With the field of political geography defined on the lines indicated in the preceding instalment of this article, its content may be outlined in terms of the study of a single state area. Naturally, such studies of different states may lead to the comparative study of state areas, just as regional studies may lead to a comparative science of regions. The outline which follows represents perhaps a minimum, including only those topics which I think are unquestionably to be included.

• I. Descriptive analysis of the state

  • A. Description or analysis of the state as a whole

    1. 1. Size

    2. 2. Form and shape

    3. 3. Location in relation to other state areas

    4. 4. Boundaries

  • B. Analysis of the internal structure of the area

    1. 1. Natural landscape areas, or provinces

    2. 2. Cultural landscape areas, or provinces

    3. 3. Areal distribution of significant population groups

    4. 4. Location of the administrative center (capital)

    5. 5. Geographic relations of the different areas thus analyzed, to each other and to the capital

In many ways, the city of Chicago is typical of the United States as a whole in the twentieth century. It is a cross-section of the mixture of races, religions, sects, linguistic groups, and economic classes that go to make up modern America. In the past two decades, the political behavior of the citizens of Chicago in national elections has been similar to that of the entire American electorate. Except for the election of 1916, when Hughes carried the city by a narrow margin, the presidential candidate who carried Chicago also carried the electoral college.

At irregular intervals, there have occurred in American party history certain crucial presidential elections which appear to have set the party alignments for several decades. The election of 1896 was such an election, since it determined the supremacy of the Republican party for a period of a quarter of a century, interrupted only by the Wilson Administration, which came to power because of a split in the Republican ranks. A new era in American politics was definitely started by the election of 1932 which ended the Republican dominance. An intensive study of the behavior of the voters in Chicago during this political upheaval will throw some light upon the motivation of the voters in the entire United States.

The first Congress to replace the old lame-duck session convened with a mighty mandate from the electorate to support the President. It was estimated that 350 of the 561 members in Congress owed their seats to their pledge to back the New Deal. Controversial legislation had to be disposed of in this session if the meeting of Congress during the coming election year was to be brief and decorous. The general tone of the session was indicated by Senator Wagner when he said: “I am sure we all agree that one of the fundamental purposes of government is to give security to its people” (p. 9927). The terms in which this purpose should be expressed remained the major problem of the session. No rallying point for opposition appeared in Congress. In the House, the unimaginative Snell offered little more than grumbles, and Senator McNary was not a consistent opponent. The leadership of the majority party was in the hands of staunch Southern Democrats whose first loyalty was to the will of the President.

All proposals of amendments to the Constitution of the United States under Article V have been made only by Congress and, with the exception of the Twentyfirst Amendment, the mode of ratification has been “by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states.” The Twenty-first Amendment alone was ratified by conventions in three-fourths of the states.

The enrolled joint resolution proposing the Twenty-first Amendment was delivered on February 20, 1933, to Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson. On February 21, he sent identic letters to the governors of the forty-eight states, enclosing with each letter a certified copy of the joint resolution, and requesting that the resolution be submitted to a state convention and that a certified copy of the action taken be communicated to the secretary of state.

As in previous lists, mention is here made only of units specifically authorized by law or established by the President under general authority vested in him.

Ackia Battle Memorial Commission. Created by Public Act No. 362, 74th Congress, approved August 27,1935, to prepare plans and programs for the commemoration in May, 1936, of the two hundredth anniversary of the battle of Ackia. The commission consists of five members to be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, one member to represent the Chickasaw Indians, and one the French-speaking people of the United States. The commissioners are to serve without compensation.

The first session of the Seventy-fourth Congress saw the introduction of at least half a dozen measures dealing with the policy of the government toward belligerents in a war in which the United States is not a party. The President announced his interest in the problem, and the State Department was concerned with drafting legislation which was discussed with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The question will undoubtedly again be before the Congress at its next session.