolfCenter0.352226721silentHouseMN
33HOLLENBECK, Harold CapistranLeft0.351010101silentHouseNJ
34BETHUNE, Edwin Ruthvin, Jr.Center0.350132626silentHouseAR
35KINDNESS, Thomas NormanCenter0.348360656silentHouseOH
36STUMP, Robert LeeRight0.348242812greatestHouseAZ
37ROBERTS, Charles Patrick (Pat)Center0.347962382silentHouseKS
38SMITH, Dennis Alan (Denny)Right0.347079038silentHouseOR
39MARKS, Marc LincolnLeft0.345360825greatestHousePA
40FENWICK, Millicent HammondCenter0.343936382greatestHouseNJ
41STOCKMAN, David AlanCenter0.343283582boomerHouseMI
42SMITH, Virginia DoddRight0.342942346greatestHouseNE
43DUNN, James WhitneyCenter0.342592593silentHouseMI
44MARLENEE, Ronald CharlesCenter0.341356674silentHouseMT
45ROTH, Toby A.Center0.335435057silentHouseWI
46HOPKINS, Larry JonesCenter0.334610473silentHouseKY
47CUNNINGHAM, John Edward, IIIRight0.333333333silentHouseWA
48GRASSLEY, Charles ErnestCenter0.332369942silentHouseIA
49GRASSLEY, Charles ErnestCenter0.332369942silentSenateIA
50WILLIAMS, LyleCenter0.331428571silentHouseOH
51NIELSON, Howard CurtisRight0.330661323greatestHouseUT
52GREGG, Judd AlanCenter0.328boomerHouseNH
53HAGEDORN, Thomas MichaelCenter0.32776618silentHouseMN
54SNOWE, Olympia JeanCenter0.327521793boomerHouseME
55PRESSLER, Larry LeeCenter0.321748879silentHouseSD
56PRESSLER, Larry LeeCenter0.321748879silentSenateSD
57GUNDERSON, Steven CraigCenter0.320610687boomerHouseWI
58SMITH, Robert FreemanCenter0.320297952silentHouseOR
59SHUMWAY, Norman DavidRight0.319838057silentHouseCA
60LEE, Gary AlcideCenter0.318367347silentHouseNY
61CORCORAN, Thomas JosephCenter0.317117117silentHouseIL
62MARTIN, Lynn MorleyCenter0.316582915silentHouseIL
63MOORE, William Henson, IIIRight0.31420765silentHouseLA
64ROYER, William HowardCenter0.314049587greatestHouseCA
65KRAMER, Kenneth BentleyCenter0.314049587silentHouseCO
66EDWARDS, Marvin Henry (Mickey)Center0.313577586silentHouseOK
67RITTER, Donald LawrenceCenter0.311621967silentHousePA
68RUDD, Eldon DeanRight0.311111111greatestHouseAZ
69WHITTAKER, Robert RussellCenter0.306578947silentHouseKS
70SPECTER, ArlenCenter0.305511811silentSenatePA
71CHAFEE, John HubbardCenter0.304677623greatestSenateRI
72MARRIOTT, David DanielRight0.30418251silentHouseUT
73BENEDICT, Cleveland KeithCenter0.301886792silentHouseWV
74JARMAN, JohnRight0.301775148greatestHouseOK
75BADHAM, Robert EdwardRight0.300802139silentHouseCA
76SOLOMON, Gerald Brooks HuntCenter0.300771208silentHouseNY
77SCHAEFER, DanielCenter0.296577947silentHouseCO
78DREIER, David TimothyCenter0.292944785boomerHouseCA
79STANGELAND, Arlan IngehartCenter0.292547275silentHouseMN
80DAUB, Harold John, Jr., (Hal)Center0.29233871silentHouseNE
81DORNAN, Robert KennethCenter0.291721419silentHouseCA
82CARNEY, WilliamCenter0.290060852silentHouseNY
83BEREUTER, Douglas KentCenter0.289962825silentHouseNE
84CRAIG, Larry EdwinCenter0.28983308silentHouseID
85CRAIG, Larry EdwinCenter0.28983308silentSenateID
86BOEHLERT, Sherwood LouisCenter0.289134438silentHouseNY
87LOEFFLER, Thomas GilbertRight0.288617886boomerHouseTX
88JOHNSON, Nancy LeeCenter0.288354898silentHouseCT
89SCHULZE, Richard TaylorCenter0.288235294silentHousePA
90CHAPPIE, Eugene A.Center0.283489097greatestHouseCA
91DAVIS, Robert WilliamCenter0.283068783silentHouseMI
92LUNGREN, Daniel EdwardCenter0.282208589boomerHouseCA
93MYERS, Gary ArthurCenter0.28125silentHousePA
