Mr. Jensen's U.S. History Website
  • U.S. History Blog
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2026 - May 2027)
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2025 - May 2026)
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2024 - May 2025)
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2023 - May 2024)
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2022 - May 2023)
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2021 - May 2022)
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2020 - May 2021)
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2019 - May 2020)
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2018 - May 2019)
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2017 - May 2018)
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2016 - May 2017)
    • U.S. History Blog (May 2015 - May 2016)
    • U.S. History Blog (May, 2014 - May, 2015)
  • About

FDR's 2nd Term: Nearly a TERMinal Disaster . . .

10/19/2014

0 Comments

 
                 Source: Jean Edward Smith. FDR (2008)
Picture
     In order to to provide context why the first two-plus years of FDR's second term as President was disastrous, so much so that by the Spring of 1939 he had no chance of being re-nominated for President by his own party, a quick run-down of his first term & the Election of 1936 is helpful. During his first term, FDR could seemingly do no political wrong in the eyes of most of Congress and the American people. 15 major pieces of New Deal legislation were introduced, and 15 New Deal bills became law in the first three months. By the Election of 1936, the major economic indicators were heading to normal levels, and the Republican Party, as with the Democrats in 1928, had no chance at winning the Presidency.
     FDR knew he would win re-election, expecting an Electoral College tally of 360 - 71 over the Republican nominee Alfred Landon. FDR was stunned at the results on Election Day, 
3 November, 1936: Popular vote, FDR 60.79%, with FDR winning 46 of 48 states - Electoral Vote: FDR 523, Landon 8; overall, it was a margin of victory not seen since James Monroe in 1820. The Democrats gained 11 seats in the House for a majority of 331 - 89, and the Senate stood at 76 - 16 for the Democrats, with 4 Independents (including Nebraska's George Norris) in FDR's corner. It wasn't long after Inauguration Day (on 20 January, for the first time), that FDR made three mistakes that nearly led to political and historical disaster for the 32nd President.

Picture
     MISTAKE #1 - "Court-Packing" Scheme: Flush from the largest margin of victory since 1820, FDR focused on the Supreme Court. In short, the Supreme Court was the "Skunk in FDR's Garden Party" during his first term. The Supreme Court ruled that the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the National Industrial Recovery Act were unconstitutional (executive branch over-reach), and FDR wanted to settle political accounts in his second term. FDR should have known better as a lawyer, politician, and President . . . hubris (excessive pride) dominated FDR's thinking and behavior. 
     The Supreme Court was not reactionary, but FDR was not used to resistance; FDR should have focused on the interpretation of the decisions, not the justices themselves. Another problem: FDR plotted his strategy against the Supreme Court in secret, which was a tactical error. FDR had consulted many politicians / advisors on most every matter so far, but not with this strategy . . . that meant that he would not have any political support once resistance crystallized. FDR's biggest mistake in his "Court-Packing" strategy (for every justice over the age of 70, an additional Supreme Court judge position would be created, for a total of 3 new justices) was that he didn't run his idea past Felix Frankfurter, his best legal advisor. Had he done so, Frankfurter (a future Supreme Court justice) would have advised FDR that his plan was unconstitutional and indefensible.  The few that FDR directed to research the validity of his strategy were not stellar constitutional researchers by any stretch of the imagination.

Picture
     FDR timed his announcement of his "Court-Packing" strategy for maximum impact and media coverage in the late-morning on 5 February, 1937. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes 
(Republican candidate for President in 1916) took an active role in the public controversy; not since John Marshall in 1819 (in McCulloch v. Maryland) had a Chief Justice done so. Hughes absolutely demolished FDR's claims and views concerning the Supreme Court in the public arena (e.g. showing that the Supreme Court wasn't "overwhelmed" with cases). Hughes proved to be the savior of checks and balances of the three branches and Constitutional law. Soon, though, the Supreme Court started to rule favorably on New Deal legislation, and an associate justice even retired, which meant that FDR could nominate a "New Deal" justice. 
     It was at this point that FDR was advised to claim victory, and call off the fight, but FDR refused to do so; he continued the Special Session of Congress, and even demanded a discharge petition to get his Court-Packing bill out of committee. Senate Majority Leader Joe Robinson (Arkansas) actually died under the stress placed on him by FDR. FDR refused to go to his funeral, believing that Robinson had let him down; that was a final and tragic error that capped off the whole affair. Robinson was popular in the Senate, and few senators forgave FDR, and his popularity in Congress plummeted. 
     FDR paid dearly for his Court-Packing scheme, losing much public support, but the fracas ruptured the Democratic Party. From that point in early-1937, the New Deal was just a movement in the Democratic Party, no longer synonymous with economic recovery. In just one year after the Election of 1936, FDR had lost control of his party as President; FDR's legislative agenda was either ignored or blocked despite huge Democratic majorities in Congress.

