Joe Lieberman: Senatorial Maverick

Joe Lieberman (born 1942 and Senator for Connecticut from 1989 to 2013), a Democrat before becoming an Independent, had support from conservative, Jewish, and Christian fundamentalists alike. He voted conservatively on some issues, but also had a liberal voting record. It was his independent conservative Democratic voting record which led to his position as Al Gore’s Jr’s. presidential running mate in 2000. It was Lieberman’s nonpartisan policies which made him a unique, memorable, long lasting, and well-respected senator. 

Daniel Boustead explains.

Joe Lieberman with President Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Joe Lieberman first ran for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut in 1988 as an observant Modern Orthodox Jew (1). This was evident because the nominating convention was on a Saturday and he could not go (1).  He accepted the nomination in a pre-recorded announcement, and it was all over the Connecticut newspapers ([1].) The fact that Joe Lieberman would not do politics on a Sabbath won wide support from both people of Jewish and Christian faith in Connecticut while running against three-term incumbent Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (1). Early in his U.S. Senate career Joe Lieberman friend, then U.S. Senator  Al Gore Jr., would turn on certain lights for Joe Lieberman when he stayed over with him at his parents’ house out of respect of Joe’s religious practice of  refraining from work on the Sabbath(17). In 1995, Joe Lieberman co-sponsored a bill called the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, calling on the President to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to the holy city of Jerusalem([2]). This bill helped garner support with Jews and Fundamentalist Christians. In 2011 Joe Lieberman co-wrote a book with David Klinghoffer  entitled The Gift of Rest: Rediscovering the Beauty of the Sabbath(3). This book showcased his religious observance in his own life and helped inspire both Jews and fundamentalist Christians. In 1988 in a Senate debate between Lieberman and liberal Republican Senator Lowell P. Weicker Jr., he said he would not sign a letter that Weicker signed demanding negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians(4). The same letter also mentioned that Israelis should follow U.N. Resolution 242 in which they would withdrawal from all Arab territories captured in the 1967 Six Day War (4). To many Christians Fundamentalists and Jews in Connecticut, Lowell P. Weicker Jr., had committed an act of sin and high treason and this helped ensure Joe Lieberman’s Senate victory. 

Cuba

Liberal Republican Senator Lowell P. Weicker Jr. admitted in a debate on October 20th, 1988 that during the time he went to Cuba and brought American hostages out, he talked with Fidel Castro about normalizing relations and ending the economic trade embargo. (4). This effectively ended Weicker’s career (4). Joseph Lieberman said of Weicker’s visits to Cuba “I know from public records that Mr. Castro gave him $100.00 worth of Cuban cigars to bring back with him” and in another quote “He has become the Senate’s No.1 patron and advocate for Fidel Castro”(4). Weicker countered that Joe Lieberman’s campaign was being financed by Cubans from Miami, Florida. This was divisive, and to which Joe Lieberman replied: “I have received some contributions from the Cuban American community because there are two people in the world today that they and I would like to see out office one is Fidel Castro and the other is his better advocate Lowell. P. Weicker Jr.”(4).  In another devastating blow the National Review and conservative host of Firing Line William F. Buckley Jr. as well as his brother former U.S. Senator of New York James Buckley, formed BuckPac to support Joe Lieberman over Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (5).  On September 2nd, 1988 William F. Buckley Jr. featured a story to showcase his support for Joe Lieberman in his National Review entitled “Does Lowell P.  Weicker Jr. Make You Sick”(5). The fact that Lowell P. Weicker Jr. was so pro-Castro alienated him from the predominately conservative Christian and republican leaning Cubans as well as Jews, the Republican establishment, and other Americans. This helped ensure Joe Lieberman’s victory.

On March 5th, 1996 Joe Lieberman was one of the 74 U.S. Senators that successfully passed the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act of 1996, which sought international sanctions against the Castro government in Cuba, to plan for support of a transition government leading to a democratically elected government in Cuba, and for other purposes (6).

Violent video games

In 1993 Senator Joe Lieberman chaired a hearing on violent video games because he was disgusted by the content of many games (7). This hearing lead to the formation of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) on September 16th, 1994, which gave a video game rating system that exists to this day. The ESRB rating system is enforced via the voluntary leverage of the North American video game and retail industries for physical releases; most stores require customers to present photo identification when purchasing games carrying the ESRB’s highest age ratings, and do not stock games which are not rated. Additionally, major console manufacturers will not license games for their systems unless they carry ESRB ratings, while console manufactures and most stores will refuse to stock games that the ESRB has rated as being appropriate for adults only (8). Joe Lieberman became a hero to parents of Christian and Jewish faiths of all political persuasions who wanted to protect their children from the effects of violent video games.

Supreme Court record

On October 2nd, 1990 Joe Lieberman voted yes to confirm David H. Souter to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (9). On September 29th, 2005 Joe Lieberman voted yes for John G. Roberts Jr. to be Chief Justice for the United States Supreme Court (10). Lieberman appeased some Connecticut conservatives, Republicans, Christian Fundamentalists, and Jews by voting yes for some conservative Supreme Court Justice nominees. 

Joe Lieberman (throughout his time in the U.S. Senate) had a pro-choice stance on abortion (11). On October 15th, 1991 Joe Lieberman voted against Clarence Thomas for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. (12).

On January 31st 2006 Joe Lieberman voted against Samuel A. Alito Jr. for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (13).  Lieberman was pro choice and voted against Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. for the U.S. Supreme Court – this was one of many reasons why he survived the tough 2006 re-election campaign as an independent for liberal and Democratic voters. This was especially the case when his Democratic opponent Ned Lamont made issue of Joe Lieberman voting yes for the authorization of force against Iraq which caused Lieberman to lose the Democratic Primary, but he still won as independent (14).

Gore and Lieberman

Joe Lieberman was critical of Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky and his voting record made Vice President Al Gore Jr. choose him as his running mate in the 2000 Presidential Election (11). Al Gore Jr. also shared his conservative democratic voting record.

In addition, Lieberman supported Gore and his wife Tipper’s efforts in the 1985 Parents Music Resource Center senate hearings to regulate explicit content on musical records (15). The Parents Music Resource Center senate hearings lead to the sticker on records to this day that state Parental Advisory Explicit Content (15).

In the 2000 presidential campaign Gore-Lieberman effort resulted winning 17% of the conservative vote (which includes conservative democrats, conservative republicans, and conservative independents) and 8% of the Republican vote (16). The fact that both men had a conservative voting record on some issues helped take away conservative and Republican voters whose votes would have gone to Bush-Cheney. Gore-Lieberman won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College.

Joseph Lieberman never apologized for his practice of Orthodox Judaism. Christian Fundamentalists, Jews, conservatives and Republicans admired him. His voting record also helped him reach republicans and conservative voters. Lieberman also still maintained his liberal base during his time in the Senate. Al Gore Jr’s. choice for him to run was an inspired choice. Joe Lieberman was the first Jewish candidate to be on either presidential party ticket.  Joseph Lieberman’s policies helped him stay relevant from 1989 to 2013. Throughout his 4 terms in the Senate, he was greatly admired by his colleagues on both sides.

What do you think of Joe Lieberman? Let us know below.

[1] Lieberman, Joe. “Joe Lieberman”. Interview by Rabbi Mark S. Golub.  L’Chayim. June 27th, .2019, jbstv.org>lchayim-senator-joe-Lieberman. 