94PASHAYAN, Charles, Jr.Center0.280898876silentHouseCA
95BILIRAKIS, MichaelCenter0.280148423silentHouseFL
96FIELDS, Jack Milton, Jr.Right0.278713629boomerHouseTX
97HANSEN, James VearRight0.277070064silentHouseUT
98COLEMAN, Earl ThomasCenter0.276663147silentHouseMO
99McCANDLESS, Alfred A.Center0.275605214greatestHouseCA
100BURTON, Danny LeeRight0.27458256silentHouseIN
101BAILEY, R. WendellCenter0.273584906silentHouseMO
102DURENBERGER, David FerdinandCenter0.272596844silentSenateMN
103PORTER, John EdwardCenter0.271816881silentHouseIL
104GRADISON, Willis David, Jr.Center0.269932757silentHouseOH
105QUAYLE, James Danforth (Dan)Center0.266937669boomerHouseIN
106QUAYLE, James Danforth (Dan)Center0.266937669boomerSenateIN
107EMERSON, Norvell William (Bill)Center0.265940902silentHouseMO
108CAMPBELL, Carroll Ashmore, Jr.Right0.263829787silentHouseSC
109SILJANDER, Mark DeliCenter0.263473054boomerHouseMI
110WEBER, John Vincent (Vin)Center0.261941448boomerHouseMN
111GRAMM, William Philip (Phil)Right0.26163522silentHouseTX
112GRAMM, William Philip (Phil)Right0.26163522silentSenateTX
113SMITH, Christopher HenryCenter0.26146789boomerHouseNJ
114EVANS, Daniel JacksonCenter0.261290323greatestSenateWA
115GEKAS, George WilliamCenter0.261029412silentHousePA
116COATS, Daniel RayCenter0.260806916silentHouseIN
117COATS, Daniel RayCenter0.260806916silentSenateIN
118JOHNSTON, Walter Eugene, IIIRight0.260416667silentHouseNC
119LEWIS, Thomas F.Center0.260147601greatestHouseFL
120KASSEBAUM, Nancy LandonCenter0.259887006silentSenateKS
121SAWYER, Harold SamuelCenter0.258687259greatestHouseMI
122VUCANOVICH, Barbara FarrellCenter0.256457565greatestHouseNV
123CLINGER, William Floyd, Jr.Center0.254950495silentHousePA
124CHANDLER, Rodney DennisCenter0.254752852silentHouseWA
125GINGRICH, Newton LeroyCenter0.254545455silentHouseGA
126CHENEY, Richard BruceRight0.254372019silentHouseWY
127ROGERS, Harold Dallas (Hal)Right0.253456221silentHouseKY
128McEWEN, BobRight0.253205128boomerHouseOH
129PACKARD, Ronald C.Right0.252788104silentHouseCA
130COURTER, James AndrewCenter0.250372578silentHouseNJ
131LEWIS, Charles Jeremy (Jerry)Center0.24863388silentHouseCA
132SMITH, Albert Lee, Jr.Right0.245283019silentHouseAL
133FIEDLER, BobbiCenter0.244956772silentHouseCA
134HUNTER, Duncan LeeRight0.244548287boomerHouseCA
135THOMAS, William MarshallCenter0.243455497silentHouseCA
136HILER, John PatrickCenter0.242975207boomerHouseIN
137HENDON, William MartinCenter0.242152466silentHouseNC
138SUNDQUIST, Donald KennethCenter0.239332096silentHouseTN
139TRIBLE, Paul Seward, Jr.Right0.237583893boomerHouseVA
140TRIBLE, Paul Seward, Jr.Right0.237583893boomerSenateVA
141ROBERTS, Clint RonaldRight0.235849057silentHouseSD
142McGRATH, Raymond JosephCenter0.234548336silentHouseNY
143LIVINGSTON, Robert Linlithgow, Jr.Right0.234042553silentHouseLA
144HUMPHREY, Gordon JohnRight0.234042553silentSenateNH
145HARTNETT, Thomas ForbesRight0.233226837silentHouseSC
146EVANS, Thomas Beverley, Jr.Center0.233173077silentHouseDE
147FRANKLIN, William WebsterRight0.233050847silentHouseMS
148BARTLETT, Harry Stephen (Steve)Right0.23015873boomerHouseTX
149SHAW, Eugene Clay, Jr.Center0.229938272silentHouseFL
150KASICH, John RichardRight0.229357798boomerHouseOH
151MOLINARI, Guy VictorCenter0.227598566silentHouseNY
152PETTIS, Shirley NeilCenter0.225806452greatestHouseCA
153OXLEY, Michael GarverCenter0.223809524silentHouseOH
