George Wallace's presidential campaigns in 1968 and 1972

George Wallace’s disruptive presidential campaigns: 1968 vs. 1972

George C. Wallace, the former governor of Alabama, was a singular force in American politics during the volatile era of the late 1960s and early 1970s. His runs for the presidency in 1968 and 1972 reflected not only his unique appeal but also the deep fractures running through American society. Though both campaigns were fueled by populist rhetoric, racial grievance, and anti-elite sentiment, the differences in strategy, structure, and outcome were significant. In 1968, Wallace disrupted the general election as a third-party candidate, drawing significant support from white working-class voters and threatening the two-party system. In 1972, he competed within the Democratic primaries and, before an assassination attempt halted his campaign, was a formidable contender. Each campaign reshaped the political landscape in its own way.

Wallace in 1968: The outsider disruptor



In 1968, Wallace ran as the candidate of the American Independent Party, a third-party effort grounded in Southern populism, segregationist rhetoric, and anti-establishment fervor. His campaign emerged amid a chaotic national backdrop: the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, widespread riots, the Vietnam War, and President Lyndon Johnson’s decision not to seek reelection. The major party candidates - Republican Richard Nixon and Democrat Hubert Humphrey - were seen by many as uninspiring or compromised. Wallace capitalized on this discontent.



Wallace’s core message was blunt and inflammatory. He championed "law and order," opposed federal intervention in states’ rights (particularly around civil rights issues), and mocked liberal intellectuals. He often said what others wouldn’t. His appeal was strongest among white working-class voters - many of them traditionally Democratic - who were disillusioned by civil rights reforms, urban unrest, and the anti-war movement.



Wallace's disruption was tangible. He won five Southern states (Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, and Arkansas), took 13.5% of the national vote (close to 10 million votes), and carried 46 electoral votes - still the most successful third-party presidential run since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. Wallace pulled voters from both Nixon and Humphrey. His campaign likely drew more from the traditional Democratic base, particularly white Southerners who might otherwise have voted for Humphrey, but his anti-liberal rhetoric also appealed to some disaffected Republicans. Nixon feared a scenario where Wallace would deny both major candidates a majority in the Electoral College, throwing the election to the House of Representatives. This very real possibility put Wallace at the center of 1968’s political storm.





Wallace in 1972: A populist Democrat with momentum

By 1972, Wallace recalibrated. He entered the Democratic primaries as a registered Democrat rather than running third-party, aiming to be more than just a spoiler - he wanted to win the nomination. Though he remained a staunch segregationist in earlier years, Wallace began softening his rhetoric, subtly shifting from overt racism to a more coded form of populism. His message stayed rooted in economic grievance and cultural resentment: attacking “pointy-headed bureaucrats,” welfare programs, crime, and forced busing.

Wallace’s campaign struck a nerve. In the early 1972 primaries, he shocked the political establishment by winning over a broad swath of voters - not just in the South but also in Northern industrial states. He won convincingly in Florida with over 40% of the vote and performed strongly in Michigan, Indiana, Tennessee, and North Carolina. In the Michigan primary, he came in a strong second, just behind the liberal favorite George McGovern, a U.S. Senator from South Dakota, and beat other mainstream candidates like Hubert Humphrey. His support was strongest among working-class whites, union members, and voters angry at the pace of social change.

Then came the turning point: on May 15, 1972, Wallace was shot five times by Arthur Bremer, a native of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, while Wallace was on the campaign trail making an appearance at a shopping center in Laurel, Maryland. The shooting left Wallace permanently paralyzed from the waist down and ended his campaign’s momentum. Though he continued to appear on ballots and even won some late primaries (Maryland and Michigan), his physical incapacity and the media's focus on his recovery overshadowed any further serious campaigning. More crucially, Democratic Party elites, who had already been wary of Wallace's divisive appeal, turned away entirely.



Did the shooting cost Wallace the Democratic nomination in 1972?

