The Broker State at Work. Miss Perkins tells of her effort to calm General Johnson in The Roosevelt I Knew (B), pp. 202-204, and Ickes quotes Roosevelt on Johnson rushing in with codes to sign, in his diary (B), Vol. I, p. 72. Most students of the NRA conclude that it did not markedly help recovery, and may have retarded it; I have relied mainly on Leverett S. Lyon, et al., The National Recovery Administration (Washington, D. C: The Brookings Institution, 1935), an authoritative and critical study; C. F. Roos, NRA Economic Planning (Bloomington, Ind.: The Principia Press, 1937); Mitchell [chap. 7]; 73d Congress, 1st Sess., Senate Finance Committee, National Industrial Recovery, Hearings on NRA extension (Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1933), which is a mine of information and varied viewpoints. For memoirs of two NRA chiefs, see Hugh S. Johnson’s lively The Blue Eagle from Egg to Earth (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, Doran, 1935), and Richberg2 (B). The Roosevelt-Connery exchange is in PPF 1034, FDRL. On farm politics I have made extensive use of a highly informed work, William D. Aeschbacker, “Political Activities of Agricultural Organizations, 1929-1939” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nebraska, July 1948). Aeschbacker lists one Farmers Union participant in agricultural policymaking; actually this participant was a congressman friendly to the Farmers Union but not actually a representative of it, according to correspondence in PPF 471, FDRL. That Roosevelt recognized the existence of farm unrest in fall 1933 is clear from Ickes1, p. 110, and PLFDR, p. 366. The Olson letter and Roosevelt’s reply are in PPF 4, FDRL. The President’s close observation of economic conditions is evident especially in his press conferences, notably PC Nos. 32, 42, 51, and 88. His consideration of the use of army kitchens is noted in Minutes of the Executive Council, Sept. 5, 1933; see also Eccles (B), p. 126. The quotation about the “broadest attempt” on page 195 is from Mitchell. My main sources on early relief and public works administration are Sherwood (B), and Ickes; the Hopkins Papers, FDRL; and Records of the Works Projects Administration and of its predecessors, The National Archives.
The Politics of Broker Leadership. While I know of no systematic treatment of the problem of “broker leadership,” certain works relate directly to the problem: Pendleton Herring, The Politics of Democracy (Rinehart, 1940), which favors the ambiguous, non-doctrinaire quality of American politics; E. E. Schattschneider, Party Government (Farrar and Rinehart, 1942), an argument for more responsible parties; David B. Truman, The Governmental Process (Knopf, 1951), which shows both the theoretical implications and the practical ramifications of the problem; Herbert Agar, The Price of Union (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950), a luminous treatment of the general theme in American political history. For a brilliantly suggestive piece, see Max Lerner, “The Broker State,” in his Ideas for the Ice Age (Viking, 1941), pp. 376-381. Professor Jack Peltason and I have a chapter summing up the arguments for and against “broker rule,” as we call it, in Government by the People (Prentice-Hall, 1952), chap. 18. Peek’s remark on group domination is quoted in Goldman (B), p. 351. My main sources for the Pennsylvania political situation are Ickes1 and an exchange-between Roosevelt and Pinchot, PPF 289, FDRL. On California, I have used PPF 235 and OF 300 and 1165, FDRL; Robert E. Burke, Olson’s New Deal for California (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1953), which includes a succinct account of the 1934 election; Creel (B); George Creel Papers, LC; and Upton Sinclair, I Candidate for Governor and How I Got Licked (Pasadena: privately published, 1935), a detailed and, of course, vivid account by the Democratic candidate. My sources for Sinclair’s Hyde Park conference are Sinclair’s volume just cited, and Sinclair to author, Jan. 25, 1956. Sinclair’s suspicion of some kind of Administration deal with Merriam is borne out in OF 300 (Box 16), FDRL. On Wisconsin see OF 300 (Wisconsin), FDRL; Ickes1; Edward N. Doan, The La Follettes and the Wisconsin Idea (Rinehart, 1947). On Minnesota see OF 300 (Minnesota), FDRL; Roosevelt to Farley, no date, Longhand File, FDRL; George H. Mayer, The Political Career of Floyd B. Olson (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1951), a spirited and sympathetic account. On New Mexico see PPF 1201 and 3851, FDRL; Ickes1, pp. 217, 358-359. All press conference quotations in this section are from PC No. 133, June 27, 1934.