154COYNE, James Kitchenman, IIICenter0.223300971boomerHousePA
155McCOLLUM, Ira William, Jr. (Bill)Center0.217527387silentHouseFL
156SCHMITT, Harrison HaganCenter0.216117216silentSenateNM
157WALLOP, MalcolmRight0.21509434silentSenateWY
158MACK, Connie, IIICenter0.215073529silentHouseFL
159MACK, Connie, IIICenter0.215073529silentSenateFL
160DANFORTH, John ClaggettCenter0.211936663silentSenateMO
161HATCH, Orrin GrantCenter0.211421628silentSenateUT
162BLILEY, Thomas Jerome, Jr.Center0.210445469silentHouseVA
163SKEEN, Joseph RichardRight0.208588957greatestHouseNM
164HYDE, Henry JohnCenter0.207243461greatestHouseIL
165WORTLEY, George CorneliusCenter0.206349206greatestHouseNY
166WOLF, Frank RudolphCenter0.20398773silentHouseVA
167BATEMAN, Herbert HarvellRight0.201492537silentHouseVA
168McCAIN, John Sidney, IIICenter0.1996337silentHouseAZ
169McCAIN, John Sidney, IIICenter0.1996337silentSenateAZ
170DeWINE, MichaelCenter0.197979798boomerHouseOH
171GARN, Edwin Jacob (Jake)Center0.197940503silentSenateUT
172NAPIER, John LightRight0.196261682boomerHouseSC
173NELLIGAN, James LeoCenter0.194444444silentHousePA
174EAST, John PorterRight0.192771084silentSenateNC
175HAYAKAWA, Samuel IchiyeCenter0.191011236greatestSenateCA
176WEBER, Edward FordCenter0.19047619silentHouseOH
177KASTEN, Robert Walter, Jr.Center0.18967587silentHouseWI
178KASTEN, Robert Walter, Jr.Center0.18967587silentSenateWI
179BOSCHWITZ, Rudolph Eli (Rudy)Center0.186646434silentSenateMN
180RUDMAN, Warren BruceCenter0.185483871silentSenateNH
181MARTIN, David O'BrienCenter0.185123967silentHouseNY
182JEPSEN, Roger WilliamCenter0.183098592silentSenateIA
183MATTINGLY, Mack FrancisRight0.182926829silentSenateGA
184WARNER, John WilliamCenter0.181818182greatestSenateVA
185NICKLES, Donald LeeRight0.181818182boomerSenateOK
186SIMPSON, Alan KooiCenter0.181568088silentSenateWY
187HAWKINS, PaulaCenter0.180645161greatestSenateFL
188LUGAR, Richard GreenCenter0.177458034silentSenateIN
189DENTON, Jeremiah Andrew, Jr.Right0.17571885greatestSenateAL
190ASHBROOK, Jean SpencerRight0.175silentHouseOH
191MORRISON, Sidney WallaceCenter0.174045802silentHouseWA
192HECHT, Jacob ChicCenter0.171014493silentSenateNV
193LOWERY, William DavidCenter0.165625boomerHouseCA
194MURKOWSKI, Frank HughesCenter0.164763458silentSenateAK
195D'AMATO, Alfonse MarcelloCenter0.164274322silentSenateNY
196GORTON, Thomas Slade, III (Slade)Center0.161793372silentSenateWA
197BRADY, Nicholas FrederickCenter0.161290323silentSenateNJ
198STATON, David MichaelRight0.155963303silentHouseWV
199CARMAN, Gregory WrightCenter0.154545455silentHouseNY
200DOUGHERTY, Charles FrancisLeft0.152838428silentHousePA
201LeBOUTILLIER, JohnCenter0.147058824boomerHouseNY
202WILSON, PeteCenter0.140589569silentSenateCA

During the height of the Cold War’s re-escalation, Paul was the sole right-wing Republican consistently in opposition to the excesses of US foreign policy. By the mid-1970s, the poles of opposition to U.S. foreign policy flipped. This seismic change in the ideological polarity of opposition to U.S. foreign policy effectively broke the political continuity of the interventionist right…save for the presence of Ron Paul. In this new political landscape, Paul was essentially on his own. Plotting Paul alongside his Democratic colleagues who posted similar opposition from 1975 to 1985, his political loneliness becomes clear.

