Paint it Red: The Rise of the American Left (1908-1932)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:33:34 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs? (Moderator: Dereich)
  Paint it Red: The Rise of the American Left (1908-1932)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11
Poll
Question: Should this timeline continue?
#1
Yes
#2
No
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: Paint it Red: The Rise of the American Left (1908-1932)  (Read 34820 times)
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #200 on: February 03, 2016, 05:06:43 PM »


The Two Leading Contenders in 1928: Herbert Hoover and Henry Ford

  The early fall campaigns took off without a hitch. Herbert Hoover ran more of a grassroots campaign to Ford and Coolidge's heavily funded endeavors, and for a while maintained much of the old Roosevelt Coalition whilst bringing in new independents. Hoover had a slew of endorsements going into the first weeks of the general election, including over 2/3rds of Progressives in Congress and a major motion of support from Minority Leader Borah. The Progressive candidate had been the antithesis to La Follette's '24 run. While La Follette had called for a a dramatic expansion of the federal government, Hoover only directly called for "social insurance" for the poor. While the late senator won over younger voters and workers with relative ease, Hoover instead had staunch support from older voters and the middle-class.

  Calvin Coolidge and Henry Ford repeatedly called for a "leaner government" with less spending and a downshift in social programs, both working to appeal to a conservative trend in politics. Hoover, as the opposition, had been adamant that the nation needed to assist in "combating a growing poverty rate: the consequence of McAdoo's budget cuts." Ford bit back this accusation, claiming that the poverty rate was actually at "an all-time low." The Hoover Campaign began referring to federal statistics that the recorded poverty rate was actually increasing, and Ford ignored the issue from this moment on. In the short-term, this served to damage Ford's credibility as any sort of honest Democrat.

  Coolidge and Sinclair continued to draw in larger crowds than any of their predecessors had. Coolidge resonated powerfully in former staunch Republican districts due to his calling of a "Nationalist mandate" on liberal democracy and stating that the Socialists and Progressives pose a "definitive danger to American progress." Sinclair, on the other side, would only refer to the other candidates when mentioning the "bought-out, blatantly corrupt party system," and at one Boston stop when he referred to Henry Ford as the potential future "Wall Street President." Ford himself would poll his worst yet in the Des Moines Register September issue released on October 1st.
  
The Des Moines Register: September 1928
Which candidate would you endorse for president?

Henry Ford: 31%
Herbert Hoover: 30%
Calvin Coolidge: 18%
Upton Sinclair: 17%
James Watson: 4%

 The Republican National Committee, on October 3rd, chose to formally endorse Hoover for the nomination instead of his opponents, bringing a blow to the Coolidge Campaign. From this moment on, the Hoover Campaign began to shift. The former head of the ARA began to move more to the Center from his more center-left candidacy in order to appear as electable as the opposition and win over greater support from former Republicans. He no longer mentioned the need for an Anti-Lynching Law, and only sparingly brought up his plan for an expanded Commerce Department.

  Henry Ford took this chance to fight back against Hoover, insinuating that the latter's lack of experience in politics meant he was unaccountable for any firm political stances. "If elected president, you know where I stand. Mr. Hoover has no history of public service and has only served briefly as the leader of the single most inefficient federal department." The president appeared alongside Senator Ford in a number of key swing states, including at the University of Chicago on September 2nd where McAdoo stated, "No man is better suited than Henry Ford to succeed me as your president. He has the right judgement and experience to ensure that our values are kept safely intact in all forms."

  Hoover fought back these claims, for the moment adopting Representative Sinclair's slogan that Ford as "Wall Street's #1 Man" and that he would only be held accountable by the wealthy few. This opened up a can of worms for the Democratic contender, as he retorted with a barrage of attacks claiming Hoover himself was a pawn for the Old Guard GOP elite, and had relinquished any credibility when he began taking RNC donations. This turned into, by late October, one of the most negative and personal presidential campaigns in decades.

  Governor Coolidge, for the most part remained above the fray in these attacks, instead focusing on socio-economic issues as the most important going forward. Coolidge lost some support when he swiped at the Democratic electorate, asking "How could one bring themselves to vote for a socialist like Gibbs McAdoo I will never know." The former Massachusetts governor, in the final weeks of his campaign, would turn the conversation back to economics with an emphasis on the "mixed marketplace with greater involvement from business authorities." His firm message of "clear-cut conservatism" was lost on the populist-leaning Nationalists, and this crowd would end up support the clearer anti-establishment candidate, Sinclair.

  The pragmatism of the Herbert Hoover Campaign in its last weeks had disillusioned many former La Follette supporters who moved on to the Sinclair camp. Although Hoover received RNC contributions in a fair and legitimate manner, the stain of "dirty money" around him greatly tarnished the campaign. In the last few polls of the election, Representative Sinclair flew past Coolidge and only narrowly fell behind Hoover. However, with the support of the incumbent, Senator Ford thrashed Sinclair's momentum and reaffirmed his lead in the Chicago Daily News poll. As a side note, the polling agency, in a reaction to public protest, finally had folded with this poll and admitted Sinclair in the results.
      
The Chicago Daily News
     
The Peoples' Poll for October 1928

Henry Ford40%
Herbert Hoover24%
Upton Sinclair19%
Calvin Coolidge14%
James Watson01%
Others/None of These02%
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #201 on: February 04, 2016, 05:30:23 PM »


The Pro-Ford League of Women Voters in 1928

  Regardless of how much Herbert Hoover assured the American electorate there would be a realignment, there were no signals that such would be the case in the 1928 Presidential Election. All polls demonstrated a fair lead for Senator Henry Ford, with only the Sacramento Tribune indicating a four-point advantage for Hoover. In the general sense, from 1920 when the Democrats had won their first election since President Cleveland through the present day, locations which had once been trending Progressive were now deeply within the Democratic column. New Jersey and West Virginia, for instance, were expected to go 60% or greater for Henry Ford.

  Herbert Hoover spent much of his final campaign week in Illinois driving up support from old Progressive cities like Quincy and Rockford. Coolidge returned to his Boston home in the last days of his campaign, and Sinclair did the same: returning to Englewood, New Jersey. Henry Ford finished the last leg of his trip in New York and listened to final results over his personal radio in the Brooklyn St. George Hotel. The broadcast became a major influence in the election, boosting radio unit sales significantly.

  New England, the once staunch Republican stronghold, had been initially expected to strongly lean towards the Whig candidate, James Watson. However, Coolidge and Sinclair had been the candidates who most viciously battled for votes in the region. New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island went to Governor Coolidge, as did Massachusetts with a slim margin. Maine, a state which had been trending Progressive since 1912, went to Herbert Hoover in a tight match with Coolidge. Connecticut, believed to be a signal of the nation's overall political leaning in previous years, went to Senator Ford with 52%

  New Jersey and Maryland easily went to the Democratic contender, as did Kentucky, Tennessee and the entire Solid South. West Virginia, an aforementioned sure-fire win for the Democrats, was eventually won by Upton Sinclair with about 32% of the vote. Sinclair spent a great deal of time campaigning alongside labor unions in this election, and after receiving a much-publicized endorsement from the IWW-led United Mining Workers of America, Sinclair won a captive audience with West Virginian miners, thereby defeating Senator Ford.

  New York had been torn between all of the major candidates, with Hoover having a great deal of support in Manhattan and Sinclair doing well in the densely compacted low-income sections of the city. Coolidge received about 20% of the vote, mainly from upstate voters, and Hoover the same. The winner had been the Democrat, Senator Ford, who won with 41%. Pennsylvania, another Progressive-trending state, was won by Henry Ford with 43% to Hoover's 36%.

  The Industrial Midwest, once considered a staple win for the Progressive Party, was most fiercely competed in 1928 between Henry Ford, who represented Michigan in the Senate, and Upton Sinclair, who had the backing of the the labor vote and, in this case, the minority vote. Blacks had been divided in most parts of the country between the candidates, with a national tendency towards the Progressives. Because of the strategic campaigning offered by activist James W. Ford in Cincinnati, Dayton, Chicago, and Springfield, this demographic narrowly went with the Socialist ticket. Overall, however, this was not enough to win against Senator Ford, who came out victorious in Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan.

  In the biggest controversy of the election, a "mishap" in Illinois drew many skeptical eyes. The state, which was immensely close between the three top candidates, was first called for the Socialist candidate over the radio, only to be later confirmed a win for Senator Ford the following morning. As it turned out, seven districts had, under instructions by the supposedly bipartisan Elections Board, recounted the ballots due to possible "fraudulent conditions". James Ford stated that the recount disproportionately left out thousands of pro-Socialist votes from black individuals, but this claim was rejected by the state board. Senator Ford was stated to have won the Illinois vote by a margin of about 11,000.

  Wisconsin, a staunch Socialist-leaning state, was easily won by Sinclair after numerous public appearances with Senator Robert La Follette, Jr. (S-WI). Michigan, Henry Ford's home state, would have gone to Sinclair as well if not for a last-minute surge by the Democratic senator attributed to his arrival in the state on Election Day. Minnesota, the Dakotas, Iowa, Wyoming, Oregon and Idaho easily went to Progressive Herbert Hoover. In a tight race, Missouri and Oklahoma were won by Senator Ford, as were Kansas and New Mexico.