It's unlikely that George Wallace would have won the 1972 Democratic nomination, even had he not been shot. The Democratic Party’s national structure - dominated by liberals and union leadership - viewed Wallace as a threat to party unity and electability. The eventual nominee, George McGovern, represented the opposite end of the party’s ideological spectrum: anti-war, pro-civil rights, and socially liberal.

However, Wallace was on track to gather a substantial number of delegates, and with the Democratic primary field deeply fractured (including McGovern, Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, and others), he might have been able to broker significant influence at the convention. He could have served as a kingmaker - or at least shaped the party’s message toward more conservative or populist tones. The shooting removed that possibility.



The attack also froze Wallace’s public image in a moment of sympathy. While it didn't erase his segregationist past, it added a layer of martyrdom among his followers and gave him national attention as a victim of political violence. It arguably set the stage for his later political rehabilitation in Alabama, where he was re-elected governor in 1974 and eventually renounced his earlier racist positions.

If Wallace had in fact been the Democratic nominee in the 1972 presidential election, he could have significantly reshaped the conservative vote - and possibly siphoned off a portion of Richard Nixon’s base.



Wallace’s appeal to working-class white voters, particularly in the South and among the “silent majority,” overlapped with key parts of Nixon’s support. His populist rhetoric, strong law-and-order stance, and fierce opposition to desegregation and federal overreach resonated with voters who were wary of social change and skeptical of government. These were the same voters Nixon targeted with his “Southern Strategy” and themes of stability and traditional values. Wallace may have also gained significant traction in Rust Belt states with his anti-elitist, pro-working class platform.

In short, Wallace on the Democratic ticket would have posed a serious threat to Nixon's ability to dominate the conservative electorate. While Wallace’s extreme positions may have alienated moderates and liberals, his presence could have fractured the right-leaning vote, tightening what was otherwise a Nixon landslide in 1972. The actual Democratic Party nominee that year, McGovern, only carried Massachusetts and the District of Columbia in the general election against Nixon.



Conclusion

George Wallace was one of the most polarizing and consequential figures in late 20th-century American politics. His 1968 third-party run demonstrated how a populist outsider could disrupt a national election by appealing to cultural and racial resentment. In 1972, he showed he could command serious influence within the Democratic Party, especially among disaffected working-class voters. The assassination attempt cut that campaign short, ending what could have been a more prolonged battle for the soul of the Democratic Party.

Wallace’s legacy is mixed and complicated. He did not win the presidency, but his blend of populist messaging, coded racial appeals, and anti-establishment anger laid groundwork for future political figures - on both the right and left - who would channel similar frustrations. His 1968 and 1972 campaigns were not only about electoral math but about the changing identity of American politics.

William Henry Harrison Beadle

The life and legacy of William Henry Harrison Beadle: Champion of public education

William Henry Harrison Beadle was an American educator, lawyer, surveyor, and Civil War veteran whose lasting contributions to public education have cemented his place in the annals of American history. Born on January 1, 1838, in Parke County, Indiana, Beadle's journey was one of perseverance, service, and an unwavering commitment to the ideals of education. His accomplishments as Superintendent of Public Instruction for Dakota Territory and his role in safeguarding public school lands from speculative exploitation have had a profound and enduring impact on the American education system.

Early life and education

Beadle grew up in a pioneer family, experiencing the hardships of frontier life, which instilled in him a strong work ethic and a deep sense of responsibility. His parents emphasized education, and despite limited resources, Beadle pursued learning diligently. He attended a local common school before enrolling at the University of Michigan, where he earned a degree in civil engineering in 1857. Beadle later obtained a law degree from the same university in 1861.

Beadle’s early career was interrupted by the outbreak of the Civil War. Enlisting in the Union Army, he served with distinction as a captain in the 31st Indiana Volunteer Infantry. His wartime experiences, including the defense of critical strategic positions and enduring the trials of military life, shaped his leadership qualities and commitment to public service.