These two graphics compare the ideological landscapes of congressional opposition to U.S. foreign policy between those who began their careers between 1935 and 1945 (above) and those who started their careers between 1975 and 1985 (below). Each dot represents a House member or Senator who voted in opposition more than 50%. Each member is located on a two-dimensional political axis. The x-axis depicts a member’s position on economic policy, with further to the left, the more liberal, and the further right, more conservative. The y-axis represents a member’s social policy position; the lower their position, the more liberal, the higher, the more conservative. Each member is colored by their party, red for Republican, blue for Democrat. Each member is sized by their career opposition percentage. The ideological landscape of congressional opposition to US foreign policy from 1935 until 1945 was ideologically and politically varied. While the GOP was the primary party of opposition a number of Democrats and members of other political parties recorded significant opposition.
By the time Rep. Ron Paul began his career, the ideological diversity of foreign police opposition had all but disappeared. Paul was the only Republican to oppose U.S. foreign policy more than 50% of the time during his first two stints in Congress (1975-1977, 1979-1985).

The uniqueness of Paul’s voting record on military policy is even starker given his generation, party affiliation, and ideology. While 41 Democrats posted higher military policy opposition than Paul (see below), his 69% opposition percentage was the highest in the GOP. And while several leftwing and centrist Republicans resisted the excesses of the military-industrial complex, Paul was the only right-wing Republican who posted significant opposition. Paul’s closet competitor on the Republican right, Jim Sensenbrenner voted in opposition to defense policy only 39% of the time.

RankNamePartyWing of PartyMilitary Policy Opposition PercentageGeneration
1NOLAN, Richard MichaelDemocratLeft0.865979381443299silent
2OWENS, Major Robert OdellDemocratLeft0.847058823529412silent
3RICHMOND, Frederick WilliamDemocratLeft0.843537414965986greatest
4MAGUIRE, Gene AndrewDemocratLeft0.839622641509434silent
5CROCKETT, George William, Jr.DemocratLeft0.839378238341969greatest
6SAVAGE, GusDemocratLeft0.829383886255924greatest
7WEAVER, James HowardDemocratLeft0.823529411764706greatest
8HAYES, Charles ArthurDemocratLeft0.822485207100592greatest
9WEISS, Theodore S.DemocratLeft0.81651376146789greatest
10BATES, JimDemocratLeft0.804878048780488silent
11GARCIA, RobertDemocratLeft0.802238805970149silent
12LELAND, George Thomas (Mickey)DemocratLeft0.801652892561983silent
13TOWNS, EdolphusDemocratLeft0.796407185628742silent
14BURTON, Sala GalanteDemocratLeft0.793650793650794greatest
15MOODY, JimDemocratLeft0.786516853932584silent
16WASHINGTON, HaroldDemocratLeft0.773584905660377greatest
17BEDELL, Berkley WarrenDemocratLeft0.771428571428571greatest
18MOFFETT, Anthony John, Jr. (Toby)DemocratLeft0.769230769230769silent
19BOXER, BarbaraDemocratLeft0.767045454545455silent
20BEILENSON, Anthony CharlesDemocratLeft0.766990291262136silent
21MILLER, GeorgeDemocratLeft0.765578635014837silent
22ACKERMAN, Gary LeonardDemocratLeft0.742857142857143silent
23WHEAT, Alan DupreeDemocratLeft0.740540540540541boomer