  Montana, Nevada and California, once undoubtedly Progressive strongholds, had grown to house left-leaning populations who were unconvinced by Hoover's RNC-endorsed message. As a result, these states went to Sinclair with about 40% of the vote. Washington, arguably the strongest Socialist state in the Union, went to Sinclair with 50%. Herbert Hoover maintained the Roosevelt Coalition in the remaining Western states, picking up Nebraska, Colorado, and Utah. Though Coolidge, Sinclair and Hoover fought vicariously, the winner had been Senator Henry Ford with 378 Electoral Votes: surpassing McAdoo's 371 in 1924 and winning an even-higher Popular Vote.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #202 on: February 04, 2016, 05:31:03 PM »
« Edited: July 30, 2016, 09:30:06 PM by Pyro »

The Election of 1928: Final Results






edit: imgfix
Logged
Lord Byron
Rookie
**
Posts: 41
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #203 on: February 05, 2016, 11:50:12 AM »

Just waiting for TTL's Great Depression; things will get...interesting.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #204 on: February 05, 2016, 09:04:40 PM »

1928 Congressional Elections  

Senate
Democratic: 37 (-7)
Progressive: 30 (+6)
Whig: 11 (+2)
Socialist: 9 (+3)
Nationalist: 7 (+2)
Farmer-Labor: 2 (-1)
Republican: 0 (-5)

House
Democratic: 200 (-1)
Progressive: 120 (+17)
Socialist: 46 (+6)
Nationalist: 42 (+2)
Whig: 25 (-11)
Farmer-Labor: 2 (-2)
Republican: 0 (-11)


 Senate Leadership

Majority Leader Carter Glass (D-VA)
Sen. Minority Leader William E. Borah (P-ID)
Sen. Minority Leader James E. Watson (W-IN)
Sen. Minority Leader Ashley G. Miller (S-NV)
Sen. Minority Leader Lawrence C. Phipps (N-CO)
Farmer-Labor delegation caucuses w/ SP


 House of Representatives Leadership

Speaker Finis J. Garrett (D-TN)
Minority Leader William Stephens (P-CA)
Minority Leader Upton Sinclair (S-CA)
Minority Leader T. Jeff Busby (N-MS)
Minority Leader Frederick Gillett (W-MA)
Minority Leader Ole J. Kvale (FL-MN), caucus w/ SP


  The Democrats, though proving to be a formidable party in regards to the presidential election, lost a handful of seats in both the House and the Senate because of the exceedingly well-organized Progressives. The economy had reached new heights by 1928, and Henry Ford had certainly capitalized on this fact, but, much to their detriment, the Democrats slipped-up in many of these races regardless of the economic tidings.

  According to new members of the PNC, the party was experiencing higher vote turnout because of its new center-left platform. The Progressive Party had once lost its Theodore Roosevelt charm with President Johnson in power, and even though Herbert Hoover was defeated in the presidential race, Hoover had a charm of his own which captivated voters at the state level. Senator Burton Wheeler (P-MT) switched over from the Democrats to the Progressives in this cycle, an event preceded by the senator's endorsement of Herbert Hoover for president. Wheeler would go on to be one of the most vocal Progressives in the incoming Congress, and would fiercely combat the Democratic leadership.

  The Republican Party, with the 1928 election, was finally finished. The final remaining GOP congressmen either switched over to a different party or lost re-election bids. Its last Senate Minority Leader for the Republican Party, Frederick Hale, announced on September 3rd that he would run in November as a candidate of the Whig Party. This effectively killed off any drop of support that the Republican Party possessed. Truly, the ripples of President Roosevelt's 1912 win were breaching the shore.

  Though the election as a whole appeared to benefit the Progressives apart from anyone else, some of the more interesting contests were the closest ones. Senator James A. Reed (D-MO), one of the runner-ups to the Democratic nomination, ended up losing his seat to the Nationalist Representative Roscoe C. Patterson in an ultra-close election. The threatening of the Southern delegation to bolt the convention gave Patterson the ability to rally for "Putting the nation first, ahead of the party."

  Another major race in 1928 had been the Massachusetts Gubernatorial Election. Incumbent Alvan T. Fuller, running now as a Nationalist, was not expected to come out on top. Even though former Governor Coolidge had wholly endorsed Governor Fuller, a series of controversial anti-Catholic slurs made Fuller's re-election unlikely. After a papal edict issued in July condemned labor militancy, the Socialist Party candidate, Frank O'Neill, also lost support from the Catholic minority.

  The Massachusetts Catholic vote was won by the same man who defeated Governor Fuller in the election. Joseph P. Kennedy, son-in-law to President Fitzgerald, had worked as the former president's campaign manager in 1920 before serving in the state assembly. Kennedy received a great deal of poor press after revealing that he would be running as a Progressive, not a Democrat like his father had, but with the Catholic vote headed his way, the negative press was effectively countered. Kennedy would be elected as the new governor with nearly 60% of the vote.

  Earl Browder, the revolutionary Socialist activist from Kansas, won a Senate seat from Nevada after a close contest with incumbent Democrat Key Pittman and two opposing Progressive candidates. Pittman voted against each of the presidents proposed legislative measures, resulting in zero support from the DNC. The senator paid out-of-pocket in his pitiful campaign, and lost to Browder by a 5% margin.

  Throughout the South, Nationalist candidates competed in traditionally uncontested Democratic contests. For instance, South Carolina elected five new Nationalist representatives, toppling the old Democratic regime. VP-elect John Davis skillfully prevented too many Democratic failures in the Solid South, but the Nationalist breakthrough nonetheless made headlines.

  The Socialist Party came out on top in a number of states including West Virginia and Minnesota, where it gained multiple senators and dozens of representatives. This was a worrying development for the dominant Democratic Party, which seemed to have strained its resources in the presidential election to have too great a hand in the state elections. President-elect Henry Ford did not appear alongside any Congressmen in his election spree, and the Democratic delegation suffered as a result. Still, the party had enough influence to keep itself afloat.

  
Senators Elected in 1928 (Class 1)
Henry F. Ashurst (D-AZ): Democratic Hold w/ 50%
Francis J. Heney (P-CA): Progressive Hold w/ 60%
Augustine Lonergan (D-CT): Republican Gain w/ 50%
Thomas F. Bayard, Jr. (D-DE): Democratic Hold w/ 55%   
Park Trammell (D-FL): Democratic Hold w/ 60%
James E. Watson (W-IN): Whig Hold w/ 50%
Frederick Hale (W-ME): Whig Gain w/ 55%
Joseph I. France (P-MD): Progressive Hold w/ 55%
Benjamin L. Young (N-MA): Nationalist Gain w/ 45%
Woodbridge N. Ferris (D-MI): Democratic Hold w/ 45%
Henrik Shipstead (S-MN): Socialist Gain w/ 55%
Hubert D. Stephens (D-MS): Democratic Hold w/ 85%
Roscoe C. Patterson (N-MO): Nationalist Gain w/ 45%
Burton K. Wheeler (P-MT): Progressive Gain w/ 60%
Richard L. Metcalfe (P-NE): Progressive Gain w/ 50%
Earl Browder (S-NV): Socialist Gain w/ 45%
Edward I. Edwards (P-NJ): Progressive Gain w/ 50%
Bronson M. Cutting (P-NM): Progressive Gain w/ 55%
John F. Hylan (D-NY): Democratic Hold w/ 60%
Lynn J. Frazier (P-ND): Progressive Hold w/ 55%
James R. Garfield (P-OH): Progressive Hold w/ 55%
William J. VanEssen (S-PA): Socialist Hold w/ 45%
Felix Hebert (N-RI): Nationalist Gain w/ 45%
Kenneth McKellar (D-TN): Democratic Hold w/ 55%
George E.B. Peddy (FL-TX): Farmer-Labor Hold w/ 60%
Ernest Bamberger (P-UT): Progressive Gain w/ 45%
Frank L. Greene (W-VT): Whig Gain w/ 65%
Thomas W. Harrison (D-VA): Democratic Hold w/ 65%
James A. Duncan (S-WA): Socialist Hold w/ 55%
Rush D. Holt, Sr. (S-WV): Socialist Gain w/ 45%
Emil Seidel (S-WI): Socialist Hold w/ 55%
Charles E. Winter (P-WY): Progressive Gain w/ 50%
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #205 on: February 06, 2016, 04:01:17 PM »


Henry Ford, 32nd President of the United States

Chapter Eleven: Fordism and the New Economy: The Best of Times, The Worst of Times

  With the election at its end, McAdoo's chosen successor walked away with an easy win. Henry Ford had been the first man elected president since 1904 to receive a majority of the Popular Vote. Just as he had said during the Democratic convention, his bid had ended in the greatest landslide of any modern Democrat. More so, in winning a grand total of 378 Electoral Votes, the new president carried the highest number ever, narrowly surpassing William McAdoo's 371. As Democrats would go on to claim for years, their party was now squarely in place as the dominant political organization in the United States.

