supporters and, after presentations from all contested counties, the Taft supporters

were seated in twenty-six of thirty-one counties. After the assembled state convention

moved to seat the Taft backers from the other five counties, the Eisenhower

supporters walked out and held a rival convention across the street. Both groups

elected a slate of delegates. Zweifel's group had thirty Taft supporters, four

MacArthur supporters, and four Eisenhower supporters. Porter's group was thirty-

three for Eisenhower and five for Taft. Each group vowed to send their delegations to

the national convention in Chicago and let the RNC declare the true victor.95

 The fallout from the state convention was immediate. Both Eisenhower and Taft

had managers present to guide the Texas factions, making the candidates themselves

look somewhat culpable. Taft had dispatched Ingalls and Reece, while Brownell

attended on behalf of the Eisenhower leadership. The press picked up on this and

claimed that the Reece and Ingalls had driven the "Taft steamroller" through the

convention and appointed delegates counter to the legal and binding votes of the

county meetings. The Taftites claimed that the Eisenhower supporters were only

"one-day Republicans" and that Zwiefel had protected the integrity of the party by

removing the outsiders. Joseph Alsop, reporting for his news syndicate and the

Houston Post claimed that "The simplest way to describe the concept of the Taft

faction is to say they appear to believe that Republicanism is almost like the British

peerage, a rare hereditary privilege."96 Reporters, especially the editors of the Houston

Post claimed that Taft had stolen the delegates from Eisenhower, and the description

of the "Texas Steal" was picked up by reporters around the nation. The Eisenhower




95 David,, et. al, Presidential ,oI,,,r,,,o Politics in 1952 Vol. III, 320-330.

96 Houston Post, 27 May 1952.