24HARKIN, Thomas Richard (Tom)DemocratLeft0.736507936507937silent
25DYMALLY, Mervyn MalcolmDemocratLeft0.736318407960199greatest
26OBERSTAR, James LouisDemocratLeft0.735632183908046silent
27MARKEY, Edward JohnDemocratLeft0.73015873015873boomer
28AuCOIN, LesDemocratLeft0.725856697819315silent
29BLOUIN, Michael ThomasDemocratLeft0.72463768115942silent
30MORRISON, Bruce AndrewDemocratLeft0.72289156626506silent
31FRANK, BarneyDemocratLeft0.719827586206897silent
32SIKORSKI, Gerald EdwardDemocratLeft0.718918918918919boomer
33LOWRY, Michael EdwardDemocratLeft0.71551724137931silent
34GRAY, William Herbert, IIIDemocratLeft0.715415019762846silent
35VENTO, Bruce FrankDemocratLeft0.714285714285714silent
36BONIOR, David EdwardDemocratLeft0.711538461538462silent
37EDGAR, Robert WilliamDemocratLeft0.708154506437768silent
38SABO, Martin OlavDemocratLeft0.706959706959707silent
39KOSTMAYER, Peter HoustonDemocratLeft0.704119850187266boomer
40BERMAN, Howard LawrenceDemocratLeft0.7silent
41HALL, Katie BeatriceDemocratLeft0.697674418604651silent
42PAUL, Ronald ErnestRepublicanRight0.693430656934307silent
43KILDEE, Dale EdwardDemocratCenter0.689024390243902silent
44DURBIN, Richard JosephDemocratLeft0.688524590163934silent
45MRAZEK, Robert JanDemocratLeft0.685714285714286silent
46TSONGAS, Paul EfthemiosDemocratLeft0.675862068965517silent
47WYDEN, Ronald LeeDemocratLeft0.675105485232067boomer
48BRODHEAD, William McNultyDemocratLeft0.672727272727273silent
49EARLY, Joseph DanielDemocratLeft0.671875silent
50WOLPE, Howard Eliot, IIIDemocratLeft0.671480144404332silent
51EVANS, Lane AllenDemocratLeft0.666666666666667boomer
52CARR, Milton Robert (Bob)DemocratLeft0.66551724137931silent
53RUSSO, Martin AnthonyDemocratLeft0.663690476190476silent
54LEVINE, Meldon EdisesDemocratLeft0.662790697674419silent
55WAXMAN, Henry ArnoldDemocratLeft0.657232704402516silent
56BALDUS, Alvin JamesDemocratLeft0.657142857142857greatest
57SHANNON, James MichaelDemocratLeft0.653543307086614boomer
58PENNY, Timothy JosephDemocratLeft0.652173913043478boomer
59LAUTENBERG, Frank RaleighDemocratLeft0.646153846153846greatest
60MacKAY, Kenneth Hood, Jr. (Buddy)DemocratLeft0.644927536231884silent
61WILLIAMS, John PatrickDemocratLeft0.64367816091954silent
62SCHUMER, Charles Ellis (Chuck)DemocratLeft0.642553191489362boomer
63FEIGHAN, Edward FarrellDemocratLeft0.642458100558659boomer
64WALGREN, DouglasDemocratLeft0.639344262295082silent
65LUNDINE, Stanley NelsonDemocratLeft0.635467980295567silent
66MITCHELL, George JohnDemocratLeft0.634408602150538silent
67TORRES, Esteban EdwardDemocratCenter0.632432432432432silent
68LEVIN, Sander MartinDemocratLeft0.631868131868132silent
69PATTISON, Edward WorthingtonDemocratLeft0.628571428571429silent
70DIXON, Julian CareyDemocratLeft0.627118644067797silent
71COYNE, William JosephDemocratLeft0.627118644067797silent
72SCHNEIDER, ClaudineRepublicanLeft0.626126126126126boomer
73LEHMAN, Richard HenryDemocratLeft0.624309392265193boomer
74RIEGLE, Donald Wayne, Jr.DemocratLeft0.624137931034483silent
75RAHALL, Nick Joe, IIDemocratCenter0.622950819672131boomer
76DOWNEY, Thomas JosephDemocratLeft0.622478386167147boomer
77GEJDENSON, SamuelDemocratLeft0.620833333333333boomer
78SMITH, Lawrence JackDemocratCenter0.619318181818182silent
79DORGAN, Byron LeslieDemocratCenter0.618025751072961silent
