Roosevelt (94 page)

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 Kennedy 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 Ickes
¹
, 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 Lindley
²
, 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.

For glimpses of Roosevelt on vacation and at play during late 1935, see Ickes
¹
(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 class 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 Gunther
²
(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 Ickes
¹
, p. 659.

Roosevelt and the Radicals.
There is a vast socialist literature, a fact attested to by the huge descriptive and critical bibliography by T. D. Seymour Bassett that comprises Vol. II of Donald D. Egbert and Stow Persons (eds.),
Socialism and American Life
(2 vols., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952). My chief source on socialism and the New Deal is Daniel Bell’s measured yet sympathetic and even melancholy narrative “The Background and Development of Marxian Socialism in the United States,” in Egbert and Persons, Vol. I. Thomas’s direct answer to Smith in early 1936 was given in a radio talk later published by the Socialist party as a pamphlet, “Is the New Deal Socialism?” See also Norman Thomas,
After the New Deal, What?
(Macmillan, 1936), and Harry W. Laidler,
A Program for Modern America
(Crowell, 1936). Each step of the zigzagging Communist line was acclaimed in extensive writings by Earl Browder. The Williams College Library has an excellent collection of Socialist and Communist pamphlets. The attitude of the independent left can be found in
The Nation
and
The New Republic
during these years. For a humorous but acid picture of the President from a left-wing perspective, see Mauritz A. Hallgren,
The Gay Reformer
(Knopf, 1935). The comment of Roosevelt’s friend about the Communist pat on the back is from Goldman (B), p. 352, in turn taken from an interview of Goldman with Stephen T. Early. Many instances of Roosevelt’s “practicality” and of his business opponents’ doctrinaire arguments can be found in FDRL; the example cited here is from PPF, FDRL, correspondence with James P. Warburg, Fred Kent, De Coursey Fales, and Joseph Day. For a sardonic, biting picture of business shibboleths on parade, see Thurman Arnold,
The Folklore of Capitalism
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937).