Rupture on the Right. My source for the 1934 election returns is George Gallup, The Political Almanac (B. C. Forbes & Sons, 1952), a comprehensive compilation of national and state returns over recent decades. Howe’s worshipful words about Roosevelt are quoted in Stiles (B), p. 290, and Ickes’ comments in his diary, Vol. I, pp. 79, 127. The Stern file is PPF 1039, FDRL. Comments on Roosevelt’s press conferences are based mainly on a study of the transcripts in FDRL; see also Leo C. Rosten, The Washington Correspondents (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1937). Miss Perkins’ picture of Roosevelt’s way of speaking over the radio is from The Roosevelt I Knew, p. 72. Roosevelt described how he tried to visualize his audience in a letter to Helen Reynolds, October 30, 1933, PPF 234, FDRL. His curious correspondence with his critical classmate in Boston is in PPF 183, FDRL; see also PPF 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 51, and 363, FDRL, and PC Nos. 23, 69, 78, and 141 for other material on Roosevelt’s disenchantment with the right. Frederick Rudolph, “The American Liberty League, 1934-1940,” American Historical Review, Vol. LVI, No. 1, October 1950, pp. 19-33, brief, illuminating review of the genesis, personalities, ideas and death of this organization. On the reaction of the right to the early New Deal see Goldman. The McIntyre memo to Roosevelt in regard to Roy Howard is in PPF 68, Oct. 6, 1934, FDRL.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
There is a vast literature on social movements: reform, protest, revolutionary, gradualist, and the like. For my particular needs I have relied mainly on Hadley Cantril, The Psychology of Social Movements (Wiley, 1941), a treatment of motivation in social life and of the quest for meaning in political and other contexts; Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (Harper, 1951), a little book on mass movements by a man who lived in, and watched carefully, the ideological breeding grounds of California; Gouldner (B), a splendidly edited study of leadership in its social setting; Crane Brinton, The Anatomy of Revolution (W. W. Norton, 1938).
The Little Foxes. Farley describes the “hat” interview in Behind the Ballots (B), pp. 240-242. Important sources on Long’s career and cause are Harnett T. Kane, Louisiana Hayride (Morrow, 1941), which also carries the Long dynasty through 1940; Hodding Carter, “Huey Long: American Dictator,” in Isabel Leighton (ed.), The Aspirin Age (Simon and Schuster, 1949), a trenchant, balanced piece by a Southerner; and “Louisiana: the Seamy Side of Democracy,” chap. 8, in V. O. Key, Jr., Southern Politics (Knopf, 1949), an indispensable study. Coughlin and his movement have not had the extensive study that they deserve; I have relied mainly on a far-ranging Ph.D. dissertation by Bruce B. Mason, “American Political Protest, 1932-1936” (University of Texas, 1953), for data on Coughlin and on other leaders of protest movements during this period; and on Fortune magazine, February 1934, for statistics on mail and contributions. For Roosevelt’s intercession with the Navy on behalf of Coughlin, see OF 306 (Coughlin), FDRL. On Townsend I have used another dissertation, the most thorough and significant study produced on the subject to date, Abraham Holtzman, “The Townsend Movement: A Study in Old Age Pressure Politics” (2 vols., Harvard University, 1952). A discerning analysis that relates the Townsend movement to underlying social and psychological behavior is Cantril, The Psychology of Social Movements, chap. 7. The nature of the Administration’s response to Long et al. has been gleaned mainly from PPF 2337, FDRL, especially the Colonel House file. Minutes of the Executive Council show Roosevelt’s determination and tenacity in dealing indirectly with Long, especially by withholding patronage. The Hurja political study can be found in PSF, Post Office Department Folder, FDRL; a portion of this is reproduced in PLFDR, following p. 428; and Farley describes his reaction in Behind the Ballots, pp. 249-252. Farley quotes Roosevelt on dealing with Coughlin in Jim Farley’s Story (B), p. 52. PPF 3960, FDRL contains a number of letters to Roosevelt from Catholic dignitaries and laymen on Coughlin’s activities. As late as September 1935 Ken
nedy brought Coughlin to Hyde Park for what Roosevelt described to the press as just a social visit. The concern over the Administration’s political position was reflected in Ickes (B), pp. 304-306, and in both of Farley’s books. Hadley Cantril (B), pp. 590-598, provides evidence of a slump in Roosevelt’s popularity during this period. Roosevelt to Arthur M. Schlesinger (Sr.), May 14, 1935, PPF 2501, FDRL, is an example of Roosevelt’s biding his time and waiting on public opinion.