Picture
     MISTAKE #2 - Balancing the Budget: The "Roosevelt Recession" that started in 1937 was mostly due to FDR's decision to balance the federal budget (in addition to nasty labor strife); in other words, FDR decided to reduce federal spending at the worst possible time. With such economic indicators as unemployment down to 12% (from 25%), FDR assumed that the Great Depression was over, and he dramatically slashed federal spending. FDR's "Inner Thrifty Dutchman" wanted to balance the budget as soon as possible, and he believed that mid-1937 was the perfect time.
    To make up for the shortfall, Congress borrowed from Social Security, and The Federal Reserve Board of Governors reduced the money supply. On 19 October, 1937, the Stock Market crash was the worst since October, 1929, and the Dow Jones Average was down 40%. By the end of 1937, steel production was at only 19% of total capacity. Two-thirds of all that was gained in economic terms since 1933 was lost by early-1938. Ironically, FDR was acting much like President Herbert Hoover did in 1930, repeating the mantra in public "Everything will be okay . . ." Then, in the Summer of 1938, the Agricultural sector started to decline, making the "Roosevelt Recession" even more severe. It was at this point that FDR's most trusted advisor, Harry Hopkins, came to the rescue; he was able to convince FDR to start massive federal spending again. The "Roosevelt Recession" was due to FDR's decision to not only balance the federal budget, but also by his delayed decision to resume federal spending per Hopkins advice. 
When FDR tried to "pack" the Supreme Court, he shot himself in the foot . . . but when he tried to balance the federal budget, he shot the entire nation in the foot.


Picture
     MISTAKE #3: "The Purge" - FDR tried to purge (remove) "traitorous" anti-New Deal Conservative Democrats in state primaries before the Congressional Elections of 1938. FDR personally organized the opposition in terms of candidates and funding; not since Andrew Johnson in 1868 had a President involved himself in opposition to specific members of Congress (at least Johnson, a Southern Democrat, had targeted Northern Radical Republicans). 
     While FDR was successful in a district in Florida (his candidate, Claude Pepper, won the primary and general election; Pepper served the longest in the history of the House); but the four Conservative Democrats that FDR wanted most to purge from the party won their primaries and re-election. FDR's standing in Congress fell even further, and divisions in the Democratic Party worsened. FDR put his political capital and prestige on the line in the Off-Year Elections of 1938, and he failed miserably; as a result, "New Deal" candidates didn't fare as well as they would have under normal political circumstances.
     Republicans picked up 81 seats in the House, and 9 in the Senate; FDR was stunned. There were still Democratic majorities in both houses, but they were not working majorities in any form or fashion for FDR. By early-1939, FDR was a Lame-Duck President, and liberals in the Democratic Party were looking elsewhere for their nominee at the Democratic National Convention; it was clear for all to see that FDR wouldn't win re-nomination in his own party in Chicago in 1940.

     "PERSON TO THE RESCUE FOR FDR" - What, or more accurately, WHO saved FDR from political ruin was Adolph Hitler. In 1938, Hitler annexed Austria, and then The Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia), leading to the Appeasement at Munich by Great Britain, in particular. In 1939, Hitler signed a Non-Aggression Pact with Joseph Stalin, and then just days later, invaded the western part of Poland on 1 September, 1939. By early-1940, FDR's political return was complete: in 1933, he was seen as an "Economic Savior", but by early-1940, FDR was seen as the indispensable Commander-in-Chief as the US drifted towards greater involvement in the War in Europe. In the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, 1940, FDR was nominated for a third term basically by acclamation (that didn't mean that the convention wasn't tense and fractious); the Democratic Party had no one else that could win the Presidential Election of 1940.
              USA Today Book Review of Jean Edward Smith's FDR
0 Comments

The Burr-Hamilton Duel: A Deeper Understanding

10/10/2014

0 Comments

 
     An example of the uncertainty surrounding politics in the 1790’s before “structured” political parties: James Monroe wrote to James Madison, telling him that President John Adams had insulted his honor.  Monroe asked Madison for his advice on a proper response:  should he challenge the "Old Man" to a duel?
The Options:
    * Anonymous newspaper essays (with pseudonyms, e.g. “Publius”, “Caius”, etc.)

       - A favorite political weapon for Hamilton and Madison . . . 
    * Writing a pamphlet (a very lengthy essay designed to defend your point of view

        and/or honor, or to attack someone else’s point of view and / or honor, or both)
       - Another VERY favorite political weapon of Hamilton . . . 
    * “Whispering Campaigns” (employing newspaper publishers, and other influential 

        people to “negatively campaign” on your behalf, while you “stay above the fray”)
       - A political weapon that Jefferson particularly favored . . .
    * “Political Gossip”  (Gathering and recording information on political enemies)

       - Jefferson's very favorite political weapon; his tailored his dinner parties in
          such a way to extract the maximum amount of gossip possible against his
          opponents
    * The Duel (“Affairs of Honor”; the ultimate weapon to defend your honor; most 

       arranged duels did not take place, they were settled beforehand in private)