80BRADLEY, William Warren (Bill)DemocratLeft0.617801047120419silent
81CORNELL, Robert JohnDemocratLeft0.613333333333333greatest
82LEAHY, Patrick JosephDemocratLeft0.612403100775194silent
83MIKULSKI, Barbara AnnDemocratLeft0.60958904109589silent
84WIRTH, Timothy E.DemocratLeft0.608695652173913silent
85KAPTUR, Marcia Carolyn (Marcy)DemocratCenter0.607734806629834boomer
86DONNELLY, Brian JosephDemocratLeft0.607003891050584boomer
87KLECZKA, Gerald DanielDemocratLeft0.605095541401274silent
88PEASE, Donald JamesDemocratLeft0.603715170278638silent
89NOWAK, Henry JamesDemocratLeft0.603498542274053silent
90BOSCO, Douglas HarryDemocratLeft0.602484472049689boomer
91FORD, Harold EugeneDemocratLeft0.600660066006601silent
92FOGLIETTA, Thomas MichaelIndependentLeft0.6silent
93FOGLIETTA, Thomas MichaelDemocratLeft0.6silent
94HERTEL, Dennis MarkDemocratLeft0.595833333333333boomer
95STAGGERS, Harley Orrin, Jr.DemocratCenter0.595628415300546boomer
96KEYS, Martha ElizabethDemocratLeft0.594594594594595silent
97BAUCUS, Max SiebenDemocratCenter0.590909090909091silent
98McNULTY, James Francis, Jr.DemocratCenter0.58695652173913greatest
99MINETA, Norman Y.DemocratLeft0.586705202312139silent
100LEVIN, CarlDemocratLeft0.585silent
101BONKER, Don LeroyDemocratLeft0.583333333333333silent
102SIMON, Paul MartinDemocratLeft0.582456140350877silent
103LEACH, James Albert SmithRepublicanCenter0.580745341614907silent
104McHUGH, Matthew FrancisDemocratLeft0.580459770114943silent
105BUMPERS, DaleDemocratCenter0.579365079365079greatest
106DASCHLE, Thomas AndrewDemocratCenter0.576612903225806boomer
107PANETTA, Leon EdwardDemocratLeft0.575851393188854silent
108BORSKI, Robert Anthony, Jr.DemocratCenter0.573770491803279boomer
109BARNES, Michael DarrDemocratLeft0.570621468926554silent
110SOLARZ, Stephen JoshuaDemocratLeft0.569321533923304silent
111TAUKE, Thomas JosephRepublicanCenter0.569230769230769boomer
112ECKART, Dennis EdwardDemocratLeft0.564315352697095boomer
113LeFANTE, Joseph AnthonyDemocratCenter0.564102564102564silent
114STEERS, Newton Ivan, Jr.RepublicanLeft0.5625greatest
115MART�NEZ, Matthew G.DemocratCenter0.562162162162162silent
116DWYER, Bernard JamesDemocratCenter0.561702127659575greatest
117FLORIO, James JosephDemocratLeft0.561151079136691silent
118CARPER, Thomas RichardDemocratLeft0.559782608695652boomer
119HART, Gary WarrenDemocratCenter0.556213017751479silent
120SWIFT, Allan ByronDemocratCenter0.555956678700361silent
121TORRICELLI, Robert GuyDemocratLeft0.555555555555556boomer
122BOUCHER, Frederick C.DemocratCenter0.554913294797688boomer
123CAVANAUGH, John JosephDemocratLeft0.55421686746988silent
124OAKAR, Mary RoseDemocratCenter0.553691275167785silent
125MOYNIHAN, Daniel PatrickDemocratLeft0.54954954954955greatest
126KENNELLY, Barbara BaileyDemocratLeft0.546341463414634silent
127WISE, Robert Ellsworth, Jr.DemocratCenter0.545945945945946boomer
128HARRISON, Frank GirardDemocratCenter0.545454545454545silent
129MEYNER, Helen StevensonDemocratLeft0.541666666666667silent
130CLARKE, James McClureDemocratCenter0.53968253968254greatest
131RATCHFORD, William RichardDemocratLeft0.539568345323741silent
132ZSCHAU, Edwin Van WyckRepublicanCenter0.536585365853659silent
133MATSUI, Robert T.DemocratLeft0.534545454545455silent
134ERDAHL, Arlen IngolfRepublicanCenter0.533333333333333silent
135McCLOSKEY, Francis XavierDemocratCenter0.532967032967033silent