17 Lieberman, Joe. Interview by Ed O’Keefe. The Washington Post, December 5th, 2012, www.washington.post>video>thefold>2012>12>05. Accessed 18th October 2020. 

[2] “Joseph Lieberman (1942-)”. Jewish Virtual Library. Accessed on October 5th, 2020. https://www.jewishvirtuallibary.org/joseph-lieberman.

3 Mayefsky, Chana. “Joe Lieberman: Embracing the Sabbath. Last Modified August 31st 2011. Publishers Weekly. Accessed October 7th 2020. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/religion/article/48528-joe-lieberman-embracing-the-sabbath-html.

 4 Connecticut Senatorial Candidate Debate . Sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the Hartford Courant. C-Span. October 20th, 1988. 

5 May, Clifford D. “Buckley’s Are Backing a Democrat”. Last Modified August 16th, 1988. The New York Times. Accessed on October 7th, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/16/nyregion/buckleys-are-backing-a -democrat.html

6 United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 104th Congress=2nd Session-Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 927. United States Senate. Washington D.C., 6.https://www.senate.gov/legistlative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=1047session=2&vote=00022

7 “Joe Lieberman”, Gamepeida.com, October 5th, 2020, https://gamicus.gamepedia.com/Joe_Lieberman.

8 Entertainment Software Rating Board-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board. 

9 United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 101st Congress-2nd Session-Nomination Description: David H. Souter, of New Hampshire, to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States-United States Senate-Washington, D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=2&vote=00259

10 United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 109th Congress-1st Session-Nomination Description: John G. Roberts Jr., of Maryland to be Chief Justice of the United States- United States Senate-Washington, D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legistlative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245

11 “Joseph Lieberman”. On the Issues.org. Accessed on October 5th, 2020. https://www.ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm  

12 United States Senate-Roll Call Vote 102nd Congress-1st Session-Nomination Description: Clarence Thomas, of Georgia, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States- United States Senate- Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00220

13 United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 109th Congress-2nd Session-Nomination Description: Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States-United States Senate-Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legistlative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002

14 United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 107th Congress-2nd Session-On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114)-United States Senate-Washingotn D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

15 Grow, Kory. “Tipper Gore Reflects on PMRC 30 Years Later”. Last Modified September 14th, 2015. Rolling Stone. Accessed on October 6th, 2020. https://www.rollingstone.com/politcs/politcs-news/tipper-gore-reflects-on-pmrc-30-years-later-57862/

16 “How Groups Voted in 2000”. Cornell University-Roper Center, October 6th, 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20180213193326/https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2000/

References

Connecticut Senatorial Candidate Debate. Sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the Hartford Courant. C-Span.October 20th, 1988.

Entertainment Software Rating Board-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board. 

Grow, Kory. “Tipper Gore Reflects on the PMRC 30 Years Later”. Last Modified September 14th, 2015. Rolling Stone. Accessed on October 6th, 2020. https://www.rollingstone.com/politcs/politics-news/tipper-gore-reflects-on-pmrc-30-years-later-57862/

“How Groups Voted in 2000”. Cornell University-Roper Center, October 6th, 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20180213193326/https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2000/

“Joe Lieberman”, Gamepedia.com, October 5th, 2020, https://gamicus.gamepedia.com/Joe_Lieberman

“Joseph Lieberman (1942-)”. Jewish Virtual Library. Accessed on October 5th, 2020. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-lieberman.

Lieberman, Joe. “Joe Lieberman”. Interview by Rabbi Mark S. Golub.  L’Chayim, June 27th, 2019, jbstv.org>lchayim-senator-joe-lieberman

“Joseph Lieberman”. On the Issues.org. Accessed on October 5th, 2020. https://www.ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

Lieberman, Joe. Interview by Ed O’Keefe. The Washington Post, December 5th, 2012, www.washington.post>video>thefold>2012>12>05. Accessed 18th October 2020. 

May, Clifford D. “Buckley’s Are Backing a Democrat?”. Last Modified August 16th, 1988. The New York Times. Accessed on October 7th, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/16/nyregion/buckleyes-are-backing-a-democrat.html

Mayefsky, Chana. “Joe Lieberman: Embracing the Sabbath. Last Modified August 31st, 2011. Publishers Weekly. Accessed on October 7th, 2020. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/relgion/article/48528-joe-lieberman-embracing-the-sabbath-html.

United States Senate-Roll Call Vote 109th Congress-2nd Session-Nomination Description: Samuel A. Alito J, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States-United States Senate-Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002

United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 104th Congress-2nd Session-Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 927. United States Senate. Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00022

United States Senate-Roll Call Vote 107th Congress -2nd Session-On the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114)-United States Senate-Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

United States Senate-Roll Call Vote 109th Congress-1st Session-Nomination Description: John G. Roberts Jr., of Maryland to be Chief Justice of the United States-United States Senate-Washington D.C, https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245

United States Senate-Roll Call Vote 101st Congress-2nd Session-Nomination Description: David H. Souter, of New Hampshire, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States-United States Senate-Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=2&vote=00259

United States Senate- Roll Call Vote 102nd Congress-1st Session-Nomination Description: Clarence Thomas, of Georgia, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States-United States Senate-Washington D.C., https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00220.

The Life of One of the 20th Century’s Great Writers: George Orwell

George Orwell, or Eric Blair as he was officially known, was one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. His novels, most famous of which are 1984 and Animal Farm, still remain popular and very relevant. Here, Douglas Reid tells us about Orwell’s life and the books he wrote.

A digitally colorised picture of George Orwell, c. 1940. Source Cassowary Colorizations, available here.

There never was an English writer named George Orwell, at least a legal one. The man the world knows as George Orwell was Eric Blair. His first book, “Down and Out in Paris and London”, a mostly accurate account of his tramping days, was his first attempt at a book-length literary product. The young writer was concerned that the book would flop and reflect poorly on his nascent essay-writing career. Orwell suggested that the editor use a pen name. He offered for consideration:

George Moore

George Orwell

H. Lewis Allways

The editor, Victor Gollancz, chose the name in the middle and a literary star was born. Gollancz, in later years, would state he chose the middle option because the Orwell River flows near the Blair family home in Southwold. Orwell was 31 at the time and for the rest of his life the writer would respond to either name whether in person or in correspondence. To his early friends he would always be Eric. To those who entered his life at a later date he was George. In later years friends suggested he should have his name legally changed. His standard response – “No thanks – that means going to see a lawyer and that puts me off.”

Eric Blair was the son of a British bureaucrat who, as a retiree, would shift to a domicile in Southwold, Suffolk, England. This would be young Eric’s home until going to Eton school as a scholarship boy. Tellingly, Eric was the only Etonian of his year to eschew both Oxford and Cambridge universities. Instead, to the wild surmise of family and friends, he signed on for a five-year term with the British Imperial Police. That experience led to the fictional “Burmese Days”, clearly the work of a novice. His other early work, “Down and Out in Paris and London”, is significantly better and this is no surprise. It is almost totally autobiographical, and although written before “Burmese Days” was published later. Although both were published a decade and a half earlier than “Nineteen Eighty-Four” the early directional signposts are unmistakable. 

Orwell in Myanmar and early writing

Orwell soon became aware of the unspoken central task he was expected to perform – keep the native people of Burma (Myanmar) in line. For the recalcitrant native the brutal overseer, or the policeman himself, was waiting in the shadows. “On Shooting an Elephant”, one of Orwell’s best known essays, provides fresh insight for the sensitive man of just whom is the controller and whom the controlled:

 “And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man’s dominion in the East. Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd – seemingly the leading actor of the piece but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind. I perceived at this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys.”

