1940 United States Senate election in Missouri

The 1940 United States Senate election in Missouri was a test of whether Harry S. Truman could win renomination and retain his Senate seat when his ties to the Pendergast organization had become a liability. His Democratic primary contest against Governor Lloyd C. Stark was exceptionally close: Truman won by fewer than 8,000 votes out of 665,000 cast. The result rested on a coalition of Black voters, farmers, and supporters in Jackson County, and it demonstrated that his personal standing and the organization’s remaining strength could outweigh scandal, attacks by opponents, and the opposition of The Kansas City Star.

A close primary and an uncertain night

The decisive contest was the Democratic primary against Stark. On election night the returns initially suggested that Truman had lost. At about eleven o’clock, Stark led by 11,000 votes, and Truman was heard to concede to his friend Edgar Hinde that he might be beaten. Hinde urged him to wait until morning. Truman’s daughter, Margaret, later recalled a different outward posture: her father had calmly said he would win before going to bed. The family had been following the returns on the radio in the living room, while Bess and Margaret were in tears over the apparent result.

The uncertainty continued into the night. After the household had gone to bed, Bess answered a telephone call from a campaign worker in St. Louis, who offered congratulations. She took the message for a bad joke and hung up. When the caller tried again, he explained that Truman was carrying St. Louis. The city’s count proved pivotal: Truman’s margin over Stark there was 8,411 votes, more than his eventual statewide margin. The episode turned a seemingly settled defeat into a close victory still being assembled as returns came in.

The coalition behind the result

Truman won by not quite 8,000 votes statewide, but the narrow total concealed important differences among the constituencies and places that made up his support. He carried the Black vote and did better with farmers than he had in 1934. Farmers mattered in a contest where Stark had been expected to draw strength from rural voters; Stark later said his rural support had failed to materialize, blaming a severe drought.

Jackson County gave Truman a 20,000-vote margin. That was only about a fifth of his margin there in 1934, but it was still a significant result in a county where association with the Pendergast organization was widely thought to have become politically fatal. The earlier contest offered a striking contrast: in 1934, with Pendergast support, Truman’s opponent John Cochran had carried Jackson County by 95,000 votes. In 1940, despite the scandals and the organization’s damaged reputation, Truman’s own local support proved durable enough to carry the county.

The campaign’s outcome therefore cannot be reduced to the machine vote alone. Stark attributed his defeat to that vote, to Bennett Clark’s intervention, and to support from federal appointees, including postmasters and Works Progress Administration workers. Truman’s account in the election narrative instead emphasizes the combined force of his personal standing, the work of Jim Pendergast, and what remained of the organization. Those explanations point to a contest in which local organization mattered, but operated alongside the candidate’s own appeal and support among particular groups of voters.

Nomination, opponents, and political consequences

The primary victory settled Truman’s immediate challenge and left him positioned to face the fall election. Maurice Milligan, who had also opposed him, sent congratulations and promised to support him in the general election. His response marked a change from the primary campaign’s accusations: at a Kansas City banquet the previous week, Milligan had attacked vote fraud and joked that Truman would spend his Senate career listening by long-distance telephone to orders from his boss. By the time the result was known, Milligan was offering support rather than continuing the contest.

Truman’s handling of Milligan’s public-service prospects also showed that their rivalry did not end in simple retaliation. Milligan had been required to resign as district attorney in order to run in the primary. When he sought reappointment after the campaign, Truman wrote to Franklin D. Roosevelt that, in fairness, Milligan should have his position back. Truman’s action did not erase their political differences, but it demonstrated his willingness to distinguish a defeated opponent’s claim to his former job from the contest they had just fought.

Stark’s defeat had a more lasting consequence for the governor. He did not publicly comment on the result, but privately blamed the machine vote, Clark’s efforts, federal employees, and the drought. When Roosevelt later considered Stark for a position on the Labor Mediation Board, Truman intervened to ensure that Stark did not receive it. Stark withdrew from politics in disgust and never again held public office. The primary thus ended not only his immediate challenge to Truman but also his political career.

Significance of the result

The closeness of the vote made the victory more than a routine renomination. Stark’s lead during the night, the decisive St. Louis count, and Truman’s 20,000-vote margin in Jackson County show how a statewide result could turn on a small number of votes in particular places even when the winning coalition crossed regional and racial lines. The outcome also qualified the assumption that the Pendergast connection had become an automatic disqualification. Truman’s victory did not mean that the scandals or opposition had vanished; rather, those forces failed to overcome the candidate’s standing and the remaining organization’s capacity to mobilize support.

In the campaign’s immediate aftermath, the result reshaped relationships as well as the ballot. Milligan offered support, Truman advocated restoring Milligan to his former office, and Stark’s political prospects collapsed. The contest left Truman with a narrow but consequential mandate to continue toward the fall election, secured through a combination of local strength, broader voter support, and a late reversal in the returns.