  Hoover and Coolidge would bow out when the election results came in, as would Upton Sinclair after the controversy with Illinois was settled. Each would work to build up the future of their parties, though a depressed mood had set in that the 1928 Election proved the existence of a fixed Democratic majority. A handful of political scientists, even those who had been vocal supports of other parties and candidates, admitted that a third consecutive win for the Democratic party was worrying. If states like New York and Pennsylvania stuck alongside the Solid South, Democrats would retain their majority for the foreseeable future.

  President McAdoo would give one last major address prior to the Inaugural where he again congratulated Henry Ford on his win and assured the public that "four more years of a Democrat in the White House" meant four more years of a "glowing economy, low unemployment, and a slimmer government." When Henry Ford, following his Oath of Office, began speaking to the nation, he assumed a tone much different from McAdoo's. The now-former president had always been reluctant to get himself too involved with Congress or extend the reach of the Executive Branch in any way. Ford had a new approach.

  President Ford, with a stark Midwestern accent and a booming voice, exclaimed that his promises would be met, his word adhered to and that should any Congressional Democrat stand against him, "I will not hesitate to name names." Ford had not been in politics for very long, and approached the presidency much like a CEO. In his first speech as president, Ford declared that the time for executive inaction was over. "We must tighten the reigns of the federal system, make efficient these century-old processes, and bring the American economy into the twentieth century."

  Ford introduced several programs to the public that he intended to pass, including a "Department Slimming Bill" meant to reduce the amount of internal government jobs, legislation formally making illegal all non-AFL trade unions, a tariff readjustment, and a high-income tax break. The new president also insisted that portions of TR's Fair Deal which proved "detrimental to American manufacturing" ought to be repealed. To be clear, Ford was mainly referring to Roosevelt's anti-monopoly legislation which had caused the president some personal agitation in past years.

  The overall theme for Ford's speech, and one for his entire administration, had been that it was never the Founding Fathers' intention for the federal government to be involved too heavily in the affairs of American businesses nor of their workers. Ford would routinely rail against President Roosevelt's "well-meaning, yet naive" policy of New Nationalism. Ford would later state that he considered himself a strict constructionist, and legislation like the National Health Board should never have been passed. As was clear by the end of the day, President Ford would not adhere to McAdoo Centrism.

The Ford Cabinet

President                          Henry Ford
Vice President                   John W. Davis
Secretary of State             Frank B. Kellogg
Secretary of Treasury         John N. Garner
Secretary of War               William Comstock
Attorney General                Homer Stille Cummings
Postmaster General             James Farley
Secretary of the Navy         William Ford, Jr.
Secretary of the Interior      John Burke
Secretary of Agriculture       Harold Verne
Secretary of Commerce       Jesse H. Jones
Secretary of Labor              Bernard H. Stucky

 Henry Ford's Cabinet was somewhat more conservative than his predecessor's, exemplified through the instating of right-leaning businessmen Jesse Jones and Harold Verne in high-ranking positions. A point of note is that Ford reportedly had trouble finding a worthwhile Secretary of State. James Cox refused a place in Ford's cabinet, as had Senator Joseph Robinson, Ford's second choice. He eventually settled on the former Republican Senator from Minnesota, Frank B. Kellogg.

  In a minor controversy, the president had chosen his brother, William Ford, Jr., over two experienced Naval officers as Secretary of the Navy. William Ford had been a yachtsman in recent years, but possessed little knowledge in regards to the Navy itself. Still, the appointment went through without intervention. Vice President Davis would not play too big a role in Ford's Administration other than asserting the president's policies in the Senate, yet would remain hugely popular throughout the Southern states.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #206 on: February 07, 2016, 05:26:17 PM »


Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg

  President Henry Ford sought to generate an excited and willing Congress to pass as much legislation as soon as possible in order to ram through his vision for America. According to the new president, the most successful and remembered leaders were those who got "down to brass tacks in the first hundred days." Ford's conservative initiatives were met with much scrutiny in Congress, where a very slim Democratic majority struggled to make any progress.

  Though pro-union groups made it seem as though it would be a major threat to the future of the labor movement, the first of Ford's bills to be introduced, the Watson Domestic Labor Bill, was locked in committee and was never voted on. This bill, had it passed, would have outlawed all "unsanctioned" labor unions, with punishment to the "highest degree". In other words, it would have given free-reign for state police to brutally break-up unions without any warning or cause (not that this wasn't already happening). The Progressives in the Senate, with help from the Socialists, ensured that the bill would never come to a vote. Senator William VanEssen (S-PA) demanded the bill, "be thrown back into Ford's trashcan where it came from."

  The bill which did end up making it to the House floor was Ford's much-anticipated "Department Slimming Bill". Now called the Morrow Bill, this would reduce the number of federal appointments, positions, and overall staff by 35%. The Whigs and Nationalists put up the greatest fight in the House against the instating of the bill, but it nonetheless passed, 275 to 160. It flew by in the Senate without alterations in a 51 to 49 vote. Nationalists argued that the legislation, though it may reduce government spending, would lower the effectiveness of the federal government by a dangerous amount. Democrats rallied for the bill, and it was finally signed by President Ford on April 15th.

  Only the Morrow Act and a few other pieces of legislation managed to pass Congress under President Ford. One of the more famous works of the administration was the international Pact of Paris, or the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Written by Secretary Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand, this treaty (the first major international treaty involving the United States since the Great War) renounced war as a means to settle disputes, and all signing nations promised to use diplomacy as a means to come to an agreement. Lauded as a measure to formally end war, each of the signing nations had hoped the Great War would be the world's last.

  With foreign policy, Ford, like his predecessors, had been a staunch isolationist. When questioned on his opinion of foreign matters, Ford stated that other than the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the United States had no place outside of its hemisphere. "President Roosevelt's internationalism resulted in more suffering for average Americans since the Civil War. Unless explicitly necessary, my administration will not involve itself in European matters or otherwise." He would go on to reaffirm the anti-Soviet stance of the United States in August of 1929, claiming any state which represses human rights and individualism on such a scale could not, in good faith, be formally recognized by any "decent" leader.

  Under Presidents Fitzgerald, McAdoo, and now Ford, the 1920s were universally acknowledged as a time of great economic and scientific expansion. The "Roaring Twenties" they would call it. Telecommunication devices, radios, and even Ford's own automobiles had become exceedingly commonplace over the past decade. Just as the Pre-War World embraced a tide of progress, peace and prosperity, the generation growing up in the 1920s saw a resurgence of this mood. The nation, and the world, seemed to be healed of the wounds inflicted by the war, and exemplified through the Kellogg-Briand Pact, even the most spiteful nations were willing to move forward.

  It must be clarified, however, that this had all counted on a growing economy, a stable financial system, and the benevolence of the ultra-wealthy. Unbeknownst to most of the population, Wall Street had not been playing so nicely. Greedy insider trading had plagued the inner-establishment of the financial class. These financiers and bankers had been routinely artificially boosting stock prices and gambling with the savings of bank patrons, deteriorating the stability of the entire system in the process. Years of a shadowed, unregulated economy was taking its toll, but it would take a push for the whole thing to inevitably fall of the cliff. That push came on October 24th, 1929.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #207 on: February 08, 2016, 03:19:00 PM »


Wall Street Crash of 1929: Black Thursday

  "Ashes to ashes. Dust to dust." -The Book of Common Prayer

  The grand wealth acquired by the largest corporations and Wall Street firms suffered a major blow on October 24th when the market lost approximately 11% of its value at the opening bell. The sudden spike in activity by the investors and bankers paralyzed stock trading and phone lines. Leading bankers, including the heads of Chase National, National City Bank, and Morgan Bank, got together to figure out a plan. What they came up with was a similar solution to that which lessened the effect of the Panic of 1908: simplified, it called for the purchasing of stock above the current market. The Dow Jones recovered briefly, but plummeted yet again on October 28th, "Black Monday".

  These final October days encompassed the greatest burst in stock trading volume ever experienced on Wall Street. The Dow continued to fall, first by 12%, then higher. Members of the Rockefeller family then gathered to buy up large amounts of stocks in order to increase public confidence in the market, but this failed. By November, the market lost well over $30 billion. As newspapers printed in the following days, the boom of the 1920s had been an economic bubble, and this enormous crash would send reverberations which expanded well beyond the United States.

  The entire global marketplace suffered at an unprecedented level. As the news broke, the public fell into a panic. Around the world, banks were forced to close as patrons rushed the doors to withdraw accounts. Though not all of it occurred at once, thousands of businesses would fall into bankruptcy, resulting in a sudden rise in unemployment and a subsequent fall in consumer spending. This had been the start of an economic rupture the likes of which the U.S. had never before seen.

  President Henry Ford immediately began to act, but not in quite the way the American public hoped he would. He stated that it had been the "years of relentless government intervention" which had set the preconditions for the ongoing economic fallout, or "depression" as he called it. It was Ford's belief that Theodore Roosevelt instilled the seeds in public policy that dramatically altered the direction of the country, thereby making American citizens feel entitled to federal protection. In one of his first 1930 addresses, the president stated that the answer to the crashing economy was "Modernization from above, self-reliance from below."