Although this gloomy episode and its companion piece, “A Hanging,” serve as early direction pointers on the Road to Barnhill, Orwell does provide a comic event in “Down and Out” worth re-telling. Orwell’s intention was to play the part of a down and outer. He could play the part consummately well but he was at a loss to voice the part. He had decided he wanted to experience some time in jail. Accordingly, he got himself good and swished and staggered down the street in full view of a policeman. But when the gendarme heard Orwell’s plumy Etonian tones he stopped up and he became immediately gentle and solicitous – “Sir, are you a gentleman?” And just like that the game was up.

Pogo

Orwell’s early prose concludes with his lightweight novel. “A Clergyman’s Daughter” which deals with none of the salient themes of his major works. These themes may be identified as politics and the English language, the increasing threat of the emergence of the police state, and the eradication of history. At this juncture it seems right to introduce Pogo. Pogo illustrates the distance Orwell is now leaving his contemporaries behind.

Pogo was the eponymous name of a comic strip produced by Al Capp decades ago. Pogo was an alligator who lived in a swamp. And Pogo was a kind of rural philosopher who ruled the denizens of the swamp with wit and wisdom. In the panel I have in mind Pogo is depicted standing on his tail and with one hand shielding his eyes. He is peering into the distance and he is saying:

I have seen the enemy. He is coming. And he is us.

On the trail of Orwell

I arrived one Monday morning at the University College, London, early, not much past 7 am. The only persons in sight were two public school boys wearing their crests and colors. I needed directions so I approached the boys, Alphonse and Dudley.

“Say, could you tell me where the Orwell Archives are at?” Dudley snorted as he surveyed me – t-shirt, jeans and sneakers, a provincial if he ever saw one … ”Around here, my good man we don’t end a sentence with a preposition.” Well, wasn’t I the chastised one? So, I asked again. “Say, could you direct me to where the Orwell Archives are at, horse’s ass?” Actually that is only an approximation of what I actually said but I have to get this by the editor.

Later on the same trip I was able to trace the bookshop where Orwell worked part-time after teaching school all day. He still found time to work on his new novel – book number four –“ Coming Up For Air”. It is with this book that Orwell begins to address his concerns about government control in its citizen’s lives. His protagonist is George Bowling, a middle-class insurance salesman. Bowling is tolerably happy with his marriage as well as his job but he resents a tightening pressure from both without and within. Then, predictably, he breaks away when opportunity presents itself.

Bowling finds his way to the racecourse and backs a long odds winner. His first thought is to share his windfall with his wife. But the road to freedom leads out of town and Bowling, almost without thought, breaks away from his standard, homogenized life. He checks his rear-view mirror anxiously half-expecting a car full of freedom police chasing him…

THERE HE GOES… AFTER HIM… STREAMLINE HIM… FASTER… GET HIM.

George Bowling speeds along until he senses freedom. He veers into a side road and pulls up at a long-lost magical spot where a country bridge shades deep pools of shadowed water. And Orwell remembers. 

Orwell spent many happy childhood hours here. They watched the great fish swirl and flash in the depths. Those great lunker trout and dace still made his heart flutter. Memories. Fishing was always magic for Orwell. George Bowling was by far the nearest to his creator. Even their names reflect the connection. They are both named George And Orwell and Bowling are not far from being anagrams of one another. Orwell was always alive to prose that was animated and syntax that was as simple as was necessary to convey the intended idea.

Orwell as journalist

Orwell was a journalist and an essayist before he was a recognized novelist. There is a hard-to-find four-volume edition of his collected essays, letters and journalism – over 2,000 pages. On my set I have scribbled marginalia everywhere but the most memorable is the essay “Politics and the English Language.” Every first year student in whichever department or faculty should be encouraged to grasp its essentials. Otherwise they may end up writing and communicating in the way of Professor Harold Laski, a contemporary of Orwell’s:

“I am not indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth century Shelly had not become, out of an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien to the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate.” 

Tender minds should be exposed to strong, direct, and clear language. For instance Orwell would have them influenced by this famous passage in Ecclesiastes:

“I returned, and saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill, but time and chance happeneth to them all”.

49 words, 60 syllables nobly expressed.

Here is the same passage written in Newspeak, the language in the book “Nineteen Eighty-Four”:

Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.”

38 words, 90 syllables, inflated language.

In total Orwell produced nine books – six novels (counting “Animal Farm”, which technically is an apologue). Also three non-fictional narratives. Yet almost everyone only identifies and names two – “Nineteen eighty-four” and “Animal Farm.” “The Spanish Civil War” is less cited, while “The Road to Wigan Pier” ennobles a poor class in England and Wales – miners.

George Orwell was a driven man with few vocations or hobbies. One was wood-working or cabinet-making. According to his friends he tackled both with more enthusiasm than skill. His other pursuit, fishing, was the one that gave him a measure of success and great enjoyment. He was dedicated to his craft, but not to his health.

The Golden Country

Orwell lived in London for a long time but as he grew older he began to forge, in the smithy of his brain, a place that is tranquil and where the living is healthful. He gives his imaginary Utopia a name – the Golden Country. Perhaps he ought to have made his plans of escape sooner. Five years earlier he had contracted tuberculosis, first in one lung, then in both. In the spring of 1946 he left London to seek the Golden Country, wherever that may be.

In time Orwell was successful, The Golden Country turned out to be Barnhill, a deserted white-washed vacated country home on the remote Island of Jura in the Western Hebrides of Scotland. By the autumn of 1947 Orwell had settled to writing the first draft of what would be his Magnum Opus – “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

The Golden Country was close to Orwell’s vision of lakes and streams where the surrounding atmosphere was pristine and the waters are heavy with great lunker fish that swirl and swish in the depths. Wish me a rainbow indeed. The thing about Barnhill is even on this remote isle it was difficult to reach. A ferry service was available intermittently at the extreme south end of Jura while Barnhill was 19 miles away in the extreme and almost uninhabited north. A traveller to reach Barnhill had to beg a bumpy ride for nine miles by jeep. How to negotiate the remaining seven miles was open to suggestions. 

Barnhill would not look special to you or me but it was Mecca for Orwell. Barnhill is a fairly spacious deserted house with a rickety porch. Inside there are four bedrooms, three down one up. Orwell chose the hilly one upstairs for his bedroom-writing room. Old Barnhill hinted at a Gothic existence. Orwell settled and wrote a first draft of 1984. Orwell sought a peaceful life but he was not a hermit. He gave detailed travelling instructions so friends could visit. They came from London by train, ferryboat, land rover, motorbike, and sometimes on foot. On the down side Orwell’s health was an increasing problem. He had developed tuberculosis in both lungs. 

Orwell’s friends thought he was mad to live through a Jura winter with Barnhill as his prime shelter, but the writer defends his choice thusly:

 “Its funny, you always think Scotland must be cold. The West part is not colder than England and the Islands I should think decidedly warmer on average.”

Sadly, after the completion of his great novel the author’s health began its final descent. Visitors still made the trek from London but by now he knew he was in a race with death. Orwell prevailed but early in the new year he left his beloved Jura. He was now coughing up copious amounts of blood, he left Scotland reluctantly and was taken to University College Hospital.

He declined rapidly with not a soul nearby. In the early hours of January 10th, 1950, George Orwell – Eric Blair - died.