Labor: New Millions and New Leaders. An important documentary source on trade unionism during the early 1930’s is Proceedings of the American Federation of Labor’s annual convention (Washington, D. C). For basic membership and strike data see the standard work, H. A. Millis and R. E. Montgomery, Organized Labor (McGraw-Hill, 1945), authoritative and pedestrian. On the rise of the C.I.O., Edward Levinson, Labor on the March (Harper, 1938) is rich in detail but markedly slanted in favor of the C.I.O.; Herbert Harris, Labor’s Civil War (Knopf, 1940) gives a more balanced picture of the schism. Roosevelt’s negative role in shaping the Wagner Act can be fully documented. Miss Perkins (B) says flatly that he was hardly consulted about it and that it did not appeal to him (p. 239); and this is borne out in Irving Bernstein, The New Deal Collective Bargaining Policy (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1950), a careful and widely researched study of the passage of the Wagner Act. See also a summary of presidential conference with Senators, April 4, 1934, PSF, FDRL. On Roosevelt’s views see also PC Nos. 125, 176, 299, and OF 407 (Labor). Moley (B), p. 13, describes the President as a “patron of labor”—a remark that, of course, applies to Roosevelt especially during the period Moley was close to him.
Left! Right! Left! No one is more aware than this author, especially after studying Roosevelt’s ideological development, of the limitations of the terms “right” and “left.” I have two excuses for using them: first, they were terms that had meaning for the political leaders of the period, including Roosevelt; and second, they are as useful as any shorthand terms can be for characterizing the ideology and program of the liberal and conservative alignments in American politics. On this score, see the useful treatment of definitions in the first-rate study, Clinton Rossiter, Conservatism in America (Knopf, 1955), especially p. 15. By “right” I mean ideas or policies more acceptable to, and in the short run more favorable to, businessmen, professional groups, and upper-income groups in general; and by “left” I mean the ideas or policies similarly attractive to and favoring lower income groups, industrial workers, consumers, and allied groups, and also the increased use of government for wider distribution of income and social welfare. The condition of Congress during the early weeks of 1935 is well described in a letter from Senator Key Pittman to Roosevelt, Feb. 19, 1935, PPF 745, FDRL; see also Ickes1, pp. 302, 363-364. Data on Roosevelt’s mood of early 1935 is from Ickes, passim; from a rather unusual letter from Roosevelt to R. J. Reager, May 22, 1935, PPF 2526, FDRL; from Lindley2, p. 83; and from a confidential source. My chief source on the work relief bill is chap. 2 of Burns (B), a legislative history of the bill; see Paul H. Douglas, Social Security in the United States (Whittlesey House, 1936) for the history of the social security bill. The best evidence on Roosevelt’s reaction to the Schecter decision was the historic press conference itself, printed almost in full in PPAFDR, Vol. IV, pp. 200-222; a letter from Roosevelt to Henry L. Stimson, June 10, 1935, PLFDR, pp 484-485, shows the same reaction. There is a thesis that Roosevelt actually was pleased that the Supreme Court voided the NRA and thus relieved him of an embarrassing burden; see Krock Interview, OHP, on this matter and also Memorandum, Richberg to McIntyre, May 1, 1935, PPF 466, FDRL; I believe, however, that the evidence preponderantly shows that Roosevelt still believed in the essence of the NRA, if more effectively administered, and that he was genuinely upset by the decision; see Levy to Roosevelt, June 24, 1935, OF 98, FDRL, and Creel (B), p. 291; it is perfectly possible, in view of Roosevelt’s intellectual habits, that he had highly mixed feelings on the matter. For Roosevelt’s undelivered “gold-clause” speech, see PLFDR, pp. 455-460; and for Joseph Kennedy’s account of the doings of that decision day, see Tully (B), pp. 157-161. E. Pendleton Herring, “First Session of the Seventy-Fourth Congress,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. XXIX, No. 6, Dec. 1935, pp. 985-1005, is a useful review of this crucial session. Moley, chaps. 9 and 10, offers a fascinating account of the shift in Roosevelt’s position in 1935 (although I disagree with some of his interpretations). For further bibliographical notes on Roosevelt’s shift leftward and on the role in this of the conservatives, see bibliography for chapter 12.
CHAPTER TWELVE
For glimpses of Roosevelt on vacation and at play during late 1935, see Ickes1 (B), and PLFDR, passim. Roosevelt’s comments on the 1935 legislative session are from Roosevelt to Henry Goddard Leach, August 31, 1935, PPF 324, FDRL.
