New Deal Opposition

Criticism of FDR's Recovery Program in the 1930s

Opposition to Roosevelt's New Deal came from many corners including the Republican Party, Socialists, Communists, prominent leaders and the Supreme Court.

Feb 9, 2009 Michael Streich

Opposition to Roosevelt's New Deal came from many corners including the Republican Party, Socialists, Communists, prominent leaders and the Supreme Court.

The overall success of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal is still hotly debated. Many of the “alphabet agencies” that were intended to be temporary solutions are still functioning and with success. Others ended either during the First and Second New Deal or with the coming of World War II. Roosevelt was, among other things, a pragmatist who rejected the boom and bust cycle mentality of previous administrations. As Hugh Johnson, head of the NRA stated, “Roosevelt was “the man who started more creations than were ever begun since Genesis…” Yet the New Deal faced significant opposition.

Opposition to the New Deal

FDR’s New Deal represented immediate solutions to the despair and paranoia gripping the nation in 1933. Since the 1929 stock market crash, unemployment had risen from under 2% to almost 12% at the time Roosevelt was inaugurated. Unemployment would plummet back to under 2% as the U.S. entered World War II in 1942. The New Deal produced some recovery as unemployment fell to about 7% just before the recession of 1938, peaking at over 8% before again declining.

Many Americans, however, argued that the New Deal was a Pandora’s box of troubles that violated the Constitution and sought to impose socialism, although socialist leaders like Norman Thomas believed that FDR was not doing enough, complaining that the New Deal was “trying to cure tuberculosis with cough drops.”

Initial supporters like the “radio priest” Father Charles E. Coughlin turned on Roosevelt over deficit spending and the Federal Reserve. Louisiana’s “Kingfish” Huey Long challenged Roosevelt, promoting his “Share the Wealth” program that would have restricted how much the wealthy could earn and impose high taxes on those with the greatest incomes.

Communists assailed the New Deal as “social fascism” and called FDR a dictator. At the other end, business leaders, believing they had been made the scapegoat for the nation’s ills, wanted a return to the old economic order, believing that the market would correct itself without the meddling of direct government interference.

The Republican Party and the Supreme Court

The Republican Party had suffered near catastrophically as a result of the 1932 and 1936 elections. For the Republicans, New Deal programs and policies represented dangerous experimentation that would result in high government spending, increased taxes, and a significant growth in bureaucracy that would end in top heavy federal centralization. Republican leaders like former President Hoover and Idaho Senator William Borah firmly believed that New Deal experimentation would actually deepen the effects of the Depression and hold back recovery that they felt was already underway.

The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority through 1936, invalidated several of Roosevelt’s programs instituted during the First New Deal. In 1935, significantly, the court in a unanimous decision declared the National Recovery Act unconstitutional in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp., et al. v. United States. The court in a 5-4 decision also invalidated a railroad pension law in 1935 and in a 6-3, 1936 decision, struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

In the 1936 Tipaldo decision, the high court struck down a New York state minimum wage law. In the face of all opposition to the New Deal, the Supreme Court seemed to be Roosevelt’s bitterest foe, forcing him to consider reforming the court through “court packing.” Ultimately, however, by 1937, the court began to approve New Deal measures and as conservative members left the court, FDR was able to appoint members to what would become the “Roosevelt Court.”

Opposition to the New Deal, coming from many disparate individuals and groups, never dampened Roosevelt’s resolve. It is a testament to his leadership during one of the darkest periods in U.S. history that he was able to overcome the often rancorous and vocal opposition, ultimately leading the nation into full recovery.

Sources:

John Franklin Carter, The New Dealers (Simon and Schuster, 1934).

Albert Fried, FDR and his Enemies (Palgrave/St. Martin’s Press, 1999).

George Wolfskill, “New Deal Critics: Did They Miss the Point,” Essays on the New Deal (University of Texas Press, 1969).

Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (Harper, 1980) available on-line.