There were books strewn about his bed. Leaning against a green wall, all forlorn stood his fishing rod.

What do you think of George Orwell? Let us know below.

Now you can read Douglas’ article on Thomas Paine, the man whose book may have led to the American Revolution, here, and the American heroine Abigail Adams here.

Do Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Handling of Issues of Race show he is not the ‘Ideal Democrat’?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was president of the USA from 1933 to 1945. He led the country out of the Great Depression and into World War Two. But, was he the ideal Democrat? Here, Donna Catapano argues that while his economic policies suggest he is, his social policies suggest otherwise - notably on issues of race.

Franklin D. Roosevelt meeting a Japanese delegation in the White House in 1933. During World War Two, Japanese Americans would be interned under Roosevelt’s presidency. Picture source: Harris & Ewing, available here.

Franklin Roosevelt is often looked at today by people as the “ideal Democrat”; the person who shaped the present-day Democratic Party. Many of those people, including educators, discuss this turning point in history when Roosevelt “made” what the Democrat is today.  When Roosevelt won the Presidential Election in 1932 by a landslide against Republican Herbert Hoover, the Democratic Party was introduced to a new level of government involvement. Even though his economic ideologies would still be considered relevant to Democrats today, his social ideologies would not.  His dismissal of the social issues of the 1930s and 1940s caused a ripple effect that we are still feeling in 2020. Roosevelt’s social principles, including those regarding lynching, racial profiling and discrimination within his New Deal programs, contradicts his status as the “ideal Democrat.”

As the years went on, the “Democrat” as we know it today, who is one who typically is in favor of federal government spending for public programs, associated those beginnings with FDR. Therefore, people typically describe Roosevelt as the “ideal Democrat”. However, one can argue that in 2020, Roosevelt would not be deemed that way. In his 12 years as president, he took many actions that today might fall elsewhere on the political spectrum.  Although he took several actions (and inactions) that might raise further questioning, three stand out.

1.     His refusal to sign a federal anti-lynching bill 

Between the years 1882 and 1968, more than 3,500 African Americans were murdered by white mobs. At the time, almost none of them were arrested and/or convicted for their brutal crimes. What emerged was an anti-lynching movement, whose participants demanded government action to stop these hate crimes. The extent to which Roosevelt spoke out against lynching was a fireside chat on December 6, 1933, when he briefly discussed the “vile form of collective murder -- lynch law-- which has broken out in our midst anew”. He went on to very briefly condemn the issue, stating: “We know that it is murder, and a deliberate and definite disobedience of the Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’. We do not excuse those in high places or in low who condone lynch law.”  Twenty-eight African Americans were lynched the same year he gave this 1933 fireside chat.  However, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt spoke out against lynching on several occasions, joining the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in Roosevelt’s first term in 1934 and having a close professional relationship with its president at the time, Walter White. She even went so far as to set up a meeting with White and her husband to encourage Franklin to publicly support the Costigan-Wagner bill, which he refused. Roosevelt stated to White at their meeting: 

“If I come out for the anti-lynching bill now, they will block every bill I ask Congress to pass to keep America from collapsing. I just can’t take the risk.”

Roosevelt stood his ground, fearful that the Southern Democrats in Congress, representatives he relied on to get his New Deal programs passed, would turn their back on him and  the New Deal. One can ponder: If FDR was president today, would he back the #blacklivesmatter movement, or would he spend more time worrying about his own Congressional agenda?

2. Japanese Internment during World War II 

During the Second World War, the federal government saw Japanese American citizens as a threat.  However, when President Roosevelt passed Executive Order #9066 in 1942, it made it acceptable for the Secretary of War and any designated Military Commanders to:

“Whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion”.

Moreover, it made it legal for said Commanders to prescribe what they called “military areas”, or relocation camps, for any and every person they deemed necessary: in this case, Japanese Americans. This executive order essentially allowed Japanese American citizens to be removed from their homes and relocated to internment camps where they were not allowed to leave, for not committing any crime but being of Japanese descent. This was perhaps one of the largest government-run racial profiling events in American history, and Roosevelt labeled it “A-OK”. One may ponder: how does this make Roosevelt different from the present-day with the current level of racial profiling that takes place for minorities such as African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Muslim Americans?

3. A New Deal for Some of the American People 

When you learn about FDR in school, you most likely associate him with the New Deal and how it helped the American people recover from the Great Depression.  As mentioned above, these federally funded programs were set out to create and give jobs to suffering citizens. However, it did not include all Americans.  For example, the National Recovery Administration (NRA) of 1933 “not only offered whites the first crack at jobs, but authorized separate and lower pay scales for blacks”.  Furthermore, the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) of 1934 “refused to guarantee mortgages for blacks who tried to buy in white neighborhoods,” and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) of 1933 created to employ young men on environmental projects, maintained segregated camps.  According to author Eric Rauchway, “Roosevelt never said anything outwardly about the fact that minorities were the last to get hired for New Deal jobs”. Once again, Roosevelt appealed to the conservative southern Democrats who were influential in Congress and oversaw many committee chairmanships, in fear of them blocking his pieces of legislation if he got involved with the “race question”. One may ponder: How might Roosevelt have handled job discrimination in 2020? 

Conclusion

The aforementioned reasons why President Roosevelt may not be seen as the “ideal Democrat” of 2020 are a few of a number of examples we can consider. Segregation in the military existed and he did not speak out against it. Regarding the Nazi persecution of Jews, he did not actively intervene or welcome Jewish refugees to the United States.

Franklin Roosevelt did much for the United States as a country economically. He revolutionized certain aspects of the Democratic Party, while staying silent on the pivotal social issues of the time. The birth of the present-day Democrat can be accredited to Roosevelt when it comes to the involvement of the federal government in citizen’s livelihoods, but not the social issues of the 1930s and 1940s.

So, in 2020, would FDR be considered the ideal Democrat? Let us know what you think below.

Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?

The Nazi V-2 rocket became infamous during the latter part of World War Two in Europe; however, there was a different weapon commonly used by Japan against the Allies. Here, Daniel Boustead explains the importance of Japanese Kamikaze suicide attacks – and compares their military impact to that of the Nazi V-2 rocket.

A Kamikaze suicide dive against the USS Essex on November 25, 1944.

During World War II the Nazi V-2 Rocket achieved fame and infamy in its operational launchings against allied targets in Europe from 1944 to 1945. The Nazi V-2 rocket also served as a predecessor for the Saturn V Rocket that brought man to the moon in 1969. The V-2 rocket also influenced the U.S. Missile program.  However, the V-2 Rocket’s impact during World War II was much less than the Japanese suicide ‘weapons’ which were made by the Japanese Kamikaze units. Japanese Kamikaze planes were more effective than the German V-2 Rocket. 

Kamikaze plane sinkings

The regular Kamikaze piston engine aircraft sunk 46 ships from October 25th, 1944 to July 29th, 1945 - and 3 out of those 46 ships sunk were aircraft carriers (the most important target the Japanese wanted to destroy) ([1]).

The Japanese Model 11 Ohka “Cherry Blossom” suicide rocket plane sunk the American destroyer Mannert L. Abele off the coast Okinawa on April 12th, 1945([2]).