  Treasury Secretary John N. Garner led Ford's initiative to keep intact the federal policy of "laissez-faire" economics. The secretary would privately urge his colleagues in Congress to pass temporary regulations on the financial system, but his conservative friends refused to do so. Garner would infamously promise on January 3rd that, "By this time next year, the press-centered Wall Street trouble shall be a distant memory. We refuse to run a budget deficit to fund left-wing programs."
 
  Congress nearly scuttled under pressure, but those like Majority Leader Carter Glass broke with the president and began endorsing emergency legislation. With near-unanimous support (the Socialists and most Democrats fought against it), Congress passed new tariff bill. The bill, as co-authored by Senator Reed Smoot (W-UT) and Rep. Willis C. Hawley (P-OR), proposed an enormous tariff hike in order to protect American industry from international collapse. The Progressives and Nationalists pushed the bill through in both houses of Congress.

  President Ford vetoed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Bill in June of 1930, stating that it was "an economic stupidity". In a radio address explaining his rejection of the bill, Ford would claim that the institution of the tariff hike would protect some American workers at the stake of the entire international business system. Though a handful of moderate economists agreed that the raising of the tariff would do more harm than good, Ford's statement was taken as an insult by those it would theoretically help the most: the American worker. New York Times' polls demonstrated that President Ford lost a stunning amount of support in the summer of 1930.

  Speaker Garrett then joined Majority Leader Glass in separating himself from President Ford, and stated his intention to override the president's veto. Although Democrats had been historically in favor of lowering the tariff, the party did not wish to be wiped out in the midterm elections. In both the House and the Senate, moderate-to-conservatives voted in favor of overriding the president. The Socialists and some liberal Progressives stood in the opposition. The override barely, but did, pass, and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff went into effect. Losing control over his influence in Congress, President Ford would moved away from the Democratic Party and began calling for more radical measures to counteract the Depression.
Logged
geekknight
Rookie
**
Posts: 18
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #208 on: February 08, 2016, 05:10:34 PM »

And so the plot thickens... These should be very interesting times for the US!
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #209 on: February 09, 2016, 01:53:55 PM »

 

UK Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald

  As the months ticked on through 1930, it became evidently clear that this "Depression" was here to stay. Banks shut their doors and closed down without explanation, money supply depreciated, unemployment doubled, and the Dow Jones average fell further down. Throughout Europe, the global long-term trend of a rise in radical political thought received its catalyst. The Far Left described the financial crisis as a "failure of global capitalism" while the Right attacked corruption and internationalism.

  Those states already running a state-capitalist system with an all-encompassing centralized government, such as Poland and the Soviet Union, did not feel any of the reverberations from the collapse, and both saw huge economic growth in 1930. Benito Mussolini's Fascist Italy, though certainly hit by the crash and subsequent Depression, chose to take state control of bank-owned companies in order to lessen the strain of international tension. Chiefly rural countries, like Ireland and Lithuania, felt very little in terms of economic pressure. These aforementioned countries were virtually the only ones without huge social and cultural changes brought on by the Depression.

  Great Britain, which had been paying war reparations for all of this time, hardly recovered economically from its 1924 Recession before the new international crisis struck. The Labour Party, under Ramsay MacDonald, had won a slim majority government in the May 1929 general election and began instituting mild reforms with cross-support by the Liberals. When the panic hit, MacDonald and his government took the blame. Divided and struggling to find a solution, the Labour Party was expected to lose in a landslide to the protectionist Conservatives.

  On October 27th, on the day of the election, due in part to a long-term campaign and virulent blaming on the traditional "party system of the elites," the English Independence Party won the greatest amount of seats in Parliament: 287. The leader of the EIP and the new British Prime Minister, Thomas "Tommy" Moran, proudly proclaimed that the election represented the, "Dawning of a new age for the British Empire." The far-right politician called upon a renewal of spirit and vitality for the English and declared that with strict protectionist legislation, the common man would have no need to fear the "international financiers".

  Outgoing Prime Minister MacDonald along with Conservative PM Stanley Baldwin blasted Moran for his indistinct policies and political inexperience, but, in this midst of the economic panic, this criticism fell on deaf ears. The Labour Party had retained roughly 150 seats, and with their new leader, PM Arthur Henderson, they would seek to act as a progressive alternative to the "clouded judgement" of the EIP. The Conservatives and the Liberals had the third and fourth party slots, while the Communist Party of Great Britain took 33 seats.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #210 on: February 09, 2016, 06:57:55 PM »


Newly Elected Prime Ministers of France and Germany, Maurice Thorez (left) and Ernst Thälmann (right)

  Germany and France also experienced significant transfer-of-power elections, yet in the totally opposite direction. The party which had led France since the start of the Fourth Republic, the SFIO, lost in a landslide vote during the 1932 elections. Under Léon Blum, the French Socialists had moved significantly towards the center in the past four years, and when the Depression struck, initiated unprecedented budget cuts. Much of the party split off in other directions, thereby leading to the ascension of the French Communist Party (PCF).

  The PCF had stood sternly on the side of the Soviet Union since 1917, and now was no exception. The new Prime Minister, Maurice Thorez, stated that time was overdue for a new Marxist constitutional amendments and official recognition of the Soviet state. Like the EIP, the PCF was also starkly nationalistic, however, and it too would initiate protectionist legislation. The leading party would not push through much dramatic legislation in its first year, other than strict state regulations on financing and new government jobs programs. The SFIO would become the minority party, followed closely behind by the Republican-Socialists.

  In the German Empire, the 1930 parliamentary election saw the fall of the ruling DNVP-Centrists as the SDP experienced a brief resurgence. Though the DNVP had ruled quite effectively since its winning of the majority in 1928, the Depression took them down just as hard as it took down the French Socialists and the British Labour Party. Centrism fell out of fashion in the blink of an eye and, with the SDP also advocating a strategy of liberalism and budget compromise, it ended up being a Coalition of the Left which would come to power in '32.

  This coalition, as organized shortly before the election, had been composed of the KDP along with portions of the Left-SDP, the Radical Workers' Party, and the Agricultural League. The KDP clearly commanded the coalition, and this had been no secret to the German people. The Kommunistische Allianz, or KA, rallied the German workers into the famous cross-industry General Strike of 1931-32, which served to radicalize the working class as only the 1920 Uprising had previously accomplished. With wages slipping and unemployment skyrocketing, the workers demanded either a new class structure or a new economic one.

  The 1932 Elections ended in the succession of the KA to the majority, with 268 seats, while the SDP retained second-minority status. Ernst Thälmann became the nation's new Prime Minister, as opposed to popular speculation that it would be Rosa Luxemburg (she would lead a unionizing effort in 1933). Thälmann gained national recognition in June of 1929 when he publicly condemned the "backward" policies of Soviet leader Josef Stalin as "needlessly confrontational". He therefore led the world's first anti-Soviet Communist Party, and much of the public approved of this message. As a side note, Kaiser Wilhelm initially threatened to dissolve the Reichstag after the election results came in, but when Thälmann agreed not to tamper with the powers of nor demand the resignation of the emperor, Wilhelm reluctantly quelled his opposition.

  The first official acts of Prime Ministers Thorez and Thälmann were the total outlawing of the far-right and/or fascist organizations. Thorez outlawed the National Bloc, Thälmann outlawed the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), and many of the leading voices in such groups were either imprisoned for life or executed. In France, far-right politicians and activists which advocated for the overthrow of Jules Guesde in 1918 and Thorez in 1932, like Louis Marin, were exiled. Prime Minister Thälmann, though he had been personally opposed to the death penalty, nonetheless ordered the execution of NSDAP leader Adolf Hitler: an order which was carried out on January 31st, 1933.
Logged
/
darthebearnc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,367
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #211 on: February 09, 2016, 07:04:18 PM »

Prime Minister Thälmann, though he had been personally opposed to the death penalty, nonetheless ordered the execution of NSDAP leader Adolf Hitler: an order which was carried out on January 31st, 1933.

#plottwist
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #212 on: February 10, 2016, 03:16:31 PM »


President Ford Struggled to Find a Solution for the Nation's Depression

  Faced with the reality that jobs were disappearing and production was radically declining, the working class began to seriously reconsider their arrangement with big business. At the upper-level, Congress turned down bill after bill proposed by liberal Progressives and Socialists calling for government assistance programs designed to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless. One bill proposed by Senator A.A. Bagewell (S-OK), which would have created a multi-million dollar public jobs program for those living at or below the poverty line (estimated 75% by the following year), was rejected along party lines: 21 to 75.

  The crisis had fueled greater political interest by American workers, and in witnessing which party was on their side, interest in and membership with the Socialist and Farmer-Labor parties reached new heights. The Progressives also served to gain the most in this conversation, especially after planting itself as the sole sensible alternative to the Democrats. Senators Joseph Robinson (D-AK) and Gifford Pinchot (P-PA) also had pushed for federal regulations and jobs programs in 1930-31, but these calls were rejected by the conservative majority in Congress. Speaker Garrett stated in March of 1930 that, "Congress, with my full support, shall reject any measure which would put the United States on the road to socialism."

  Henry Ford, towards the end of 1930, began calling for emergency legislation. He began to go back on his word in calling for a "hands-off" approach, and called for new protectionist laws. He exclaimed that, though he was completely against government welfare and/or public jobs programs, he would agree to sign off on any bill which would "generate lax subsidies" for those businesses which provided a 40-hour work week to their employees. The president derided those "radicals" calling for a "transformative society," and instead argued in favor of short-term adjustments.

