The Power of Party. Farley was careful to send the watchful Howe copies of his form letters to party officials, so these are found in the Howe Papers. Also in these papers (Campaign Material 1930, Box 37) is the analysis of the weaknesses of the Democratic party upstate; unfortunately, the report is undated and unsigned, but internal evidence suggests Farley’s authorship, probably in late 1929 or early 1930. FDRL has a volume of typewritten transcripts of virtually all Roosevelt’s 1930 campaign talks. Lindley1 (B) has an extensive account of the campaign, with particular stress on events leading to the raising of the corruption issue. Gosnell2 (B), chap 11, presents a balanced picture, although his analysis of the election results is slight compared to Lindley’s. The New York Times is, as usual, indispensable for the day-to-day development of the campaign. The papers of Louis McHenry Howe, 1913-1936, FDRL, are useful throughout the gubernatorial as well as earlier years.
CHAPTER SEVEN
For general developments during the 1929-1932 phase of the Depression, I have relied mainly on Broadus Mitchell, Depression Decade (Rinehart, 1947), a volume in the excellent series, “The Economic History of the United States”; William Starr Myers and Walter H. Newton, The Hoover Administration (Scribner, 1936), useful for documentary information; and Frederick L. Allen, Since Yesterday (Harper, 1940). Bellush [chap. 6] has a critical chapter on Roosevelt’s state economic program. The observation that prosperity was the GOP’s major issue of 1928 is based on Peel and Donnelly [chap. 5]. The source for the account of the Farley announcement is Farley’s own memoirs of Rooseveltian politics through 1936 (Farley1, B), and for the remark to Flynn, the Bronx leader’s account, Edward J. Flynn (B). Roosevelt’s exchange on economic situation is in Bellush, chap. 8, p. 3; letter to Howe in PLFDR, Vol. I, p. 92; letter to Baruch, ibid., p. 244; letter from White in FDRL, Pr. Corr., 1928-32, Box 104.
The Political Uses of Corruption. On the 1931-32 nomination fight FDRL has 1,500 boxes of correspondence between Roosevelt, Howe, and Farley and Roosevelt leaders, delegates, and politicians throughout the country (“Democratic National Comm., Correspondence, 1932”), organized by states and alphabetically within states; I have gone through the material on key states. Many of the files originate in Roosevelt’s 1928 correspondence on the state of the party. The Howe papers (Boxes 42-46) include important material indicating Howe’s views and estimates at various times in the campaign. Farley describes his trip west in Behind the Ballots (B); the actual reports are in the Howe Papers, Box 42, FDRL, and make fascinating reading. Gosnell1 (B) makes the point about the effect of the Depression on Tammany. Howells’ report on his interview with Smith is in PLFDR, pp. 229-232; for an account of a somewhat similar interview see George S. Van Schaick interview, OHP.
Battle at the Grass Roots. Data on preconvention campaign costs are found in Democratic National Committee Campaign Correspondence, FDRL, noted above, mainly in Howe’s correspondence with Morgenthau, Bingham, and other contributors; see also Howe papers, Box 43, Farley1 (B), and Edward J. Flynn (B). The Democratic National Committee correspondence includes also several boxes on Massachusetts; Howe’s letters to Elizabeth Marbury, from which I have quoted his retrospective comment, are especially useful. I have interviewed La Rue Brown, Boston, on the Massachusetts situation, and borrowed the term “Curley-Burley” from a New York Times editorial so entitled. The Villard letter is in PLFDR, p. 282; Roosevelt’s letter to Murphy in Democratic National Committee correspondence, Box 409.
The Magic Two-thirds. Full and fascinating memoirs are available on the convention fight in Chicago: Farley1, and Edward J. Flynn; Hull (B); Creel (B); Bascom N. Timmons, Garner of Texas (Harper, 1948); Connally and Steinberg (B); Roy V. Peel and Thomas C. Donnelly, The 1932 Campaign (Farrar & Rinehart, 1935), a full analysis by two scholars who attended the conventions. See also Arthur Krock interview, OHP. On the two-thirds adventure Farley covered up for Roosevelt not only at the time but in his book; I base my judgment that Roosevelt was directly involved on Edward J. Flynn, p. 90, and on PSF, Box 6, which includes two statements evidently prepared by Roosevelt: one in favor of the immediate abrogation of the two-thirds rule, and one favoring eventual abrogation. On this point see also the Democratic National Convention file, and papers recently acquired by FDRL (Group 12) which include a printed statement for issuance by Farley calling for immediate adoption of a straight majority rule; and, in PSF, Box 6, a memo dictated by Cummings June 17, 1932, on balance favoring immediate abrogation of the two-thirds tradition. Otherwise FDRL contains little on the actual convention period. The interview with Garner is from the New York Times. For Roosevelt’s actions during the convention see Tully (B) and Rosenman (B), both of whom were with the Governor in Albany. Roosevelt described the basic tactical situation briefly in retrospect in PL, Vol. 1. p. 1090.