Thunderbolts from the Bench. Commentary on judicial developments in the 1930’s is a rich field. Aside from judicial pronouncements themselves, I have relied chiefly on the following: Charles P. Curtis, Jr., Lions under the Throne (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947), a remarkably fresh and informed treatment of Supreme Court justices and their ideas; Jackson (B), a New Deal tract but a tract of importance; C. Herman Pritchett, The Roosevelt Court (Macmillan, 1948), which treats the period with vigor and competence and also cuts back across decisions of previous years; Robert K. Carr, The Supreme Court and Judicial Review (Farrar and Rinehart, 1942), an authoritative review of the many facets of the subject; and Wesley McCune, The Nine Young Men (Harper, 1947), which among its other merits treats the court as a human institution. Biography of contemporary justices is rather lean on the whole; a striking exception is Merlo J. Pusey, Charles Evans Hughes (2 vols., Macmillan, 1951), a lavishly factual and sympathetic picture of the Chief Justice that supplies a good deal of information about personalities behind and across the bar, and Hughes’s relations with them. On the frontier element in judicial personality see Ronald F. Howell, “Conservative Influence on Constitutional Development, 1923-1937: The Judicial Theory of Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Butler” (Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 1952). Joel F. Paschal, Mr. Justice Sutherland (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951) and Samuel J. Konefsky, Chief Justice Stone and the Supreme Court (Macmillan, 1945) are valuable works. Cortez M. Ewing, The Judges of the Supreme Court, 1789-1937 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1938) provides useful biographical information. The quotation about constitutional storks on page 230 is from Max Lerner. Jackson and Ickes agree on the impact of the Butler case in hardening the Administration’s attitude toward the courts; Roosevelt’s letters and other documents reflect a degree of acceptance by the President of the challenge. On the bonus fight, an important study of the difference between congressional and presidential politics is V. O. Key, Jr., “The Veterans and the House of Representatives: A Study of a Pressure Group and Electoral Mortality,” Journal of Politics, Vol. V, 1943, pp. 27-40. My main source on Congress in 1936 is O. R. Airman, “Second Session of the Seventy-Fourth Congress,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. XXX, No. 6, December 1936, a thought-provoking treatment.
Roosevelt as a Conservative. Evaluation of Roosevelt as a conservative is made triply difficult by the fluid character of Roosevelt’s social and economic views, the ambiguity of the conservative tradition in the United States, and the opportunistic character of much right-wing thought in this country. To this complexity must be added the problem of definition, as noted in the bibliography for chapter 11. I am indebted especially to William Brubeck, Clinton Rossiter, C. Frederick Rudolph, and Robert C. L. Scott for advice and guidance in this area. The author, like many other Americans, heard the “Roosevelt stories,” and noted that the fantastic content of the anecdotes was surpassed only by the narrator’s absolute certainty that the stories were true. Roosevelt told the story about the gentleman and his top hat in PPAFDR, Vol. V, p. 385. Hofstadter’s comment on the desertion of Roosevelt by his c
lass is from Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition (Vintage Books, 1954), p. 334. On the elements of the conservative tradition see, aside from the classical thinkers themselves such as Burke and Adams, the following contemporary writers: Rossiter [chap. 11]; Daniel Aaron, “Conservatism, Old and New,” American Quarterly Review, Vol. VI, No. 2, Summer 1954, a short, acute piece that underlines the gap between the conservative tradition and the American right; Louis Hartz, “The Whig Tradition in America and Europe,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. XLVI, No. 4, December 1952, which describes the “massive confusion in political thought” that lies back of our ideological development; Louis Hartz’s broader treatment of the theme in The Liberal Tradition in America (Harcourt, Brace, 1955); Peter Viereck, Conservatism Revisited (Scribner, 1949), an erudite and yet “modern” treatment, with Metternich as its model; Prothro [chap. 5]; Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1953), which touches on the degeneration of “practical conservatism” into a narrow business creed without, I think, emphasizing sufficiently the meager context and content of our conservative tradition as compared with Britain’s; and Robert A. Nisbet, “Conservatism and Sociology,” The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LVIII, No. 2, September 1952, pp. 167-175, a notable treatment of the relation between philosophical conservatism and the sociologist’s concern with group, status, and social integration. Richard W. Leopold, Elihu Root and the Conservative Tradition (Boston: Little, Brown, 1954), shrewdly underscores the difficulties of an American conservative operating in a culture and polity lacking conservative traditions and institutions. My comments on Roosevelt’s relation to the conservative tradition stem largely from his speeches and letters and from memoirs of his associates; an especially illuminating account of his religious life is given in Perkins (B), chap. 11; and Gunther2 (B) provides a useful miscellany of information on his personal characteristics. A copy of the intercepted Hearst instruction and a copy of the projected press release are in PSF, FDRL. On Lewis Douglas’s equating of the budget and Western civilization, see Ickes1, p. 659.
The Definitive FDR Page 70