Transition to public service

Following the war, Beadle resumed his legal and surveying career, eventually moving to the Dakota Territory in 1869. His arrival in Dakota marked the beginning of his most significant contributions to public life. Beadle quickly became involved in territorial governance and education, assuming the role of Surveyor General for Dakota Territory in 1869. His work in this position highlighted his meticulousness and dedication to the orderly development of the region.

In 1879, Beadle was appointed Superintendent of Public Instruction for Dakota Territory, a role that would define his legacy. His appointment came during a critical time when the Dakota Territory was undergoing rapid settlement and development. The future of public education and land use in the territory rested on the decisions of its leaders.

Contributions as superintendent of public instruction

Beadle's tenure as Superintendent of Public Instruction for Dakota Territory was marked by a visionary approach to preserving public school lands. Under the federal land grants established by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and reinforced by subsequent legislation, the federal government allocated portions of public land to states and territories for the establishment of public schools. However, in many territories, these lands were often sold prematurely or mismanaged, leading to the loss of valuable resources intended to fund education.

Recognizing the potential for misuse, Beadle worked tirelessly to protect these lands from speculative interests. He championed the idea that school lands should not be sold hastily but rather leased or managed carefully to ensure they generated long-term income for education. Beadle's advocacy was instrumental in the drafting and adoption of the Dakota Territorial Constitution, which incorporated his principles for land preservation.

Beadle's policies laid the foundation for a stable and sustainable public education system in the territory. His influence extended beyond Dakota Territory, as his principles served as a model for other states in the American West. His work demonstrated the importance of foresight and responsible stewardship of public resources in achieving educational equity.

Beadle would eventually go on to serve as a professor of history. He passed away on November 15, 1915, while visiting his daughter in San Francisco, California. He is buried in Riverside Cemetery, located in Albion, Michigan, where he once practiced law.



Legacy and impact on public education

William Henry Harrison Beadle’s legacy as a champion of public education is deeply rooted in his unwavering belief in the transformative power of learning. His efforts ensured that the proceeds from public lands would fund schools for generations, allowing for the establishment of a robust public education system in South Dakota and beyond.

In recognition of his contributions, South Dakota erected a statue of Beadle in the state capitol, and he remains a celebrated figure in the history of American education. His ideas continue to resonate in contemporary discussions about public education funding and resource management.

Beadle also influenced broader educational policies. His work underscored the necessity of safeguarding resources intended for public welfare and demonstrated how dedicated individuals could shape institutional practices to benefit society.

Conclusion

William Henry Harrison Beadle's life and career reflect a profound dedication to public service and education. From his humble beginnings in Indiana to his leadership in Dakota Territory, Beadle exemplified the values of integrity, foresight, and commitment to the common good. His contributions as Superintendent of Public Instruction for Dakota Territory not only protected the resources necessary for public education, but also set a precedent for responsible governance. His legacy endures as a testament to the power of visionary leadership in shaping a better future for all.

Custer Black Hills Expedition 1874

Custer's expedition to the Black Hills in 1874: A turning point in the westward expansion of the United States

The Black Hills expedition of 1874, led by Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer, marked a pivotal moment in American history, intertwining exploration, military strategy, and the relentless push of westward expansion. This controversial journey was part of a broader narrative of conflict between the U.S. government and the Native American tribes of the Great Plains. To understand the significance of this expedition, in what is now modern-day South Dakota, it is essential to examine Custer's military background, the directives behind the mission, the expedition's encounters with Indigenous peoples, and the lasting consequences of his observations and conclusions.

Custer’s military background: A man of action

Brevet Major General George A. Custer, circa 1865.

By 1874, George Armstrong Custer had solidified his reputation as an ambitious and daring military officer. He gained fame during the Civil War, earning the rank of brevet brigadier general at the remarkably young age of 23. Known for his bold and sometimes reckless tactics, Custer's cavalry exploits helped secure Union victories in battles such as Gettysburg and the Shenandoah Valley campaigns. After the war, Custer joined the U.S. Army's efforts in the West to subdue Native American tribes resisting encroachment on their lands. As a lieutenant colonel of the 7th Cavalry, he became a central figure in the Indian Wars, developing a reputation for his audacity and his contentious relationships with both military superiors and Indigenous groups.