CHAPTER EIGHT
The struggle over Roosevelt’s acceptance speech draft is vividly described in Moley (B) and Rosenman.
The Fox and the Elephant. Directly relating to the 1932 election campaign FDRL has 836 boxes of material, mainly letters received by Roosevelt during the campaign and replies, a few of the latter dictated by himself but most by assistants. I have not tried to winnow through all this immense mass of material. Howe Papers, Box 46, contains Howe’s draft of his somewhat revealing story of the campaign for a newspaper syndicate and documents on the campaign organization, and Box 44 a “Synopsis of Conference of National Committeemen and National Democratic Committee,” 1st session, from which Farley’s remarks on club functions are taken. See also Wehle [chap. 5] on dealings with labor during the campaign. Coughlin’s letter to Roosevelt re Walker is in PLFDR, p. 293. The most notable campaign speeches are in PPA, except for the Poughkeepsie speech, which is included in Moley, Appendix A, and all are in FDRL (“Master File”). The method I followed of reading the speeches themselves before reading any of the contemporary or later comments on them was revealing; I found the Commonwealth Club speech to be not nearly so strong or “progressive” a talk as some commentators later said. Moley’s account of the preparation of speeches—notably the Topeka talk and the tariff references—is indispensable. Herbert Hoover’s third volume of his memoirs, significantly titled The Great Depression, 1929-1941(B) presents many excerpts from his speeches, topically arranged. Roosevelt’s letter to Olson is in PLFDR, p. 297. Election results are detailed and discussed in Gosnell2 and in Peel and Donnelly. Roosevelt’s draft of the reply to Hoover is penciled on the back of Hoover’s wire; he changed the wording somewhat but not the content in dictating the final form of the wire to Moley.
The Stage is Set. Source of Sherwood comment on Roosevelt’s entrance on the stage is Roosevelt and Hopkins (B), p. 40; according to Michelson (B), p. 50, Roosevelt expected the banking crisis to reach a climax just about Inauguration Day. Correspondence between Hoover and Roosevelt on foreign debts is in PPF 820, FDRL. Howe Papers, FDRL, include correspondence between Roosevelt and Howe on the same matter during the 1920’s. Hoover gives his version of his negotiations with Roosevelt in his memoirs (B); see also Myers and Newton [chap. 7]. Moley (B) contains a detailed, though highly subjective, account of these proceedings by one who participated in many of them. A full account of the Lame Duck Congress may be found in E. P. Herring, “Second Session of the Seventy-Second Congress,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. XXVII, No. 3, June 1933, pp. 404-422. See Myers and Newton, p. 341, for Hoover’s view that if Roosevelt made the statements that Hoover wished him to, Roosevelt would be ratifying the Republican platform. Accounts or remarks on Roosevelt’s cabinet making are in Moley, Farley1’2, Hull, Perkins, Edward J. Flynn, Tully, (all B), and Wehle [chap. 5]. The records of the Democratic National Committee, FDRL, contain several hundred letters written by backers of Cabinet aspirants, and even by aspirants themselves, but Roosevelt apparently did not pay much attention to most of these.