The Japanese Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo sunk the American fleet oiler Mississinewa (AD-39) off the coast of Ulithi on November 20th, 1944 after it was launched from Japanese submarine I-47([3]).  The Japanese Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo sunk the large landing craft infantry LCI(L)-600 at Ulithi on January 12th, 1945 ([4]).  On July 24th, 1945 the American destroyer escort Underhill was sunk by a Japanese submarine which fired the Type 1 Kaiten suicide torpedo at the  vessel and made a direct hit  sinking it in the Philippine Sea area([5]). A total of 3 American ships were sunk by Japanese Kamikaze Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedoes  during World War II. 

The Japanese Shinyo suicide motorboats sunk between the dates of January 9th and January 10th, 1945 the American landing craft infantry-mortar LCI (M)-974 in the Lingayen Gulf in the Philippines([6]). On January 31st, 1945 Japanese Shinyo suicide motorboats sunk the American sub-chaser PC-1129 in the Philippines (6). On February 16th, 1945 Japanese suicide Shinyo motorboats sunk the American Large Landing Craft Support, MK  LCS (L) 3-26, LCS (L) (3)-7,  and LCS (3)-49 in the port of Mariveles in the Philippines (6). On the dates of April 3rd to April 4th, 1945 Japanese Shinyo Suicide motorboats sunk the American landing craft infantry-gunboat  LCI (G)-82 off the coast of Okinawa([7]).  A total of six American ships were sunk by the Japanese Shinyo suicide motorboats during World War II. 

A grand total of 56 American Ships were sunk by Japanese Suicide Weapons during World War II: 46 American ships sunk by regular Kamikaze piston engine aircrafts, 1 by the Japanese Okha model 11 Okha “Cherry Blossom”, 3 by the Japanese Kaiten type 1 suicide torpedoes, and 6 by the Japanese Shinyo suicide motorboats).

Impact of Kamikaze suicide weapons

The Japanese Kamikaze suicide weapons not only killed people and caused valuable equipment to be lost, but also created psychological fear in the American military who faced them. This combination made the Japanese Kamikaze weapons very effective. In contrast the German V-2 Rocket was designed principally to be a terror weapon against civilians and thus had very little effect against military targets([8]).  The Kamikaze weapons, then, had some advantages which the German V-2 Rocket lacked in military terms.

The Japanese Kamikaze suicide piston engine aircraft, the Japanese Model 11 Ohka Cherry Blossom suicide rocket planes, and Shinyo suicide motorboats had increased accuracy because humans were inside them. The German V-2 rocket lacked this and was guided to its target using a combination of radio control transmitter a control receiver, and a gyroscope([9]). The Japanese Kaiten Type 1 suicide  torpedo had a 3,400 lbs. warhead and its fuel was a kerosene and oxygen mixture, which meant that it would not leave a white trail of water behind it, making it hard to spot after it was fired ([10]).

In contrast while the V-2 rocket and the Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo were invulnerable after being launched, the Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo was more destructive than the German V-2 rocket. The reason is that the German V-2 rocket warhead was filled with 1,650 pounds of the explosive Amatol([11]). The fact that Japanese Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo carried a 3,400 lbs. warhead made a far more destructive weapon than the German V-2 rocket. According to the series Nazi Mega Weapons: German Engineering in WW II: Axis Weapon - The Kamikaze, historian Tosh Minhora stated: “The Kaiten was intended to sink a very large battleship - just with one shot it packed a large punch!”([12]). Also, the fact that the Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo had human guidance improved its accuracy over the V-2 rocket’s complicated guidance system. The Kaiten Type 1 suicide torpedo was probably the strongest Kamikaze suicide weapon.

The combination of Japanese Kamikaze weapons, the fanatical and diehard Japanese refusal to surrender, (that the allies witnessed fighting the Japanese in the Pacific and Asian Theatre), and little to almost no opposition to war at home in Japan or by ethnic Japanese in their occupied territories, forced the Allies to enact three drastic measures. The Americans used atomic bombs on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945 and then again on Nagasaki on August 9th, 1945. Thirdly the Soviets’ launched Operation August Storm which retook the Japanese occupied colonies of Manchuria, Kuril Islands, and Sakhalin Islands. It was only after these three events that the Japanese capitulated to the Allies on August 15th, 1945 and signed a peace treaty aboard the American Battleship U.S.S. Missouri. In contrast, “while the V-2 Rocket resulted in the Allies having to divert manpower from other necessary military operations to civil defense, aerial reconnaissance, and bombing of the flying bomb sites - England was not terrorized into surrender and the flow of military supplies to Antwerp, Belgium and Liege, Belgium was barely affected”(8).

The V-2 rocket achieved infamy and brought about destruction in Europe from 1944 to 1945, and it would serve as the model of the rocket that put a man on the moon in 1969. However, the German V-2 rocket did not have the strategic and tactical impact that the Japanese Kamikaze weapons had. These unconventional Japanese weapons were clearly superior in destructive power and military effectiveness. 

Do you think the Japanese Kamikaze weapons were more effective than the Nazi V-2 rockets? Let us know below.

[1] Gordan, Bill. “47 Ships Sunk by Kamikaze Aircraft”. Kamikaze Images. Accessed August 28th, 2020.https://wgordon.web/wesleyan/edu/kamikaze/background/ships-sunk/index.htm 

[2] Grunden, Walter E. Secret Weapons & World War II: Japan in the Shadow of Big Science. Lawrence: Kansas. University Press of Kansas. 2005. 152. 

[3] Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and  World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval  Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 169. 

[4] “NavSource Online: Amphibious Photo Archive- USS LCI(L)-600”. August 28th, 2020. https://www.navsource.org/archives/10/15/150600.htm

[5] Frank, Richard B. Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: New York. Random House. 1999. 159. 

[6] Hackett, Bob and Kingsepp, Sander. SHINYO!: Explosive Motorboats based in the Philippines 1944-1945. Last Modified. 2009-2011. Nihon Kaigun.  Accessed August 28th, 2020. http://www.combindedfleet.com/PhilippinesEMB.htm

[7] Hackett, Bob and Kingsepp, Sander. SHINYO!: Explosive Motorboats based at Okinawa  1944-1945. Last Modified 2009-2011. Nihon Kaigun.  Accessed August 29th, 2020. 

[8]  Kennedy, Gregory P.  Germany’s V-2 Rocket. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History. 2006. 79. 

[9] Kennedy, Gregory P. Germany’s V-2 Rocket.  Atlgen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History. 2006. 51-53. 

[10] Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. BlueJacket Books Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 39 

[11] Kennedy, Gregory P. Germany’s V-2 Rocket. Atglen: Pennsylvania: Schiffer Military History. 2006. 48. 

[12] Minohara, Tosh. “Axis Weapon-The Kamikaze”. Nazi Mega Weapons: German Engineering in WWII. PBS. 2014-2015. 

Bibliography

Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II.  Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 

Frank, Richard B. Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire.  New York: New York. Random house, 1999.

Gordon, Bill. “47 Ships Sunk by Kamikaze Aircraft”. Last Modified 2007. Accessed August 28th, 2020. https://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/kamikaze/background/ships-sunk/index.htm

Gruden, Walter E. Secret Weapons & World War II: Japan in the Shadow of Big Science. Lawrence: Kansas. University Press of Kansas. 2005

Hackett, Bob and Kingsepp, Sander. SHINYO!: Explosive Motorboats based in the Philippines 1944-1945”. Last Modified 2009-2011. Nihon Kaigun. Accessed August 28th, 2020. http://www.combindedfleet.com/PhilippinesEMB.htm

Hackett, Bob and Kingsepp, Sander. SHINYO!:” Explosive Motorboats  based on Okinawa 1944-1945”. Accessed August 28th, 2020. http://www.combindedfleet.com/OkinawaEMB.htm

Kennedy, Gregory P. Germany’s V-2 Rocket. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History. 2006. 