The copyright of the article New Deal Opposition in American History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish New Deal Opposition in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

 

Huey Long Captivated Audiences

Huey Long's Assassination and Political Alienation

Huey Long, the Louisiana Kingfish, ruthlessly eliminated political opposition and used patronage to solidify his political machine in Louisiana.

May 15, 2010 Michael Streich

Huey Long, the Louisiana Kingfish, ruthlessly eliminated political opposition and used patronage to solidify his political machine in Louisiana.

On September 8, 1935, a young man stepped from behind a column in the Baton Rouge capital building pointing a .38 caliber revolver at Louisiana Senator Huey Long. What happened next is a mystery. The assailant, Dr. Carl Weiss, was riddled with bullets from Long’s body guards. His body had been hit with 61 bullets. Long, who received one shot to his abdomen, died following a failed operation. Speculation still exists if Dr. Weiss actually discharged his gun, or if Long had been assassinated by a stay bullet that ricocheted off the marble columns. Long, the self-styled “Kingfish,” was dead and would pose no threat as a third party candidate against President Roosevelt in the election of 1936.

The Rise of Huey Long in Louisiana

Huey Long came from a poor family and grew up in a parish (or county) that had a reputation for challenging the status quo. By the time he became governor at age 34, he was, according to historical writer Jack Pearl, the “supreme dictator of Louisiana.” University of Texas historian Lewis L. Gould agrees, referring to Long as “virtual dictator.” Long’s political machine controlled the politics of the state through patronage and Long himself was ruthless in his actions toward enemies.

Carl Weiss, Long’s assassin, had good reason to hate the man. His father-in-law, a judge, had been ruined by Long, his reputation falsely impugned. Weiss’ wife had become depressed over the affair and their children were treated as outcasts. But given Huey Long’s reputation, Weiss was viewed sympathetically after his assassination of the demagogue. This was particularly true of the Louisiana wealthy class. As governor, Long “taxed the rich practically into extinction,” according to Pearl.

Huey Long, FDR, and the U.S. Senate

Senator Long was a firebrand on Capital Hill. Labor Secretary Frances Perkins recalls how Senator Long held up an appropriations bill to fund the newly created Social Security system with a 19-hour filibuster at the moment Congress was set to adjourn. His “Share the Wealth” redistribution proposal, though completely unworkable, was embraced by millions of poor and unemployed Americans, particularly at a time the New Deal seemed to be foundering.

Long cared nothing for Senate protocols. He took on Senate leaders, like Arkansas Senator Joseph Robinson, and helped elect Hattie Caraway to the U.S. Senate in 1932, directly challenging Robinson’s state political machine. This action demonstrated very clearly Long’s ability to defeat the political machines of Southern state politics as well as the leaders of those machines. FDR, always wary of Long, knew that he needed the support of those Southern political bosses to pass New Deal measures. Huey Long was a threat.

Long, who had cautiously supported FDR in 1932, had become an adversary by 1935. Long saw himself as a future president and curried the favor of those that had not benefited from the New Deal. Historian Albert Fried writes that Long became a “militant advocate” for “Labor, the unemployed, small farmers and businessmen, the poor…” Long proposed a redistribution of wealth This included the government confiscation of personal wealth over $2 million and the distribution of $5,000 payments to every family in America.

The Death of Huey Long

Ironically, Huey Long, according to Pearl, was obsessed “with the subject of assassination.” He was always surrounded by body guards, many of them common thugs. At the time Weiss confronted Long, one of those body guards actually used a machine gun.

Even if assassination had not ended the career of a corrupt and self-absorbed politician, the government might have. The same Treasury agent who had brought down Al Capone in 1931 was investigating the Long machine in Louisiana. Ultimately, numerous cronies would be brought to justice. It was the one reliable tool FDR’s justice department could level against the Kingfish. For Huey Long, it was only a matter of time.