  The president also would lose a great deal of support from middle-of-the-aisle centrist Democrats when, in September 1930, he vocally threw his full support behind the Milligan-Walsh Bill. This legislation, though it failed by over 2/3rds of the House vote, would have been the so-called "Ford Modernization Effort" so desired by the president. It would directly subsidize factory-intensive companies to hire new workers if they were currently unable to, and would expand upon the Fitzgerald-Era infrastructure programs in order to generate the need for construction/engineering labor. Democrats overwhelmingly voted against this measure in the House, and Speaker Garrett himself spoke out against the legislation, stating, "The [jobs initiative] is in its early stages...it will require further deliberation".

  Ford's critics mercilessly attacked the president for authorizing the "pseudo-socialist government jobs bill". Though it never even passed through the House, critics asserted that the president's willingness to sign the measure meant he betrayed his party's values and those of his electorate. Former Senator James Reed (D-MO) called President Ford "spineless" and that his endorsement of the "estimated $150 million program would have been the single-largest spending waste in the history of the United States." Critics from other parties had been even harsher on the president.

  The failure of the Milligan-Walsh Bill to pass had two direct consequences. First had been the agitation of the Left Democratic Coalition as led by one of the bill's co-authors, Senator Walsh (D-MA). The LDC and Walsh had halfheartedly endorsed Henry Ford for president after he received the party's nomination, and through 1929 and 1930 agreed to cooperate with the party's mainstream in solving the economic slump. Congress' rejection of Milligan-Walsh altered this course. Senator Walsh stated on October 5th that it was due primarily to President Ford's "difficulty" dealing with Democratic leaders in Congress that he could not rally support for the bill when Ford himself endorsed it. From this point on, the LDC would trend towards Progressive voting patterns, and would routinely call for a new House Speaker election.

  Second, and far more significantly, the labor movement became reinvigorated as it never before had been.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #213 on: February 11, 2016, 04:19:36 PM »


The First of Many Detroit Hunger Marches, 1930

  One article in The Daily Worker transcribed the failure of Milligan-Walsh as yet another "chain in the link of broken promises from Washington plutocracy." This article, and much of the Socialist Party itself, offered the opinion that President Ford's last-minute endorsement of the bill was a means to save face, citing wholesale Democratic rejection in Congress as proof that the party had been against the idea of a public program from the start.

  In the first of many 'hunger marches,' this one in Detroit, union leaders and left-activists stated to local press that the establishment had no qualms watching the poor starve. One man was quoted in saying, "These shills would see us die if it satisfied their lust for power." Weeks later, Detroit police would mow down a similar striking demonstration via machine gun, killing four and wounding more than 60. It was later discovered that some of the "police" were in fact security guards employed by the Ford Motor Company. President Ford would give just one statement on the matter: "Stay off the streets," and allow for city officials to work out the issues. This was, perhaps, not the greatest answer.

  Bill after bill was rejected in the Democratic Congress, from Progressive legislation designed to outlaw yellow-dog contracts to Socialist ones looking to guarantee collective bargaining as a basic right. This propelled the narrative that the upper-class (chiefly politicians and those wealthiest in America) had no intention of lessening the damage caused by the ever-worsening Depression. Throughout the latter half of 1930, workers all across the country came to the conclusion that they needed to fight  for the fulfillment of their basic rights and more suitable working conditions on their own.

  From 1930 to 1933, strikes broke out in all corners of the nation: from Sacramento agricultural workers to Tennessee coal miners, from New York newspapermen to Chicago marble setters. Reinforced by the SP and other left-wing radical pro-union organizations, hundreds of thousands of workers refused to work until their demands be met. Many of these individuals had starving families while others had been recently fired, yet their determination lingered on. The Socialist Party, as reported in the Washington Post, spent more of its own campaign funds on family assistance and urban shelter programs than re-election campaigns for the 1930 midterms.

  Both the Socialist Party as well as the pro-Trotsky Communist League of America had a definitive hand in these work stoppages. Just as the IWW had during the May Uprising, the SP and the CLA focused intently on organizing and radicalizing these workers, driving forward the narrative that each struggle against exploitation had been linked with the next. New York labor activist Norman Thomas, during an address to "Relief Demonstrators" in Manhattan, proclaimed, "What we must fight for is beyond this or that local achievement... We fight for a system in which human need is met through fair cooperation and genuine Marxian economics." Thomas also claimed that, "Congressional stalls are no accident," suggesting purposeful inactivity in Washington.

  This message that the system as a whole was corrupt, that Washington was deliberately acting against the working class, and most importantly, that the Depression was caused and perpetuated by capitalist greed gained credibility amongst American workers. Political scientists had been claiming for years that 'socialism' as an idea and practice was contracting as a political phenomenon. The crash drove a nail into this theory, and as would be exemplified by political activities and new movements in France and Germany, a global "Red Tide" was rushing forward.
Logged
NeverAgain
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,659
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #214 on: February 11, 2016, 07:29:59 PM »

Prime Minister Thälmann, though he had been personally opposed to the death penalty, nonetheless ordered the execution of NSDAP leader Adolf Hitler: an order which was carried out on January 31st, 1933.

#plottwist
Poor artist.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #215 on: February 12, 2016, 05:39:35 PM »

1930 Congressional Elections  

Senate
Progressive: 34 (+4)
Democratic: 29 (-8)
Socialist: 11 (+2)
Whig: 9 (-2)
Nationalist: 8 (+1)
Farmer-Labor: 5 (+3)

House
Progressive: 152 (+32)
Democratic: 148 (-52)
Socialist: 62 (+16)
Nationalist: 44 (+2)
Farmer-Labor: 15 (+13)
Whig: 14 (-11)


 Senate Leadership

Majority Leader William E. Borah (P-ID)
Sen. Minority Leader Carter Glass (D-VA)
Sen. Minority Leader Ashley G. Miller (S-NV)
Sen. Minority Leader James E. Watson (W-IN)
Sen. Minority Leader Lawrence C. Phipps (N-CO)
Farmer-Labor delegation caucuses w/ SP


 House of Representatives Leadership

Speaker William Stephens (P-CA)
Minority Leader Finis J. Garrett (D-TN)
Minority Leader Upton Sinclair (S-CA)
Minority Leader T. Jeff Busby (N-MS)
Minority Leader Erling Swenson (FL-MN), caucus w/ SP
Minority Leader Frederick Gillett (W-MA)


  The class of senators up for re-election this year had last contested in 1924: a year signified as a 'Leap for Progressives' and the beginning of the end for the Republicans. President McAdoo had won an easy re-election for president, carrying with him the establishment Democrats which continued to reign supreme in Congress: 43 Senators and 204 Representatives.

  1930 was a whole new ballgame. The storm of the Depression brought with it a crushing reality that the Democrats put nothing in place to ensure employment stability in any regard. President Ford, though endorsing one or two policies which did not pass Congress, was perceived by the general electorate as a business savvy, yet do-nothing, leader. The institution of the Smoot Hawley Tariff proved hugely damaging for the nation's economy, meaning many Congressmen who voted for it were ousted.

  As a result, Congress had a change of scenery. The Democrats were demolished in the House, losing 52 seats, and were hit hard once more in Senate, losing eight seats. In both cases, the Progressive Party picked up these former Democratic seats, and with them, took the majority for the first time. Senator William E. Borah was now designated the Senate Majority Leader and Rep. William Stephens was chosen as the new House Speaker. Knowing very well the election year ahead, both Borah and Stephens needed progress very soon.

  There had also been a handful of surprises state-wide. The Senator of Louisiana, John M. Parker, a Progressive, took a great deal of damage for his refusal to sign off on any bill seeking to lessen the Depression fallout. One of many opponents, Socialist Huey Long, struck hard at Senator Parker, and declared that any man willing to serve the people in Congress, "must first be willing to serve." The candidate said that he would consider endorsing Milligan-Walsh, in addition to more constructive legislation establishing "basic rights for both working and unemployed Americans." Long won the election with 40% over Senator Parker and two Democratic challengers.

  Furnifold Simmons (D-NC), a conservative Democrat, became emblematic of what occurred in many of the Southern states in 1930. Simmons was an Old Guard Democrat from North Carolina, serving since William McKinley was president, and had been expected to once again sweep the state in the election. Former Democrat, Josiah W. Bailey, Nationalist activist and state representative, took up the charge against Simmons for his override of the president's veto for the tariff increase. Simmons lost 40-60 to Bailey. Other races like this seemed to indicate a sudden disappearance in the Solid South.