Minohara, Tosh. “Axis Weapon: The Kamikaze”. Nazi Mega Weapons: German Engineering in WWII. PBS. 2014-2015. 

“USS LCI9(L)-600”. NavSource Online. Last Updated August 23rd, 2019. Accessed on August 28th, 2020.https://www.navsource.org/archives/10/15/150600.htm

Violent Protests in American History: Part 2 – Race Riots and Racial Protest

American history has had many violent protests, and these often went on for significant periods of time. Here, Theresa Capra continues a series looking at the 2020 protests in America from an historical perspective.

In this article, she considers race-based protests in American history. She looks at how African-Americans often suffered from racist protests in the 19th and into the 20th centuries – and then considers how anti-racist protests in the 1960s and 1919 compare to those of today.

You can read the first article in the series on how 2020’s protests compare to the Bacon’s, Shays’, and Whiskey Rebellions here.

Dr. Theresa Capra is a Professor of Education who teaches education, history, and sociology at a Community College. She is the founder of Edtaps.com, which focuses on research, trends, technology, and tips for educators. 

Policemen and a soldier during race riots in Chicago, Illinois, during the Red Summer of 1919.

How are you doing during these unprecedented times? 

It’s a well-intentioned, but inaccurate, rhetorical question that has become standard in 2020. Indeed, 2020 is a blockbuster year for the American history books: a global pandemic, one of the worst wildfire seasons on record, and in our social media feeds, unrelenting social unrest. But it’s all far from unprecedented - especially the protests. 

Race has been an impetus for countless violent uprisings since the inception of the United States - usually with whites perpetrating the violence upon Blacks. And although the antebellum South was undoubtedly the most oppressive place and violent time for African-Americans, it’s also a widely covered, even romanticized period, teeming with blockbuster movies and best-selling literature. The consequence of this extensive treatment is that many people fail to fully understand racism in early America beyond slavery, even though race riots were common in free states. Furthermore, many white Americans tend to view well-known historical events such as the Civil War and Civil Rights Movement as punctuation marks, periods to be exact, which ended odious periods of Southern history such as slavery, racism, and Jim Crow. However, a closer look handily flips that perspective on its head. Likewise, there is no moral high ground that cosmopolitans or Yankees can claim.

The Big Apple & City of Brotherly Love 

One example can be traced to 1834 when destructive riots, which targeted Blacks and abolitionists, ripped through New York City. Irish Catholics were settling in Manhattan in droves and they frequently clashed with Protestant abolitionists. Additionally, white residents resented the free Black population for becoming assertive and challenging racial norms. Tensions mounted, and white mobs ultimately burned buildings and homes, destroyed municipal property, and attacked African-Americans. They held parts of the city hostage until it all ended. 

Free Blacks in Philadelphia experienced the same ugly racism as their New York City counterparts. A particularly egregious event occurred in 1838 when Pennsylvania Hall, a building erected for abolitionist and suffragette meetings, was burned to the ground by racist mobs. Not one single culprit faced any legal recourse. Originally, whites and Blacks intermingled, and a prosperous African-American community cropped up along Lombard Street. But their success did not go unnoticed and by 1842, residents of Lombard Street came under a full-scale attack by Irish immigrants, who also attacked police officers when they intervened.

Things only worsened as working-class Whites turned their animosity towards African-Americans, whom they viewed as economic competitors. Wealthy, white Philadelphians were sympathetic to the South because they shared commerce, as well as summers in beach resorts such as Cape May, New Jersey. The city that is home to the Liberty Bell and Constitution Hall can also claim some of the harshest racial violence in America’s history.

Go West! 

As Americans moved west, they brought horses, carriages, and racism. Midwestern Cincinnati attracted Irish and German immigrants after the Erie Canal reached completion and ultimately became a hotbed of race riots launched by angry whites who feared economic competition from the growing population of free Blacks. Similarly, in Alton, Illinois, whites were agitated by the number of escaped slaves settling in the town due to its border with the slave-state Missouri. They feared economic reprisals from southern states and attributed the situation to a prominent abolitionist and printer Elijah Lovejoy. On November 7, 1837, a murderous mob set fire to a warehouse and shot and killed Elijah Lovejoy. The rioters evaded justice because some of the mobsters were clerks and judges. 

Farther west brings us to Bleeding Kansas (1854-1861), (or Bloody, as some prefer) - a dress rehearsal for the Civil War replete with looting, arson, property destruction, battlelines, small armies, and murder. The original issue, whether Kansas should join the Union as a free or slave state, should have been settled through popular sovereignty, but that was not to be. Both sides hunkered down and belligerent pro-slavery Missourians, known as border ruffians, tampered with elections and used physical intimidation to let the Kansans know which way the wind was blowing. One particularly violent incident occurred when ruffians crossed into the town of Lawrence, a free-state concentration, and sacked, looted, and blew property to smithereens. 

Interestingly, a similar vigilante scenario is surfacing today. Since May 2020, there have been at least 50 reports of armed individuals appearing at Black Lives Matter demonstrations inciting violence while claiming to be peacekeepers. One example is the Kenosha Guard in Wisconsin, a militia group that launched a ‘call to arms’ on social media encouraging ‘patriots’ to rise up and defend property from protesting ‘thugs.’ Kyle Rittenhouse answered their call. He shot three protesters, killing two. 

The Misunderstanding of the Civil War

Obviously, the most violent uprising over race was the American Civil War. Insurgents in seven southern states coordinated an aggressive assault on their own countrymen by first declaring sovereignty, then attacking Fort Sumter while recruiting more rebels along the way - all to preserve chattel slavery in perpetuity. The Confederate States of America, as they called themselves, were willing to cause wanton death and destruction for white supremacy, mostly in their own backyards, which they pulled off six ways to Sunday with a million casualties and unfathomable property damage. Property sequester and destruction were key tactics for both the revolters and quashers. For example, General William T. Sherman affirmed that his March to Sea laid mostly waste to Georgia: “I estimate the damage done to the State of Georgia and its military resources at $100,000,000; at least $20,000,000 of which has inured to our advantage, and the remainder is simple waste and destruction.”

Today, Americans tend to forget all this history while admonishing protesters for property damage. They focus on the aftermath rather than the reasons. Agreeably, on its face, the aftermath is shocking. As of June 2020, it was estimated that Minneapolis amassed around 55 million dollars in damages, and Portland over 20 million. In July 2020, the Downtown Cleveland Alliance estimated over 6 million dollars in damages resulting from property ruin and lost revenue. However, evidence demonstrates that the majority of rallies have been peaceful, despite the public’s perception that protesters are laser focused on destruction. Ironically, a lot of the property destruction is because of the Civil War - protestors have toppled statues of Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson in Richmond, one of Robert E. Lee in Alabama, a Confederate Defenders monument in South Carolina, and a statue of Charles Linn, just to name a few. 

Isn’t it curious that there are so many monuments glorifying perpetrators who orchestrated the bloodiest riots in American history? As it turns out, revisionists successfully translated a lost cause into the Lost Cause. Around the turn of the 19th century, the Lost Cause movement lobbied to portray Confederates as freedom fighters for state’s rights rather than armed traitors in rebellion over slavery. The Civil War became viewed as a singular political event with causes exacted by both sides. But, it’s better understood as the culmination (and continuation) of a series of extremely violent and destructive uprisings because of race and slavery. 

Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it 

The summer of 2020 has been compared to the Long Hot Summer of 1967 when approximately 160 uprisings exploded across the United States in response to police brutality and systemic racism. Some historians have also noted parallels to 1968 - another year full of racial unrest that resulted in the permanent demise of once vibrant urban centers such as Trenton, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore. However, farther hindsight is needed for 2020 vision. For instance, the Red Summer of 1919 featured a series of violent racial clashes and like today, it happened upon the backdrop of a deadly global pandemic, the Spanish Flu. Despite the pandemic, one of the most virulent massacres against African-Americans occurred in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when angry white mobs decimated the vibrant metropolis known as Black Wall Street. Tulsa is not very different from its predecessors: Lombard Street, Alton, Cincinnati, or New York. The issues are also not much different than Minneapolis on May 26, 2020, when George Floyd was killed by police officer, Derek Chauvin.

How does this story end? It doesn’t. Today, African-Americans are disenfranchised, underrepresented, too often relegated to low-paying jobs, subjected to chronic unemployment, poverty, and overall subjugation by any standard. White Americans want to know why violent revolts are still happening and perhaps promoting raw history can help. Still, I posit there is not one single comparison to be evenly made. The whole story must find its way back into social institutions, such as schools, in the name human progress.

What do you think of the comparisons between protests in 1919 and the 1960s and those of 2020? Let us know below.

Is Anti-Semitism Often Overlooked? A Historical View

Anti-Semitism has sadly been a problem for Jewish communities for millennia. Here, Ophir Barak explains this in its historical context and asks whether and how anti-Semitism is often overlooked today when compared with other types of racism.

A Sovier Jewish prisoner of war with a gold star in August 1941, during World War Two. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-267-0111-36A / Friedrich / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

“There are two sets of people who nobody has really wanted to challenge; Jewish and KKK but being in business for 20 years you start to understand why”.

This was one of the many of anti-Semitic tweets that British rapper Wiley took to social media with in the summer.

Such words, though only expressed in this very recent incident, epitomize the anti-Semitism that Jews have faced throughout history.

Indeed, anti-Semitism is just one of the many forms of discrimination and bigotry that have existed for centuries and unfortunately, continue to persist today. But in a clear discordance with other forms of discrimination, an end to anti-Semitism only seems to be truly sought after and pushed for by the Jewish communities around the globe that bear the brunt of its bigotry. 

Today we seem to be in an era of heightened discrimination, where many people who aren’t part of the targeted minorities proclaim their support on social media for those minorities. This is especially the case with the Black Lives Matter Movement; as soon as news broke about the horrific murder of George Floyd, millions of people took to social media to proclaim their support for the movement. However, I’ve seen only very few non-Jewish people post or share anything on social media recently, that highlight their support for the Jewish communities, following Wiley’s tweets. It seems strange that people who aren’t part of targeted minorities and who have publicly claimed to be against prejudice of any kind have been silent following Wiley’s tweets.

And whilst this infuriates me, unfortunately it doesn’t surprise me, as this has been the case for centuries. Throughout history, there have been very few non-Jewish people who have fought alongside Jews to alleviate anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism in history

Anti-Jewish sentiment can be seen going back to the 3rd century BCE in Alexandria, where priests and historians would write scathing and nasty comments about the Alexandrian Jewish Community, regarding them as barbarians. This eventually sparked an attack on the Jews in Alexandria, where thousands were killed. These verbal and physical attacks mainly led to an outcry of protests and revolts from Jewish people, specifically the Maccabees, whom in 170-160 BCE initiated a revolt in Judea.

And of course, it wouldn’t be an article on anti-Semitism, if I didn’t mention the case of Nazi Germany. This political movement arose following WWI and incorporated anti-Semitic ideologies, expressed in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. These anti-Semitic ideologies spawned out of Hitler’s belief that the Jews were the reason for Germany’s defeat in WWI. Hitler’s first five years in power saw the implementation of mass violence against Jews, as well as the laws that dehumanized them. These brutal treatments culminated in the Holocaust, where between 1941-1945, Hitler and the Nazi regime systematically murdered six million Jews, through mass murders in concentration camps and gas chambers. 

Whilst conducting research for this piece, I noticed a lot of resistance movements against the Nazis’ anti-Semitic ideas, were founded by and largely consisted of Jewish civilians. There were many fewer non-Jewish people who participated in rescuing Holocaust victims. According to Yad Vashem of Israel’s Holocaust Memorial Centre, just over 27,000 non-Jewish people participated in rescuing Jewish Holocaust victims, compared to over 70,000 Jewish rescuers. However, it is also important to bear in mind that rescuing Jewish people was extremely difficult due to the potential ramifications of siding with Jewish communities and the potential outcomes for any supporters of the Jewish cause.

A lack of support

These two historical cases of anti-Semitism along with Wiley’s tweets, illustrate a common theme that clearly seems to have existed throughout history - not enough non-Jewish people are talking about anti-Semitism or taking action against it. And for years I’ve been trying to understand why anti-Semitism seems to be among the forms of prejudice and discrimination that are less spoken of. To be honest even today I still don’t understand why. 

So please, if you are someone who is Jewish or not and is part of a targeted minority and claim to be against prejudice and discrimination of any kind, then I encourage you to show your love and support for the Jewish community, especially in the wake of Wiley’s tweets. History and the present day have shown us that to truly inspire change, societies need to come together to push through reform. It can’t only be the targeted groups fighting for their own causes, rights and equalities. Wiley’s anti-Semitic comments serve as one the many discriminatory incidents that have sparked an outcry of messages and petitions from the public all over social media and if we’re to truly inspire change, Jewish people should not and cannot be an exception to the rule that systemic racism needs to be stamped out of our societies.

What do you think of the writer’s arguments? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Ophir’s article on the culture wars in Britain here.

Writer’s note: This is in no way my attempt at stating that Jews deserve more support from people than other targeted communities, or that Jewish communities have it worse than other targeted communities. I’m aware that Jews do have some privileges that other targeted communities may not have, but I am writing this out of a belief that people who aren’t part of Jewish communities can do a lot more in terms of supporting them.

Sources

https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/26/what-did-wiley-say-tweets-investigated-alleged-antisemitism-13039775/

https://www.yadvashem.org/righteous/statistics.html

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002200949503000104?journalCode=jcha

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/jewish-resistance

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/477384-as-non-jews-its-our-job-to-combat-anti-semitism

Leni Yahil, The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 394

The British Comet Tank: Just how did it Impact World War Two?

The Comet tank was a British tank that was involved towards the end of World War Two. It was made due to the need to have an improved tank to battle Nazi Germany’s forces, but what was its impact on the war? Daniel Smith explains.

Comet tanks of the 2nd Fife and Forfar Yeomanry, 11th Armoured Division, crossing the Weser at Petershagen, Germany. April 7, 1945.

The Comet (or the Comet I A34) was a British tank introduced towards the end of the Second World War, which took part in the invasion of Germany. It is regarded as one of the best British tanks of the war, continuing in service until the 1950s and it played a key role in the development of the later Centurion tank[1]. The Comet is held in such high regard for its cost effectiveness, speed, and low profile compared to other models at the time. However, its most important feature was the ability to take on German Panther and Tiger tanks, which had previously been too heavily armored to be penetrated by the majority of Allied tanks.