References:

• Albert Fried, FDR And His Enemies (Palgrave for St. Martin’s Griffin, 1999)
• Lewis L. Gould, The Most Exclusive Club: A History of the Modern United States Senate (Basic Books, 2005)
• Robert Mann, Legacy of Power: Senator Russell Long of Louisiana (Paragon House, 1992) [Senator Russell Long was the son of Huey Long – see Chapter One]
• Jack Pearl, The Dangerous Assassins (Derby, CT: Monarch Books, Inc., 1964)
• Frances Perkins, The Roosevelt I Knew (NY: Viking Press, 1946)

The copyright of the article Huey Long's Assassination and Political Alienation in American History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Huey Long's Assassination and Political Alienation in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Ancient Libraries

Michael Streich

Ancient libraries are as old as the first early Near East civilizations. Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, boasted the largest ancient library. The rise of Greece and later Rome, however, witnessed the two most significant libraries, at Pergamum and Ephesus, both in Asia Minor, which competed with and attempted to rival the great library at Alexandria in Egypt. The great libraries of Rome may have gotten their start when Sulla first carried Aristotle’s library to the city on the Tiber. Later, Julius Caesar became the patron of public libraries. Yet none matched Pergamum and Ephesus.

 

The Ancient Library at Pergamum

 

The Pergamum library was considered the second finest, after Alexandria. At its height, the library contained 200,000 volumes. Much of this success was due to the rulers of Pergamum, who were patrons of the arts and furthered the scope of the library. Under Eumenes II (197-159 BC), the library grew spectacularly, so much so that the curators of the Alexandrian Library in Egypt became concerned and placed an embargo on exported papyrus.

 

The rulers of Pergamum turned to using animal skins, “Partian leather.” The term “parchment” is directly traced to “Pergamum,” from which it was derived. Although the term “paper” may be more accurately derived from the Egyptian papyrus, Pergamum guides tell visitors that the term “paper” can be traced to the ancient city’s name. In Germany, as an example, “pergament paper” is butcher paper, thick sheets of wrapping paper that take the name from parchment paper, hence Pergamum.

 

The Pergamum library is also credited with developing the first Codex system. At the end of the Roman Republic, Marc Antony, the Triumvir of the eastern regions of Roman control, gave the library to Cleopatra. The ruins of this great library can still be found in Pergamum (the Turkish city of Bergama) beside the remnants of the Temple of Trajan and Hadrian.

 

The Ancient Library at Ephesus

 

It is fitting that the great city of Ephesus, also in Anatolia, had the third most prominent library in the Ancient Roman world. It was only one of four imperial cities to feature street lighting at night. According to Anna Edmonds, “Ephesus rivaled Rome in its magnificence.” Of the great library, Tony Perrottet writes that it was, “an architecturally unrivaled evocation of ancient time…”

 

The library was built at the end of the first century AD by Gaius Julius Aquila to honor his father Celsus, Roman Governor of that region of Anatolia. The “Celsus Library” contained over 12,000 volumes as well as the burial vault of Celsus, a singular honor since the dead were buried outside of city walls in the many necropoleis found beyond ancient city ruins.

 

Ancient Libraries Lost in History

 

As the Roman Empire sunk into eventual decay, many of the old libraries were lost. Earthquakes, barbarian invasions, and early Christians seeking to purge the land of pagan writings contributed to this loss of ancient literature and history. In Egypt, old papyri was used to teach young scribes and later discarded on garbage heaps, some of which have recently been discovered by archaeologists. Some surviving imperial correspondence alludes to documents destroyed by barbarian invasions, such as the account of Pontius Pilate’s tenure as governor of Palestine.

 

Ancient libraries attest to the literary enlightenment of emperors, kings, teachers, and the everyday citizens of the Greek and Roman world. Their presence reflects a highly developed literary tradition that transcends mere record keeping.

 

Sources:

 

Mary T. Boatwright, Daniel J. Gargola, Richard J. A. Talbert, The Romans From Village to Empire: A History of Ancient Rome from Earliest Times to Constantine (Oxford University Press, 2004).

Anna G. Edmonds, Turkey’s Religious Sites (Damko Publications, 1998) p 144.