136HALL, Tony PatrickDemocratCenter0.532319391634981silent
137DODD, Christopher JohnDemocratLeft0.532075471698113silent
138AMMERMAN, Joseph ScofieldDemocratLeft0.523809523809524greatest
139GREEN, Sedgwick William (Bill)RepublicanLeft0.520408163265306silent
140COELHO, TonyDemocratCenter0.520361990950226silent
141LaFALCE, John JosephDemocratCenter0.519402985074627silent
142KOLTER, Joseph PaulDemocratCenter0.514285714285714greatest
143BLANCHARD, James JohnstonDemocratLeft0.513513513513513silent
144GEPHARDT, Richard AndrewDemocratCenter0.513513513513513silent
145BRYANT, John WileyDemocratCenter0.511363636363636boomer
146SYNAR, Michael LynnDemocratLeft0.509025270758123boomer
147SLATTERY, James CharlesDemocratLeft0.508108108108108boomer
148MAVROULES, Nicholas JamesDemocratLeft0.50185873605948silent
149CORNWELL, David LanceDemocratCenter0.5silent
150SASSER, James RalphDemocratRight0.497716894977169silent
151FENWICK, Millicent HammondRepublicanCenter0.496932515337423greatest
152GLICKMAN, Daniel RobertDemocratLeft0.495238095238095silent
153OLIN, James R.DemocratCenter0.491891891891892greatest
154PURSELL, Carl DuaneRepublicanCenter0.488817891373802silent
155STEWART, Bennett McVeyDemocratLeft0.485714285714286greatest
156COOPER, James Hayes ShofnerDemocratLeft0.480225988700565boomer
157ROUKEMA, Margaret ScafatiRepublicanCenter0.479166666666667silent
158LANTOS, Thomas PeterDemocratLeft0.478813559322034silent
159VOLKMER, Harold LeeDemocratCenter0.476780185758514silent
160JEFFORDS, James MerrillRepublicanCenter0.473846153846154silent
161RIDGE, Thomas JosephRepublicanCenter0.472527472527473silent
162TUCKER, James (Jim) Guy, Jr.DemocratCenter0.472222222222222silent
163SHARP, Philip RileyDemocratLeft0.47093023255814silent
164MURPHY, Austin JohnDemocratLeft0.469055374592834greatest
165KOGOVSEK, Raymond PeterDemocratCenter0.467153284671533silent
166RICHARDSON, BillDemocratCenter0.464088397790055boomer
167GUARINI, Frank Joseph, Jr.DemocratLeft0.462686567164179greatest
168EVANS, Thomas CooperRepublicanCenter0.458904109589041greatest
169BENJAMIN, Adam, Jr.DemocratCenter0.453900709219858silent
170HAYES, Philip HaroldDemocratLeft0.45silent
171FERRARO, Geraldine AnneDemocratLeft0.448529411764706silent
172HUGHES, William JohnDemocratLeft0.446991404011461silent
173DeNARDIS, Lawrence JosephRepublicanCenter0.446428571428571silent
174FISHER, Joseph LymanDemocratLeft0.444444444444444greatest
175HOLLENBECK, Harold CapistranRepublicanLeft0.442748091603053silent
176MATTOX, James AlbonDemocratLeft0.442622950819672silent
177KREBS, John HansDemocratLeft0.44greatest
178PETRI, Thomas EvertRepublicanCenter0.43956043956044silent
179HOYER, Steny HamiltonDemocratCenter0.429166666666667silent
180FORD, Wendell HamptonDemocratRight0.428571428571429greatest
181MYERS, Michael Joseph (Ozzie)DemocratCenter0.416666666666667silent
182STACK, Edward JohnDemocratCenter0.416666666666667greatest
183REID, HarryDemocratCenter0.414201183431953silent
184CAPUTO, Bruce FaulknerRepublicanCenter0.41025641025641silent
185FITHIAN, Floyd JamesDemocratLeft0.407142857142857silent
186BINGAMAN, Jesse Francis, Jr. (Jeff)DemocratCenter0.404580152671756silent
187SPRATT, John McKee, Jr.DemocratCenter0.403314917127072silent
188FAZIO, Victor Herbert, Jr.DemocratCenter0.401486988847584silent
189ERTEL, Allen EdwardDemocratCenter0.393700787401575silent