  
Senators Elected in 1930 (Class 2)
John H. Bankhead II (FL-AL): Farmer-Labor Gain w/ 55%
Joseph T. Robinson (D-AK): Democratic Hold w/ 50%
Lawrence C. Phipps (N-CO): Nationalist Hold w/ 60%
T. Coleman du Pont (P-DE): Progressive Hold w/ 60%
John S. Wood (N-GA): Nationalist Gain w/ 50%
William E. Borah (P-ID): Progressive Hold w/ 100%
Carl R. Chindblom (P-IL): Progressive Hold w/ 55%
L.M. Shaw (P-IA): Progressive Hold w/ 50%
Arthur Capper (P-KS): Progressive Hold w/ 70%
John M. Robison (W-KY): Whig Gain w/ 45%
Huey Long (S-LA): Socialist Gain w/ 40%
Louis J. Brann (P-ME): Progressive Gain w/ 50%
David I. Walsh (D-MA): Democratic Hold w/ 60%
Thomas A.E. Weadock (P-MI): Progressive Gain w/ 45%
Ernest Lundeen (FL-MN): Farmer-Labor Gain w/ 45%
Pat Harrison (D-MS): Democratic Hold w/ 50%
Elmer Holt (S-MT): Socialist Gain w/ 50%
George W. Norris (P-NE): Progressive Hold w/ 60%
Henry W. Keyes (N-NH): Nationalist Hold w/ 55%
Alexander Simpson (P-NJ): Progressive Gain w/ 45%
Herbert B. Holt (P-NM): Progressive Gain w/ 50%
Josiah W. Bailey (N-NC): Nationalist Gain w/ 60%
William B. Pine (P-OK): Progressive Hold w/ 45%
F.E. Coulter (P-OR): Progressive Hold w/ 50%
Jesse H. Metcalf (N-RI): Nationalist Gain w/ 50%
Charles C. Coalfield (FL-SC): Farmer-Labor Gain w/ 45%
Tom Ayres (P-SD): Progressive Hold w/ 60%
Cordell Hull (P-TN): Progressive Gain w/ 60%
Morris Sheppard (D-TX): Democratic Hold w/ 70%
Carter Glass (D-VA): Democratic Hold w/ 50%
James E. Jones (P-WV): Progressive Gain w/ 45%
Robert D. Carey (P-WY): Progressive Gain w/ 60%
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #216 on: February 13, 2016, 06:31:53 PM »


The "Scottsboro Boys" Meet Attorney Samuel Leibowitz

  Much to the detriment of the entire Democratic Party, President Henry Ford was, slowly but surely, becoming known as the Depression President. As Ford supporters would latch onto for years to come, the stage was indeed set for an economic meltdown at some inopportune time. The last decade of financial deregulation, following the TR Decade of semi-regulation, prepared no other outcome for the economy. As these supporters claimed, Ford just happened to be that unlucky president to preside over the economic crash. Most of the American public disagreed with this notion.

  It was hard to debate in 1930-31 against the idea that deregulation had allowed for the insider trading and artificial raising of stock prices to occur. Many die-hard conservatives who had been sold into the "self-equilibrating powers of the market" were losing influence to those who called for either a protectionist system or something more radical. President Ford, though by 1931 was changing up his tone quite a bit in favor of some protectionist legislation, was lumped in with the establishment Democrats who did little to prevent the Depression from occurring, and more significantly, were standing against those solutions offered in Congress.

  Ford himself would struggle to regain a foothold with the public after the disastrous 1930 midterm elections, a cycle which had overturned twenty years of Democratic dominance (these failures were chiefly blamed on the president). He vetoed two bills approved of by the Progressive-dominant Congress in early 1931: one which sought to establish new financial regulations on Wall Street and another which would have established a welfare-assistance program for those living in poverty. Henry Ford, along with those Democrats who rallied against these measures, claimed that they would too haphazardly expand the federal government and that the financial bill would unfairly reprimand more than just the few "bad apples".

  The Daily Worker responded to this move by the president, calling his veto "completely unforgivable" and referring to the upcoming presidential election as "one of referendum against this ruthless tyrant of a president." This point of view was not limited to the Left, with a handful of moderate publications speaking out against President Ford. Journalist Oswald Villard wrote that the president's position was "nothing less than tragic," and that, "Not in my thirty-four years of journalistic experience has any President so failed to impress or to win the public."

  More and more of the Democratic Party would separate themselves from the president, especially the Left Democratic Coalition which voted 9 times out of 10 with the new Progressive majority. Those within the LDC often became the first to call for an override against the president and were noted in their symbolic refusal to vote in favor of Speaker Garrett for re-election. Senator Pomerene (D-OH), a recent member of the coalition, became known nationally in the spring of 1931 when he stated, "I do not endorse the actions President Ford, I refuse to join in any coalition with President Ford, and I condemn the sheer inhumanity and un-American activity of President Ford."

  President Ford, relinquishing another opportunity to win over critical support, refused to give a statement regarding the "Scottsboro Boys": nine black teenagers accused of raping two white women. This had been a major story in 1931, and once more, as Barney Tapper wrote in the Chicago Tribune, "The President was nowhere to be found." With hardly a shred of evidence for the prosecution, Southern 'Jim Crow' justice demanded the black teenagers be put to death for this alleged rape.

  Alabama courts would have seen this play out as such, but a massive protest organized by the Socialist Party called for a nationwide stand against this injustice. The party's stance against Jim Crow racial intolerance had been the first of any major political party since the Reconstruction policies of the Republicans, and was highly controversial as a result. Yet party leaders stuck to it. The Socialist Party led national demonstrations, primarily based in Harlem, and funded a campaign to mount a defense of the accused. The Progressive Party lost a great deal of support in June of 1931 when House Speaker Stephens refused to comment on the controversy.

  Pressure would gradually expand until two huge events took place. One, a statement was released from one of the alleged rape-victims, Ruby Bates, admitting the police forced her to lie on the matter. Two, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in 1932 to examine the details. This case later became known as Powell v. Alabama and, eventually, the court would overturn the convictions. This had been a landmark decision for not only the courts, but for the political establishment and general demographic trends. The Progressives and the Democrats did not voice any objection to the Alabama ruling while the Socialists (later supported by the Farmer-Labor Party) voiced coordinated dissent.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #217 on: February 14, 2016, 03:14:51 PM »


Secretary Garner's Resignation Had Some Question the Viability of the Ford Administration

Chapter Twelve: The Election of 1932: A New Deal for the American People

  As reports came out that the tariff bump had worsened the economy and industrial production was reaching new lows, the traditionally Democratic establishment began gearing up to oust Henry Ford. The president had previously followed the insistence of the J.P. Morgan banking empire and refused any reflationary policies. Back in early 1930, this had been the dominant call from Wall Street: that no protectionist measures be enacted and to continue down the road laissez-faire economics. Less than a year later, Ford's tone changed dramatically, and he began halfheartedly endorsing the mildest of reforms.

  President Henry Ford declared that he would be running for re-election in November of 1931. He announced that he would be competing as a moderate, in the same spirit as McAdoo had, and argued for the reinstating of the Democratic majority in Congress. Ford would state, "stability had been attained" under Presidents Fitzgerald and McAdoo, and a return to this "Democratic Stability" could only take place with a Democrat in the White House. Ford would rally behind "market-friendly" legislation to remedy the economy, and continuously reject any possibilities of clear-cut compromise with the "uncompromising" Progressives.

  Pundits had offered the notion in mid-1930 that Henry Ford was becoming the Democrats' Philander Knox. Both Ford and Knox had succeeded enormously popular presidents, each had lost their party's majority in Congress, and each vowed strict allegiance to market forces and the wealthiest Americans. Secretary John Garner resigned on December 10th, 1931, at the insistence of President Ford. Apparently the two disagreed fundamentally on how to repair the economy, but Garner began publicly speaking out against the incumbent much like State Secretary La Follette had when he resigned. In the midst of the election, Garner would famously call Ford, "about as insightful as John Taylor Adams and as effective as Phil Knox."

  The House of Morgan, a firm which had gone from supporting the Republicans to supporting Ford in 1928, backed away from the president when he started giving credence to federal regulations. Liberal Democrats in the LDC had long since walked away from President Ford, and there had been speculation that a separate candidacy would come into existence. Most moderates in the party still stood by Henry Ford, albeit reluctantly. Only the most conservative Democrats had been enthusiastically supporting the re-election of Henry Ford, and this demographic was slipping away with the Solid South.

  Still, Henry Ford did have the advantage of incumbency, as well as the financial backing of the largest political party in the United States and the private reassurance of former President McAdoo that the nation would stick with the Democrats. Regardless of any endorsements and financial supremacy, it took votes to elect a president. Judging by the state of the economy and the opinion of the mainstream press, these votes were headed to other candidates.

  Lloyd Russell, a journalist for the New York Times, wrote in November of 1928 that it would take, "a public policy disaster of unparalleled proportions to overturn the fixed Democratic presence in our republic." Russell, precisely three years later, published a piece highlighting the missteps of the Ford Administration entitled, "Unparalleled Proportions."
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #218 on: February 15, 2016, 03:11:18 PM »


Frontrunners for the 1932 Progressive Nomination: Roosevelt and Hoover

  The recipient for the fall of the Democratic rule had been the Progressive Party. Upon winning majorities in both the House and Senate in 1930, the party was greeted as a true 'voice of the people' against the comfortable, upper-class Democratic establishment. For a long time, the Progressives had been calling for federal regulations and a social insurance program, since way back under President Roosevelt. Not until 1929 did it become clear just how necessary such restrictions on Wall Street were.