THE DUEL (“AFFAIRS OF HONOR”)
     Since political parties were in their infancy (starting in 1791), the lack of organization and rules led to many "Affairs of Honor" among the political elite. 
Shifting coalitions, friendships, connections, unknown loyalties existed: it was very much like a “War Without Uniforms”. Character and reputation counted for much more than merit and skill in winning public office and having political influence over others.
     There were “Rules of Behavior” that were clearly defined: for example, there were
“Words to Avoid”.  These words were escalation words that crossed the line of
honor; examples included "Dangerous", "Despicable", “Liar”, “Coward”, “Scoundrel”, and “Puppy”; imagine being called a “Puppy” in front of others in that era. Using these “Words to Avoid” meant, in our vernacular, that someone is “Triple Dog Daring” someone to an "Affair of Honor". 
     Alexander Hamilton had 11 "Affairs of Honor" (Burr was his 11th, obviously): here is an account about how 2 of these 11 “Affairs of Honor” came about on a single day in 1795:
        “In 1795, after the Jay Treaty was negotiated, Hamilton was trying to explain the advantages of the treaty to an “Anti-Jay Treaty” mob.  Eventually, he became so frustrated with the crowd, that he told them “you have no Constitutional right to express an opinion on the Jay Treaty!” (in other words, he told the mob that they had no right to be a mob!).  Soon, Hamilton was hit on the head with a rock, and he left the building, and went to the street.  In the street, Hamilton (a Federalist) got involved in a confrontational conversation with a Republican, and Hamilton was quickly dismissed as a “fool; then, this same gentleman challenged Hamilton to a duel. Hamilton accepted, and moved on down the street.  Hamilton continued to be harassed by the crowd, and eventually threatened to take on everybody “one by one”.  A challenger emerged from the crowd, and challenged Hamilton to a duel in 30 minutes. Hamilton said, “I can’t, I have a previous duel arranged: I will settle my business with you as soon as I take care of this other gentleman”.

THE POLITICAL DUEL
     Political duels were often deliberately provoked, most commonly by the loser of a political election. Political duels were basically “counter-elections”; it was a way for the loser of an election to “save face” and continue to have integrity and influence in the future. It was an effort, despite losing an election, to show that the individual was going to be a relevant factor, in that his character and reputation were above reproach.
     Both Burr and Hamilton were desperate to prove that they were “players” in the national / New York political arena by 1804. Hamilton was a former Secretary of the Treasury, and for 18 months, one of the 2nd-in-Command for the National Army under Washington during John Adams' Presidency. Burr was the out-going Vice-President for Jefferson, and had just finished last in the election for governor in New York. 

     Contrary to what most think, they both engaged in a reasoned course of logic given the rules of conduct and their particular circumstances in that era.  That being said, why did this “Affair of Honor” get to the point that Hamilton was killed by Burr, since the vast majority of arranged duels were settled behind the scenes long before the parties reached the Field of Honor.
     One day, in the early summer of 1804, an acquaintance of Burr claimed that he had

proof that Hamilton has said “something more despicable” about Burr; Burr had been at political odds with Hamilton for over a decade, and Burr saw this as a chance to re-claim his political fortunes by challenging Hamilton to a duel.
The Problem:  
     Burr had to have a “specific insult” to go by, but instead, he accused Hamilton of a “general insult” that may or may not have been made. This clouded the otherwise clear “Rules of Behavior” that governed the ritual before a duel. Hamilton received a letter from Burr, accusing him of saying “something more despicable” about Burr. Hamilton was torn between dueling and avoiding the duel. However, upon closer inspection, Hamilton couldn’t “lose face” by apologizing for a “general insult” that he knew Burr couldn’t prove, so he sent Burr a rather insulting letter that basically stated that “Burr was not a gentleman”, and that Burr really didn't know what the word despicable actually meant.
     The main variable that actually guided Hamilton's decision-making at this point was guilt; about 3 years earlier, Hamilton's oldest son (Philip) was killed in a duel. What caused Hamilton's guilt was that he advised his son to take the duel to its conclusion; once Burr challenged Hamilton to an "Affair of Honor", Hamilton was determined to follow the very advice that he gave his son. A series of letters were exchanged, and the situation escalated quickly; a date was set for a duel: 11 July, 1804, in Weehawken, New Jersey (dueling was illegal in New York); ironically, it was the same location where his son was killed in his duel.

     On 10 July, 1804, Hamilton wrote a final statement to be issued in case he was killed by Burr. In effect, Hamilton ensured that even if he was killed, he would prevail against Burr. Hamilton’s Final Statement included:
      a) Various reasons why he didn’t want to duel (family, debt, religious beliefs,
          desire to live, etc.)
      b) Why he had to duel Burr (he thought his opinions of Burr were true)
      c) He didn’t want to “become useless in a moment of crisis”
          (he still had political aspirations, at least in the state of New York)

      d) He planned on “firing into the air” to avoid injuring / killing Burr
          (President Jefferson used portions of the letter, especially the last part, to further 
           destroy Burr's honor and political future after the duel)

       Relevant US History Blog Entry: Alexander Hamilton, 1796 - 1804
    
                            The American Experience (PBS): The Duel

The Duel from Mitch Wilson on Vimeo.

0 Comments

    Archives

    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014

    Categories

    All
    19th Century
    20th Century
    Actor
    Biography
    History

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.