Orders for the expedition: A political and strategic mission

Custer’s 1874 expedition to the Black Hills was not initiated at his own volition but ordered by the U.S. government under the authority of General Philip Sheridan. The mission had several objectives: to explore the Black Hills region in present-day South Dakota, assess its resources, and establish a military presence. Officially, the expedition was framed as a reconnaissance mission to evaluate the area's suitability for a military fort. However, an underlying motive was to confirm rumors of gold deposits in the Black Hills - a region considered sacred by the Lakota Sioux and protected under the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. This treaty had guaranteed the Black Hills as part of the Great Sioux Reservation, effectively barring white settlement or resource extraction.

Custer led a force of over 1,000 men, which included soldiers of the 7th Cavalry, scientists, surveyors, journalists, and civilian guides. The scale of the expedition underscored its dual military and exploratory purposes, as well as its potential for long-term ramifications.



Encounters with native tribes: Avoiding conflict but breaching trust

Although the Black Hills were Sioux territory, the expedition surprisingly encountered little direct conflict with Native American tribes during its journey. Custer’s forces were heavily armed and prepared for skirmishes, but reports from the expedition indicate that the Lakota and Cheyenne largely avoided confrontation. This relative peace does not diminish the expedition’s impact on the tribes, as the mere presence of Custer’s men constituted a clear violation of the Fort Laramie Treaty and provoked widespread distrust and anger among the Sioux.

The absence of significant clashes was likely due to the tribes’ strategic decision to observe the expedition without engaging militarily. Many Indigenous leaders understood that any hostilities could provide a pretext for the U.S. Army to escalate its presence in the region, further endangering their sovereignty.

Observations and conclusions: Gold and opportunity

Custer’s expedition confirmed what many settlers and speculators had hoped: the Black Hills were rich in resources, including gold. Geologists accompanying the expedition identified significant deposits, and Custer himself reported favorably on the region’s potential for settlement and exploitation. His accounts, widely publicized through embedded journalists, ignited a gold rush that brought thousands of prospectors into the Black Hills, despite the legal protections granted to the Sioux.

Beyond gold, Custer’s reports extolled the natural beauty of the region, its lush forests, and its suitability for agriculture and development. These findings only intensified pressure on the U.S. government to renegotiate or abrogate the treaty with the Sioux, a process that would lead to increasing tensions and, eventually, violent conflict.



The aftermath: Escalating conflict and the path to Little Bighorn

Custer’s expedition set into motion a series of events that culminated in profound consequences for both Native Americans and the United States. The Black Hills Gold Rush led to a surge of illegal settlers in Sioux territory, and federal authorities proved unwilling or unable to enforce the treaty. Instead, the government attempted to purchase the Black Hills from the Sioux, offering terms that were roundly rejected by tribal leaders. When negotiations failed, tensions erupted into the Great Sioux War of 1876.

Custer’s role in the Black Hills expedition positioned him as a key figure in the unfolding conflict. Less than two years after the expedition, he would meet his end at the Battle of Little Bighorn, a decisive moment in the Indian Wars. While his tactical decisions at Little Bighorn remain controversial, his earlier foray into the Black Hills was undeniably a catalyst for the upheaval that followed.



Conclusion: A legacy of controversy

The 1874 Black Hills expedition remains a defining episode in the history of westward expansion and U.S.-Native American relations. Custer’s mission, though ostensibly exploratory, served as a prelude to the violation of treaty obligations and the dispossession of the Sioux from their sacred lands. His observations of gold deposits and his publicized reports helped to ignite a gold rush that forever altered the landscape of the Black Hills and the fortunes of its Indigenous inhabitants.

For Custer, the expedition was another chapter in his storied and ultimately tragic career. For the Sioux and other tribes, it marked yet another step in the erosion of their autonomy and cultural heritage. The expedition thus stands as a microcosm of the broader struggles and inequities of the American frontier - a moment of discovery intertwined with displacement and conflict.