Roosevelt on the Eve. The text of Roosevelt’s remarks on the presidency is in the New York Times, November 13, 1932, Sect. 8, p. 1. Broun’
s comment on Roosevelt is quoted by Rexford G. Tugwell, “The Preparation of a President,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. I, 1948; Lippmann’s comment is typical of his evaluation of Roosevelt in a number of his columns in 1932; and Wilson’s is from “Hudson River Progressive,” The New Republic, Vol. 74, No. 957, April 5, 1933, pp. 219-220. Moley is important for this period, especially for a contemporary evaluation of Roosevelt as a person, pp. 10-12. On Roosevelt’s hard center see also Tugwell, “Preparation of a President,” cited above. Many of Roosevelt’s friends remembered him from the war years as able but lacking in greatness; see, for example, William Phillips interview, OHP. Medical data on Roosevelt at this time are from Lindley1 (B), pp. 35-38. Langdon P. Marvin, Jr., interview, OHP, recounts Roosevelt’s swimming feats. The instructions to Roosevelt’s staff about not mentioning his illness in correspondence is in (unsigned) letter to Mrs. Forbush, Halsted file, Group 12, FDRL. The Democratic Union folder, Group 12, FDRL, includes a wrathful letter that Roosevelt wrote to Roy Howard about attacks on Roosevelt in Howard’s newspapers; this letter, however, appears never to have been sent. A description of Roosevelt’s technique of handling his mail is in PPF 271, FDRL. See Moley, Lindley1, and Tugwell on Roosevelt’s advisers in 1932. Hawthorne’s description of Jackson’s use of men is quoted by Clinton L. Rossiter in a suggestive little article, “The Political Philosophy of F. D. Roosevelt,” The Review of Politics, Vol. II, No. 1, p. 92. On the many strands of thought influencing the early New Dealers, see Goldman (B); Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition (Knopf, 1948); Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform (Knopf, 1955); Henry Steele Commager, The American Mind (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950); Max Lerner, Ideas Are Weapons (Viking, 1939). On Roosevelt’s own ideas at the time see, aside from PPA, Vol. I, and PLFDR, Donald Scott Carmichael (ed.), F. D. R. Columnist (Chicago: Pellegrini & Cudahy, 1947), a collection of Roosevelt’s columns written for the Macon (Georgia) Daily Telegraph in 1925 and for the Beacon (New York) Standard in 1928. On the failure of the right or the left to produce systematic philosophies to challenge the liberals and progressives see Louis Hartz’s notable study, The Liberal Tradition in America (Harcourt, Brace, 1955); and for a related theme, Daniel J. Boorstin, The Genius of American Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953). Arthur S. Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era (Harper, 1954) treats some of Wilson’s withdrawals from pre-1913 progressive ideas. Justice Holmes’s recollection of the earlier Franklin Roosevelt is from his letter to Harold J. Laski, November 23, 1932, in Mark DeWolfe Howe (ed.), Holmes-Laski Letters (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953), Vol. II, p. 1420. My source on Holmes’s comment on Roosevelt (page 157) after their meeting in 1933 is confidential.
CHAPTER NINE
Successive drafts of Roosevelt’s 1933 Inaugural speech are in FDRL and include a historical note by Roosevelt; Rosenman (B), pp. 81-99, describes briefly the manner in which Roosevelt composed it. There is more than one version of the source of the “We have nothing to fear but fear” quotation; I have used Rosenman’s (B). He also explains (p. 91) the discrepancy between Roosevelt’s speech as delivered and the text in PPA. Description of Roosevelt’s move to Washington and his first days there before Inauguration, and description of Inauguration Day, are from the New York Times and the Washington, D. C, newspapers.
“A Day of Consecration.” The Hoover remark is noted in slightly different language in both Tully (B) and Edward J. Flynn (B); both authors heard an angry Roosevelt report the incident shortly after he returned from the White House. Eleanor Roosevelt’s comment on the Inaugural crowd on page 165 is from the New York Times, March 5, 1933.
“Action and Action Now.” Roosevelt’s two diary excerpts are in PLFDR, pp. 333-335. He made his remarks to the press about their bank holiday stories in PC No. 2, March 10, 1933. Woodin’s remark about “swift and staccato action” is quoted in Moley, p. 151. I have made wide use of Herring in describing the congressional handling of Roosevelt’s “Hundred Day” bills. Time magazine is useful for some of the atmosphere of the period. Roosevelt’s comment on the lack of constructiveness in his early measures is from PC No. 3, March 15, 1933. His comment on his farm bill is part of his editorial note in PPAFDR, p. 79 (he proposed his general farm bill on March 16, 1933, and his farm mortgage relief bill in specific detail on April 3; see also PPAFDR, p. 100).
“A Leadership of Frankness and Vigor.” The Minutes of the Executive Council, July 11, 1933–November 13, 1934, The National Archives, provide a vivid, month-to-month picture of the early political and administrative problems of the New Deal. Roosevelt’s sheer opportunism and willingness to experiment are reflected in his actions, and in his press conferences, letters, and speeches; see PC No. 6, March 24, 1933, for his exchange with reporters on the subject of deflation. That Roosevelt was eager to reconcile spending with economy until a late date is indicated in his PPAFDR notes, especially pp. 51-52; see also PC No. 13, April 19, 1933, and PC No. 15, April 26, 1933; Roosevelt to Col. Edward M. House, May 12, 1933, PPF 222, FDRL. Roosevelt made a great point of his faithfulness to campaign and party pledges in PPAFDR, Notes following his messages. His views on teachers’ salaries are in his letter to Daniels, March 27, 1933, PLFDR, pp. 339-340. A valuable source of information on cabinet meetings, especially Ickes’ own participation (including his cat naps), is Ickes1 (B). The Herring quotation is from his article cited above. The Roosevelt press conference quotations are from PC No. 2, March 10, 1933, and PC No. 15, April 26, 1933, respectively. The quotation from the adulatory congressman is in OF 372, FDRL, letter dated April 8, 1933.