Tony Perrottet, Royt 66 A.D. On The Trail of Ancient Roman Tourists (Random House, 2002) p 216.

“Pergamum,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, General Editor, Vol. IV (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1939). 

First published in Suite101 February 22, 2009. Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Republication only by written permission from author.
 

Fortress of Peter and Paul, photo taken from the Winter Palace accross the Neva River 

Peter The Great: Father of the Russian Navy

Michael Streich

2009

 

In 1688, a teenage boy discovered an old wooden, one-masted ship at a royal estate in Izmailovo, near Moscow. The boy was the future Tsar, Peter the Great, and the boat would become the symbol of his passion. According to Feofan Prokopovich, as quoted by James Cracraft, “the botik…became the cause of his building a navy…” [1] By the time Peter died in 1725, the Russian navy, built on the British model, was viewed as a formidable entity in the newly aligned European spheres of powe

 

The Great Northern War and the Building of a Navy

 

James Cracraft concludes his brief summary of Peter’s military reforms by suggesting that, “…It was the navy, one way or another, that brought Peter, and then Russia, into Europe and the modern world.” [2] During the tsar’s “Great Embassy” to Europe in 1697-1698, Peter, traveling incognito, learned first hand how to build ships in the naval yards of Amsterdam and London. He also enlisted the service of hundreds of experts, professionals who would go to Russia, help him westernize, and train his own people.

 

Writing about Peter at the Dutch shipbuilding town of Zaandam, Suzanne Massie says that, “left in peace for three months, he learned how to build a frigate and received a shipbuilding certificate from the head of the dockyards.” [3] Returning to Russia, Tsar Peter ordered the building of ships to be used against Turkey at Voronezh. Later destroyed, the ill-timed Turkish War of 1710 put a stop to any southern fleet and Peter concentrated on the Swedes and the Baltic region.

 

The Baltic fleet was begun immediately after the Kronstadt naval base was completed in 1704, a year after the founding of St. Petersburg. Between 1708 and Peter’s death in 1725, Russia had built 54 ships of the line and had gained mastery of the Baltic. This was due, in part, to the Russian victory against the Swedish King Charles XII at Poltava in 1709.

 

Although the Great Northern War consumed most of Peter’s reign, the legacy was a strong Russia, usurping northern hegemony once held by Sweden ever since the end of the Thirty Years’ War. Much of this was due to Peter’s new navy which also opened greater doors for commercial relationships with Europe, notably England.

 

A Changing Europe in the late 1600s

 

Peter correctly deduced that success in every aspect of governance was tied to the building and maintaining of a navy. Creation of the Naval Academy was one aspect of preparing Russians in a competing mercantile world. The defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 may have marked the first phase of English maritime ascendancy, but one hundred years later the English navy was the most potent in Europe, a lesson Peter learned well. The naval wars with the Dutch under Charles II eliminated, partially, Dutch trade competition but also highlighted how far England had come as a maritime power.

 

Most certainly Peter the Great was aware of these complexities. The Russian navy was as necessary to the reform of Russia as any other attempt to westernize the land but served a far more crucial long term goals. Cracraft quotes a placard placed before Peter’s botik in the Peter and Paul Fortress, where it was briefly exhibited: “From the amusement of the child came the triumph of the man.” [4] Nicholas Riasanovsky concludes that Peter, “…bequeathed to those who followed him the first Russian shipbuilding industry…” [5]

 Sources:

[1] James Cracraft, The Revolution of Peter the Great (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003) p.50.

[2] IBID. p.53.

[3] Suzanne Massie, Land of the Firebirth: the Beauty of Old Russia (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1980) p. 92.

[4] Cracraft, p.51. [note: the botik today is in the Central Naval Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia]

[5] Nicholas A. Riasanovsky, A History of Russia 2^ND Ed., (London: Oxford University Press, 1969) p.254.

 

See also:

 

W. Bruce Lincoln, The Romanovs: Autocrats of All the Russias (New York: the Dial Press, 1981)

First published in Suite101. Copyright owned by Michael Streich; republishing only with author's written permission.