   A plethora of Progressive candidates jumped in the race towards winter 1931. Everyone wanted a shot at the much-speculated "Progressive Government" of 1933. As each of these candidates would argue, keeping Congress Progressive would guarantee major reforms took place should someone from their party win the presidency. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Hiram Johnson had a difficult time passing legislation through because of the Democratic Congress. As the Bull Moose Party was expected to retain (or even expand upon) its 1930 gains, whomever would win in November would have the means to fulfill his mandate.

  Herbert Hoover was the first to announce his candidacy. Hoover, since 1928, worked with his Progressive colleagues in Congress to push through regulatory measures he himself initially proposed during his presidential campaign. He was as well-known as ever in 1932, yet the sour taste from his campaign-crushing RNC endorsement left many wanting more. Knowing Hoover was not an inevitability, Representative Franck R. Havenner (P-CA) also would declare his intention to dethrone Henry Ford.

  Hoover and Havenner would later be joined by Rep. Raymond Haight, Senator Burton K. Wheeler, and Governor Alfred Landon (P-KS). Each of these individuals would find some time in the national spotlight with their varying proposals for the nation. Landon, especially, would find a great deal of support from the business class in the industrial Midwest. Other big names like Senator Charles Curtis and Speaker William Stephens refused to run.

  Then came the serious competitor to Hoover's frontrunner status. On February 15th, Governor Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., of New York declared that he would be running for the presidency. Roosevelt was described often as a "rising star" within the party, and had masterfully mediated between the left and right-wings of the New York Progressives as governor. He instituted the nation's first modern Labor Standards Act and fended off Socialist challengers on multiple occasions: including a fierce 1930 fight with Rep. Norman Thomas (S-NY) which ended in a near-stalemate.

  Roosevelt proclaimed that if elected, he would do everything in his power to "bring an expedient end" to the Depression. The governor endorsed Progressive legislation calling for an increased income tax and internationally-friendly trade, claiming that any and all federal revenue would be utilized in a new public jobs program. Roosevelt decried President Ford as a "swell-hearted man with simply too much on his plate." He would charge against the president quite fiercely, yet keep prime his positive campaign message.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #219 on: February 15, 2016, 07:46:11 PM »


Calvin Coolidge Retained His Popularity in 1932

  Regarding the Nationalist Party, they managed to rise in popularity after the Depression in a similar fashion to how the EIP did so. Leaders of the Nationalist Party, including junior Senator Benjamin L. Young (N-MA), copied much of the language utilized by the EIP in 1930-32 in regards to their theory of national rebirth. Senator Young, in 1932, would state in relation to the election, "...now we must choose our path. The road paved with liberty or the road of debt, disaster, and bankruptcy." Young would promptly endorse Calvin Coolidge for president.

  Coolidge had remained in the public eye throughout the early Depression years, appearing often in public demonstrations against the president. The former Massachusetts governor had joined with fellow Nationalists Irénée du Pont and John J. Raskob to found the American Liberty League: a "bipartisan" coalition made to uphold values ingrained within the American Right. The League would coordinate with the Nationalist Party to fund a number of candidates in the '30 and '32 elections, including Rep. John Stille of Pennsylvania.

  Stille had gained some recognition when he competed with Senator Walsh in the Democratic primary, only to go on to win a House seat as a Nationalist candidate. He would act as an effective microphone for Calvin Coolidge, espousing many of his campaign themes on the House floor. Stille, during a seven-hour filibuster, called for a concise "referendum on liberal democracy." This was a direct quote from Frank Lowden.

  Coolidge announced that he would once more seek presidency in March of 1932. He would run a hard-right campaign: pushing for the impeachment of President Henry Ford and demanding a restarted, "Blank Slate" Congress. The message for the Coolidge Campaign would be "Common Sense Laws for a Common Sense Country." This idea, later solidified in his party's '32 platform (the Nationalist Principles), called for a streamlined government, investments in mass media, and the establishment of a new federal agency to oversee the "eternal defense of American freedom and ingenuity." Basing much of his goals on the EIP, Coolidge stated that no man apart from Tommy Moran could fix the shambles of the British economy.

  Coolidge had also gotten friendly with the leadership of the Whig Party, eventually receiving the endorsement of the 1928 Whig presidential nominee, Senator James Watson. The Whigs as a whole would come to rally around Calvin Coolidge, eventually endorsing the candidate at the Whig Convention in August. Then, roughly a week later, the Republican National Committee would also endorse Coolidge. This cross-party candidate would turn out to be one of the most well-funded candidates of all time.

  The nominee-apparent was the sole candidate preaching economic conservatism this cycle, and it became evident at the Nationalist Party Convention when John Garner himself endorsed Calvin Coolidge, that he was drawing in new support from Southern Democrats. On June 5th in Sacramento, the Councilors got together once more and designated Coolidge as the Nationalist nominee for president. With new campaign promises to outlaw left-wing political organizations, expand the military sector, and boost the power of the U.S. executive branch substantially, Coolidge had roaring approval when he spoke.

NATIONALIST BALLOT1st Call9 COUNCILORS
Calvin Coolidge9

NATIONALIST BALLOT1st Call9 COUNCILORS
Benjamin Young4
Henry W. Keyes2
T. Jeff Busby2
John Stille1
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #220 on: February 16, 2016, 06:26:44 PM »


Representative Norman Thomas (S-NY)

  The Socialists had more of a competitive contest for their party's nomination than they had in many years. Representative and Minority Leader Upton Sinclair, who won 48 Electoral Votes and 16% of the Popular Vote in 1928, stated that he wished to allow for others to run in his stead. He claimed that he would be glad to run alongside a well-fitted campaigner, nonetheless. Senator Earl Browder (S-NV) announced his candidacy for president, as did Benjamin Gitlow, trade unionist James H. Maurer, and organizer William Z. Foster.

  Each of these candidates represented starkly differing tendencies within the party and on the American Left in general. Maurer trended in the Old-Guard line within the Socialist Party, believing the unionizing movement should be accelerated and remain the focal point of the SP. Gitlow and Foster were Loyalists who stood by Soviet leader Josef Stalin and advocated similar centralization and modernization efforts for America.

  John Reed, now serving as a Congressman from New York, during one of the Sacco and Vanzetti protest marches, stated that if he could handpick any person to be president, it would be Earl Russell Browder. Reed assisted now-Senator Browder greatly in his Nevada Senate race, as did Minority Leader Ashley Miller. Browder had been well known in Socialist circles, and he quickly became the new frontrunner for the nomination. However, a statement he released in September 1930 regarding the Soviet Union revealed his personal favoring towards Trotsky.

  Browder's statement unearthed a divisive wound within the Socialist Party. Debate between Browder, Foster, Gitlow and Maurer had been fierce and personal, and it lasted through the spring and into June. By the convention it became less about the candidates' differing doctrinal policies and more about experience and electability. There was no doubting that the party was losing great deal of momentum to the Progressives in recent years, and now with the rise of the Nationalists, even left-wing pundits were referring to the 1928 election as the "likely final high point" for American third parties.

  Regardless of this internal doubt and frustration, the Socialist Convention turned out to be the largest yet of any prior third party. Taking place in New York City, the streets were packed with activists and organizers seeking entrance. By 1932, an estimated 75% of the population was poverty-stricken, with an even higher number for minorities. The financial system built-up over many years by the Democrats, once called "impenetrable" by The Wall Street Journal, had failed in a thundering crash. To these starving, commonly unemployed, workers, revolutionary or democratic socialism seemed a brighter solution than depending on the benevolent forces of modern capital.

  Therefore, the Socialist Convention focused far more heavily on the theme of "class power versus the bourgeoisie" than scientific Marxism or issues pertaining to the Comintern. To be certain, the debate occurring on the first day was lengthy and forceful, and none of the delegates had held back to showcase some sort of joint-party unity as the major parties were so intent on accomplishing. Gitlow, who had eventually dropped out and endorsed Foster, debated frequently with John Reed regarding Stalin vs. Trotsky on their varying programmes. In contrast, Maurer denounced both ideas as "bastardizations of Marxist theory" and pushed forward the idea of "American socialism, not international communism."

  Roll call after roll call ended in no avail, with much of the party stuck between Foster's aggressive syndicalism and Senator Browder's call for a united front against far-right tendencies. After two days and sixteen calls, NY Rep. Norman Thomas took the floor and endorsed Upton Sinclair for president. He stated that the only cure for disunity was the "rightful successor" to the legacy left by Eugene Debs, and Sinclair would be the long sought-after means to fulfill President Fitzgerald's Age of Understanding.

  Rep. Sinclair finally agreed to be nominated for president, and he was chosen on the seventeenth ballot. Sinclair gave a brief, yet powerful statement on the dangers of sectarianism and the truths espoused by each candidate. He would complete his acceptance speech by quoting Debs' 1897 letter to the ARU, proclaiming, "The issue is Socialism versus Capitalism. I am for Socialism because I am for humanity. We have been cursed with the reign of gold long enough. Money constitutes no proper basis of civilization. The time has come to regenerate society — we are on the eve of universal change."