America First. That the possibility of war with Japan came up at the second cabinet meeting is indicated in some detail in Farley2 (B), p. 39; Ickes1, p. 5, mentions only that relations with Japan were discussed. For the views of Roosevelt’s associates on the priority of domestic over international recovery, see Hull, Ickes, Sherwood, and Moley. Baruch’s letter is in PPF 88, FDRL, July 5, 1933, and Roosevelt’s comment on financiers was made in PC No. 27, June 7, 1933. See also Harold G. Moulton to Frederic A. Delano, PPF 72, FDRL, June 21, 1933, a letter Delano sent on to Roosevelt. For full but diverse accounts of the London economic conference, see Moley, Hull, and Michelson, and the Baker papers, LC; a balanced treatment appears in Allan Nevins, The New Deal and World Affairs (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950). Charles A. Beard (B) presents a striking, if overdrawn, picture of Roosevelt’s isolationism in 1932-33, and makes some important bibliographical observations. Roosevelt’s remark on war debts is from PC No. 19, May 10, 1933. The exchange between the President and Norris is taken verbatim from an interview with Norris by Eric Goldman in his vivid and far-ranging history of recent American reformist thought and action, Rendezvous with Destiny (B), p. 339. My major source on the shaping of the NRA legislation is J. M. Burns, “Congress and the Formation of Economic Policies” (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1947), which includes a study of the NRA measure based on material at FDRL and elsewhere and on interviews with some of the main participants. On Roosevelt’s timing see Frederic A. Delano to Howe, PPF 72, FDRL, April 7, 1933. The White letter to Ickes is in William Allen White file, PPF 1196, FDRL; Ickes showed this letter to Roosevelt.
CHAPTER TEN
The extent to which Roosevelt took the role of bipartisan leader during 1933 and 1934 has not been fully appreciated by scholars; what has been treated in some studies as an early “conservative period” of Roosevelt that in part simply expanded on Hoover’s policies can be better understood, I think, as a “middle way” incorporating main lines of action of previous administrations both Democratic and Republican, reflecting ideology and interests all across the long spectrum of Roosevelt’s bipartisan support, and exploiting, of course, the atmosphere of crisis and fear. The words quoted from Roosevelt’s Wisconsin speech of August 1934 came originally from a description of the New Deal by Representative (later Senator) Edward R. Burke of Nebraska; when Roosevelt saw this statement, he said, according to Moley
(B), p. 290: “That’s the best definition I have yet seen of the New Deal.” Burke, significantly enough, later turned against the President. Friendly letters to Roosevelt from Howard, O’Neal, Du Pont, et al., can be found in PPF, FDRL; see, for example, William Randolph Hearst file, PPF 62, FDRL; for Roosevelt’s attitudes toward businessmen and others, see Roosevelt to Adolph J. Sabath, Nov. 7, 1933, PPF 955, FDRL; Roosevelt to Col. House, May 7, 1934, PLFDR, pp. 400-401; Minutes of the Executive Council, passim.
An Artist in Government. For an admirable history of presidential relations with Congress see Wilfred E. Binkley, President and Congress (Knopf, 1947). Roosevelt’s comments on “must legislation” were voiced in PC No. 120, May 11, 1934. Garner’s comment on the turmoil in the House of Representatives is reported in Ickes1 (B), p. 162. I have used as my main source of systematic data on Roosevelt’s vetoes Marvin L. Ingram, “Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Exercise of the Veto Power” (Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1947). Lists in Roosevelt’s writing of his friends and those “not with me” can be found in the “longhand file,” FDRL. The comment on the delay in giving patronage to congressmen is from Herring [chap. 8]; I suspect that Herring made up this remark. Rexford G. Tugwell tells of Roosevelt’s patronage deal with Senator Smith in Tugwell, “The Compromising Roosevelt,” The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. VI, No. 2, June 1953, pp. 320-341, one of several reminiscent and discerning articles by Tugwell about his former boss; the incident is substantiated in Ickes1, p. 164, and the Robinson incident is from the same source, pp. 19-20. The material on Herring is from his article in The American Political Science Review [chap. 8]; the series of which this article is one comprises a trenchant and perceptive study of congressional sessions during the New Deal years, by such authorities as Lindsay Rogers, Herring, O. R. Altman, and others. Roosevelt’s shaming of an official over the telephone is from Richberg1 (B), p. 292; on Roosevelt’s tactics in dealing with the press, see Minutes of the Executive Council, December 11, 1934, and for a reaction of the press to Roosevelt’s dealings with reporters, see Raymond Clapper to McIntyre, March 18, 1933, OF 4434, FDRL. Roosevelt asked the Emergency Council as well as his Cabinet to establish friendly relations with Congress.
The Definitive FDR Page 69