 Ivan "The Terrible" and Peter the Great": Contrasts and Comparisons

Michael Streich

June 2009 

The similarities between Ivan IV (the “terrible”) and Peter the Great are many. Both suffered from traumatic childhood upbringings and both ascended the Russian throne as children. Each tsar demonstrated like temperaments and both became known for external wars that increased the size and stature of Russia. Both Ivan and Peter reformed the military and attempted to secularize the Orthodox Church under state control. Each one died after killing their male heirs, initiating a “Time of Troubles” and palace revolutions.

 

Foreign Wars and Western Trade

 

Ivan’s first major war was the defeat of Kazan, asserting Russian hegemony to the Volga River and beyond. Similarly, Peter’s first conflict was geared against the Turks as he looked southward. Not as successful, however, Peter would ultimately defeat Sweden, ensuring Russian access to the Baltic Sea.

 

Ivan IV was less successful in the north, however. The Livonian War (1558-1582) produced no significant gains for Russia. Ivan’s goals included Baltic ports to facilitate trade, notably with England. Although Ivan never looked to the West in the same manner Peter did, his actions represented a first step in relationships with the emerging European nation-states.

 

Under Peter the Great, the Great Northern War provided those ports and enabled him to build St. Petersburg, his “window to the west.” The 1709 battle at Poltava, considered decisive, marked the decline of Sweden’s Charles XII. Just as Ivan IV had attempted to do unsuccessfully, Peter recruited specialists from Europe to modernize Russia.

 

Internal Reforms

 

Under Ivan IV, a reformed military resulted in an organized, standardized service, the backbone of which was Cossack cavalry and the Streltsy, a type of Musketeer force. Ironically, Peter destroyed the Streltsy during his reign after the group spearheaded a revolt against him. No doubt Peter also recalled that these same soldiers had attempted to kill him as a child when they operated under his half-sister Sophia, an ambitious and dangerous woman.

 

Peter’s military reforms resulted in a first-class European-style army, trained by European experts and using the latest weaponry available. Additionally, Peter, considered the “father of the Russian navy,” inaugurated a fleet that would enable control of the Baltic and the protection of Russian trade.

 

Both tsars reformed the Orthodox Church, seeking to bring parts of it under secular control. In all matters of reform, both Ivan and Peter worked to develop greater centralized control of the monarchy over the various elements within the country. Neither tsar trusted the nobility, having been exposed to palace intrigues. Both men frequently responded violently. Ivan IV killed his heir, Ivan Ivanovich, in a fit of rage; Peter was responsible for the death of his son Alexis, for complicity in the revolt against him.

 

The Time of Troubles

 

Upon the death of Ivan, the monarchy was plagued with years of misrule, pretenders to the throne, wars in which neighboring powers championed favorites for their own benefit, and general instability. It has rightly been called a “Time of Troubles,” ended only after the Romanov dynasty, under Tsar Michael, was proclaimed.

 

A similar period occurred in Russia after the death of Peter. Between 1725 and 1741, four rulers of dubious quality reigned. In 1741, Elizabeth I came to power, also through a palace revolution, but ruled better than her predecessors. Not until 1762 did good leadership return under Catherine II (the “Great”).

 

Assessment of Ivan and Peter

 

Despite the cruelties (historians point out that Ivan IV was no more “terrible” than contemporary European kings and princes), both tsars left Russia larger and stronger when they died. Both men achieved reform goals designed to enhance the Russian state and Russian culture. It is certainly true that the reforms of Peter the Great were more far reaching, yet this does not diminish the vision both men had.

 

Sources:

 

James Cracraft, The Revolution of Peter the Great (Harvard University Press, 2003)

Ronald Hingley, The Tsars 1533-1917 (New York: the Macmillan Company, 1968)

David MacKenzie and Michael W. Curran, A History of Russia, the Soviet Union, and Beyond 4^th Ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993)

First published in Suite101. Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Any republication subject to written permission by author.