190LEDERER, Raymond FrancisDemocratCenter0.392405063291139silent
191JOHNSON, Nancy LeeRepublicanCenter0.392265193370166silent
192SENSENBRENNER, Frank James, Jr.RepublicanRight0.392156862745098silent
193ALLEN, Clifford RobertsonDemocratCenter0.391304347826087greatest
194ANTHONY, Beryl Franklin, Jr.DemocratCenter0.391129032258065silent
195SPELLMAN, Gladys NoonDemocratLeft0.386792452830189greatest
196BEARD, Edward PeterDemocratLeft0.385321100917431silent
197APPLEGATE, Douglas EarlDemocratCenter0.385113268608414silent
198CHAFEE, John HubbardRepublicanCenter0.384615384615385greatest
199ALBOSTA, Donald JosephDemocratCenter0.384615384615385greatest
200FOWLER, Wyche, Jr.DemocratCenter0.382352941176471silent
201HARRIS, Herbert Eugene, IIDemocratLeft0.378378378378378greatest
202BROWN, George Hanks (Hank)RepublicanRight0.376518218623482silent
203AKAKA, Daniel KahikinaDemocratCenter0.375384615384615greatest
204McKERNAN, John Rettie, Jr.RepublicanCenter0.370786516853933boomer
205HOWE, Allan TurnerDemocratCenter0.368421052631579greatest
206GOODLING, William FranklinRepublicanCenter0.366459627329193greatest
207PATTERSON, Jerry MumfordDemocratCenter0.365979381443299silent
208D'AMOURS, Norman EdwardDemocratLeft0.362745098039216silent
209DeCONCINI, Dennis WebsterDemocratRight0.361111111111111silent
210DERRICK, Butler Carson, Jr.DemocratCenter0.359649122807018silent
211TALLON, Robert Mooneyhan, Jr. (Robin)DemocratCenter0.357541899441341boomer
212SNOWE, Olympia JeanRepublicanCenter0.355072463768116boomer
213YOUNG, Robert Anton, IIIDemocratCenter0.352678571428571greatest
214GORE, Albert Arnold, Jr.DemocratCenter0.349480968858132boomer
215GUNDERSON, Steven CraigRepublicanCenter0.345833333333333boomer
216LIPINSKI, William OliverDemocratCenter0.345454545454545silent
217GLENN, John Herschel, Jr.DemocratLeft0.344greatest
218NEAL, Stephen LybrookDemocratCenter0.335329341317365silent
219MICA, Daniel AndrewDemocratCenter0.33495145631068silent
220PORTER, John EdwardRepublicanCenter0.334661354581673silent
221BEREUTER, Douglas KentRepublicanCenter0.334532374100719silent
222DICKS, Norman DeValoisDemocratCenter0.328173374613003silent
223HEFTEL, Cecil LandauDemocratCenter0.326424870466321greatest
224ORTIZ, Solomon P.DemocratRight0.325966850828729silent
225DIXON, Alan JohnDemocratCenter0.321428571428571greatest
226SISISKY, NormanDemocratCenter0.320652173913043greatest
227ROBERTS, Charles Patrick (Pat)RepublicanCenter0.320512820512821silent
228EVANS, David WalterDemocratCenter0.318471337579618boomer
229MOTTL, Ronald MiltonDemocratCenter0.315436241610738silent
230COLEMAN, Ronald D'EmoryDemocratRight0.315217391304348silent
231DOWDY, Charles WayneDemocratRight0.314814814814815silent
232EVANS, Daniel JacksonRepublicanCenter0.313432835820896greatest
233ATKINSON, Eugene VincentDemocratCenter0.311827956989247greatest
234ATKINSON, Eugene VincentRepublicanCenter0.311827956989247greatest
235SMITH, Christopher HenryRepublicanCenter0.309623430962343boomer
236CHANDLER, Rodney DennisRepublicanCenter0.30939226519337silent
237ANDREWS, Michael AllenDemocratCenter0.302197802197802silent
238KASSEBAUM, Nancy LandonRepublicanCenter0.300518134715026silent
239HEFNER, Willie Gathrel (Bill)DemocratRight0.29673590504451silent
240SHAMANSKY, Robert NortonDemocratLeft0.296296296296296greatest
241FROST, Jonas MartinDemocratCenter0.295454545454545silent
242MARKS, Marc LincolnRepublican