SOCIALIST BALLOT1st Call5th Call10th Call15th Call16th Call17th Call1088 DELEGATES
Upton Sinclair2022213280992
Earl Browder43145043345539966
William Foster43544041044239328
James Maurer2071712231592162
OTHERS/BLANK551000

SOCIALIST BALLOT1st Call1088 DELEGATES
Norman Thomas1088
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #221 on: February 18, 2016, 02:38:35 PM »


Speculated VP Nominee, Governor Alf Landon

  The Progressive contest narrowed during the summer, as polls demonstrated the field was split primarily between Herbert Hoover and Theodore Roosevelt. There was a definite division between those who supported Roosevelt's call for a federal jobs program and Hoover's more moderate "conscientious" progressivism. Hoover followed more in the tendency of President Ford that, although it was necessary for the government to act, the entire financial system was not at fault. Roosevelt did not hesitate to blame the unregulated banking industry for pushing the whole system into collapse.

  Representatives Raymond Haight and Franck Havenner would back out of the contest and endorse Hoover in early May, while Senator Wheeler eventually endorsed Governor Roosevelt. Taking notes from Secretary La Follette's ability to frame his opponents in a negative light while not seeming overtly defensive, Roosevelt routinely lashed out at Hoover's "lack of real political experience" and his "bought and sold" candidacy in '28. Hoover did not respond strongly to this accusation, not really having any defense for his change of tone four years earlier.

  Former President and current House member Hiram Johnson (P-CA) formally endorsed Roosevelt for president as the former spoke at a stop in San Francisco. Johnson stated that Roosevelt would promptly bring about the, "third Progressive administration" in United States history, and (taking a jab at his own legacy), "perhaps the single most productive." As the second Progressive president, Johnson's endorsement did hold a lot of weight to it, yet not until the National Convention did the matter finally settle.

  At the Chicago Stadium on June 14th, the Progressive National Convention opened its doors. There had been quite a bit of hype surrounding this convention because of its expectation to crown a winner, similarly to the '24 and '28 DNCs. Liberal foundations supported the Progressive Convention financially, including personal contributions from several governors and Congressmen. The party platform, almost identical to its 1928 version, provided statures to nationalize the rail industry and creating strict regulations on Wall Street. Both Hoover and Roosevelt supported the platform with open arms.

  The two chief competitors, along with Alf Landon, built-up sizable delegations and readied for the fight. Hoover, however, misjudged the long-term affect of Johnson's endorsement of Roosevelt. As the former president heavily supported Hoover in 1928 (prior to nomination), a collection of left-leaning New York Times articles had openly speculated that perhaps the Hoover Campaign was "up to its old tricks" when it came to trustworthiness and reliability that it would not be bought-out by the RNC or any other conservative group. The party delegates were not about to let their coveted nomination fall into the hands of someone like that.

  Therefore, Roosevelt won on the second ballot. The nominee personally invited Governor Landon to be his running mate, and the delegates followed suit.

PROGRESSIVE BALLOT1st Call2nd Call2080 DELEGATES
Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.10331431
Herbert Hoover691419
Alfred Landon277180
OTHERS/BLANK7950

PROGRESSIVE BALLOT1st Call2080 DELEGATES
Alfred Landon2056
Burton K. Wheeler13
Raymond Haight4.5
Gifford Pinchot4
OTHERS/BLANK2.5
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #222 on: February 18, 2016, 09:54:49 PM »


Franklin Roosevelt's Sudden Upsurge at the DNC Shook the Establishment

  On June 27th in Chicago, the Democratic National Convention began. Throughout the summer, though not everyone in the Democratic Party had supported him, Henry Ford ran unopposed. For instance, the Southern Democrats were quite open in their support of the Nationalist Party, as per John Garner. The Texan Democrat himself boycotted the convention in order to portray his anger and dissatisfaction with the president and the establishment. On the other side, the Left Democratic Coalition attended the convention in full, yet refused to allow for Ford to win the party's nomination so easily.

  Leading to the convention, Ford himself carried the endorsements of former Governor Al Smith of New York, former Secretary James Cox, and former President McAdoo. Henry Ford easily held the moderate establishment in tow, yet actual support was sorely lacking. Most every demographic which had once been attracted to the energy of William J. Bryan and John Fitzgerald fizzled out in '32. Farmers, progressives, minorities, intellectuals, and industrial workers stepped away from the Democrats and President Ford, regardless of who would endorse him.

  Therefore, when the Left Democrats announced that they would be promoting Representative Franklin D. Roosevelt (D-NY) as a challenge to the president, the convention delegates awoke. Franklin Roosevelt had previously served as Navy Secretary to his father-in-law and since 1929 led the House branch of the LDC. Roosevelt fought to introduce minor liberals elements into the Democratic Party, including the move to create temporary job programs and place regulations on financing. It had been, in part, thanks to Rep. Roosevelt that New York stayed the course in 1928 in voting for President Henry Ford, yet now in 1932, he referred to the lackluster incumbent as a "deer in headlights".

  Ford's establishment sect and the LDC debated fiercely on the party platform, yet the conservative leadership retained much of the text of the traditional platform: that the Democrats would stick to their free-market stance, anti-tariff policies, and continued support for law enforcement in regards to Prohibition. The Ford delegation underestimated the power of the grassroots FDR movement, and for ballot upon ballot, neither candidate reached the necessary nominating threshold.

DEMOCRATIC BALLOT1st Call2nd Call3rd Call4th Call5th Call6th Call1097 DELEGATES
Henry Ford726704701695703839
Franklin D. Roosevelt321367376381383254
OTHERS/BLANK50262021114

  This sudden challenge to his reign was an embarrassment to the president. It took six ballots until President Ford finally (through what some speculate to be a 'backroom deal') won over the Californian delegation and reached enough votes to be nominated. FDR possessed highly committed liberal delegates from the coastal states, and they only backed down at the bequest of their candidate. The president was forced to move slightly to the left, going as far as to promote some sort of minor regulations in his acceptance speech and recommend Franklin Roosevelt be his vice presidential candidate, before the demoralized LDC backed down. In the end, incumbent Vice President John W. Davis, was renominated over Roosevelt in a 2-to-1 margin.

  Ford left the DNC in absolute shambles. He defended himself from the Left Democrats, but only barely. His image as an incompetent, unpopular establishment politician was already well ingrained in the American psyche, and the events of the national convention confirmed this perception as reality.
Logged
Pyro
PyroTheFox
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,696
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #223 on: February 19, 2016, 05:23:12 PM »


The Bonus Army

  As the three non-incumbent presidential candidates began going all-in with their campaigns, President Henry Ford struggled to follow through with his administration. Congress stumped every program proposed by the Democrats while the president rallied against Sinclair and Roosevelt as men who desired the United States to fall into a budget deficit. In this era where a growing percentage of the population had fallen into poverty, the public deficit was the least critical issue.

  In the summer of 1932, another catastrophe broke open for the Ford Administration. A law passed several years earlier under President McAdoo guaranteed that veterans of the Great War would receive compensation of $1 per day ($1.25 for overseas service) for their service, beginning in 1945. The Depression increased the urgency of these veterans, and many began demanding Congress authorize more immediate compensation as to counteract the effects of the Depression.

  After President Ford declared he would veto any bonus bill which should pass in the Progressive Congress, several veterans began organizing a march on Washington to demand their needs be met. Led primarily by Socialist Party activist James R. Cox, this group carried enough momentum within some short weeks to where the press began referring to the gathering as the 'Bonus Expeditionary Force.' Traveling by the thousands, these men, diverse in age and ethnicity, made their way to the nation's capital where they forged camps and temporary housing.

  On June 15th, the House passed the updated bonus bill, yet the Senate was not expected to approve the measure. Tens of thousands encircled the capital in dozens of camps by this point, and President Ford readied the National Guard to clear the squatters. A handful of military personnel, including alleged socialist-sympathizer George S. Patton, stood on the opposite side of the president, stating that only a "bastard with a heart of steel" could refuse to compensate these servicemen. Within a week, onlookers estimated that 25,000 veterans made it to Washington.

  On July 28th, Attorney General Homer S. Cummings ordered that all property belonging to the federal government be vacated (contrary to the president's request that the buildings first be cleared out). Utilizing fixed bayonets and tear gas, forces commanded by General Douglas MacArthur charged the camps, brutally forcing the eviction of the demonstrators. The general, reportedly believing this had been a plot to overthrow the government, continued to charge the veterans despite calls from the president to cease. Dozens were killed and thousands injured, many of whom were revealed to be civilians.

  President Henry Ford never spoke explicitly of the events of July 28th, but the other candidates certainly jumped on the issue. Coolidge and the Right lambasted the president for refusing to pay the veterans what they had been promised, proclaiming, "We shall settle the budget only after we justly compensate these American heroes." TR, Jr. frequently mentioned the Bonus Army when referring to his call to establish new programs to lessen the strain of poverty and reduce the chance for any other disaster like this to occur again. Representative Sinclair stated only that the lessons of the Bonus Army must enrich the movement for economic justice and the tradition of veterans' struggles in the United States.
Logged
Prince of Salem
JoMCaR
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,639
Peru


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #224 on: February 19, 2016, 10:59:05 PM »

LOL at the Proggressive ticket being "Roosevelt/Landon". Oh, the irony!
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.382 seconds with 14 queries.