To the reader, it probably sounds like the Comet changed the course of the war by finally giving the British tank divisions a means of standing up to the powerful German armor. But did they really make a difference on the battlefield? Or did the Comet come too late to make any impact in the war? 

Development up to the Comet

To understand the significance of the Comet, we have to look at its development based on the downfalls of its predecessors. 

During the interwar years, the British army began to separate their tanks into 2 sections; cruisers (fast tanks for swarming the enemy) and infantry support (heavily armored vehicles whose purpose is clear from the name). However, it became clear in the early years of the Second World War that British tanks were vastly outmatched by their German counterparts.[2] 

Learning from the shortcomings of British tanks in the North Africa campaign, a request for a new heavy cruiser was made in 1941, which resulted in the MKVII Cromwell entering the battlefield in 1944.[3]

Despite it being an upgrade compared to previous models, there were still issues with the Cromwell. The foremost issue was that the main armament, the main gun, was not powerful enough to take on the heavily armored Panther and Tiger. 

Attempts were made to supply the British army with a tank capable of providing the firepower needed, resulting in the unsuccessful Challenger and the more successful Sherman Firefly. The Challenger was an attempt to add a larger gun to the body of a Cromwell; this resulted in an oversized tank that was unsuitable on the battlefield. The Firefly was created by attaching a larger turret and gun on top of the hull of the iconic Sherman tank. This fulfilled the army’s need initially, where the Fireflies could provide support to Cromwell armed formations for the upcoming D-Day landings. Complications arose in France largely due to the maintenance requirements of units equipped with two different tank models needing twice the amount of parts, ammunition and supplies.[4] Once again the request was made for a new tank model. 

The benefits of the Comet

At this point, in steps the Comet. Learning the lessons from previous tank designs, the Comet used parts from the Cromwell to maximize cost and production efficiency, but also added numerous improvements. The armor was increased and the profile was lowered making it harder to hit and penetrate. It also utilized an electrical traversing turret meaning the main gun could turn more smoothly and even had a telephone headset mounted on the side enabling infantry to talk to the crew.

But the most important improvement by far was the main armament. It had heavier firepower than both the Cromwell and the Firefly as it was fitted with a 17-pounder High Velocity gun, which fired 3-inch shells. The ammunition had also been developed to pack the same punch while being smaller in size, allowing the crew to carry more rounds and load them more easily. When firing anti-tank rounds, the Comet could even outclass the German Panther in terms of penetration. With this firepower, it could even take out Tiger tanks.[5]

Production started in late 1944 after being delayed in favor of increased Cromwell production.[6] The first batch was due to be delivered to the front in December of the same year, as a replacement for the 11th Armoured Division’s Shermans. This was then delayed to January due to the German offensive in the Ardennes forest, that later became known as the Battle of the Bulge. Once the division had been refitted with their new vehicles they went on to take part in the crossing of the River Rhine into Germany. However, few Comets saw the chance to face off against their German counterparts due to the scarcity of operational German tanks on the Western front in 1945. Reportedly, a Comet faced against a Tiger in April, in which the Comet won this encounter but this may be the only such example.[7]

Impact on the war

So how big was the impact of the Comet on the battlefield during the Second World War? Was the Comet in fact too little, too late?

Too little? Around 1,200 Comets were produced by the end of the war but only the 11th Armoured Division received enough to completely replace their older models. It could be argued this was a production issue, as for the majority of the war, the British Army relied largely on American made tanks.[8] It is important to note that the 11th Armoured favored their Comets, with the tanks proving popular with the division’s crews.[9] Nevertheless, the argument can still be made that there were enough to make a difference to the war. Too late? Undoubtedly so. If the Comet had been ready to join the D-Day landing forces, it could have provided the edge needed in destroying German armor and may even have resulted in a quicker Allied offensive through France and Germany. That is not to say that the Comet was entirely wasted; soldiers who got the chance to drive them certainly enjoyed their top speeds of 32mph on the Autobahns.

Several Comets can be seen today in various places in the UK and around the world. There are examples in the Tank Museum in Bovington, UK as well as the American Heritage Museum in Massachusetts, USA to name a few.

What do you think the impact of the Comet tank was on World War Two? Let us know below.

[1] Steven Zaloga, Armoured Champion: The top tanks of World War II (Stackpole Books, 2015), 226. 

[2] David Fletcher, Sherman Firefly (Bloomsbury, 2012), 10.

[3] Benjamin Coombs, British Tank Production and the War Economy 1939-1945 (C Black, 2013), 65.

[4] Zaloga, Armoured Champion, 244.

[5] David Fletcher and Richard C. Harley, Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942-50 (Bloomsbury, 2012), 40.

[6] Coombs, British Tank Production, 105.

[7] Zaloga, Armoured Champion, 226.

[8] John Stone, The Tank debate: Armour and the Anglo-American Military Tradition (Routledge, 2018), 67.

[9] Fletcher and Harley, Cromwell Cruiser Tank, 40.

Bibliography

Benjamin Coombs, British Tank Production and the War Economy 1939-1945, C Black, 2013.

David Fletcher, Sherman Firefly, Bloomsbury, 2012.

David Fletcher and Richard C. Harley, Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942-50, Bloomsbury, 2012.

John Stone, The Tank debate: Armour and the Anglo-American Military Tradition, Routledge, 2018.

Steven Zaloga, Armoured Champion: The top tanks of World War II, Stackpole Books, 2015.

The 1914-23 Armenian Genocide – Why is it so Little Remembered?

Everyone has heard of the atrocities associated with the Holocaust that killed countless people of Jewish ancestry and wreaked havoc upon the populations of Europe during World War II. However few people have heard of the genocide that occurred over 1914 to 1923, the Armenian Genocide. There are multiple reasons that the Armenian Genocide is not widely studied or spoken of as its historical context continues to affect modern geopolitics. Regardless of the sensitive nature of current geopolitical relations, the truth of the countless lives lost must be examined before a larger audience to allow their memory to not be forgotten. Roy Williams explains.

Armenian people are marched to a nearby prison in Mezireh by armed Ottoman soldiers. Kharpert, Ottoman Empire, April 1915. Source: here.

The Armenian Genocide occurred from 1914 to 1923 coinciding with the events of World War I. The ethnic Armenians of the eastern regions of the Turkish Ottoman Empire had long been treated as a scapegoat for issues that plagued the Ottoman Empire. With the rapid decline of Ottoman Turkish authority, power was consolidated in the Triumvirate of power that included a man known as Talat Pasha who had disdain for the Armenian people. To stop the decline of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey began implementing nationalist measures to ensure that Turkey and all its lands were for the Turkish rather than ethnic or religious minorities. The Christian Armenians became the target of intense scorn and soon would be cleansed from the Ottoman territory to ensure Turkish dominance. From 1914 to 1923, over 1.5 million Armenians were systematically slaughtered in the first modern genocide of the 20th century. Methods of genocide included marching people through the desert without food and water to await their deaths, as well as firing squad executions and burying the dead in mass graves. These mass graves can still be seen throughout this region of Anatolia as a grim reminder to the dark past that the Turkish authorities refuse to acknowledge. Many people in Europe and the United States condemned these atrocities and asked for the governments of the free world to assist in stopping them. Sadly, no unified effort presented itself in stopping the atrocities of the Armenian Genocide. Later with the rise of the Nazis in Germany, Hitler infamously mentioned in his Obersalzberg Speech, speaking proudly of his plans to cleanse Poland, ”Who, after all, speaks of the annihilation of the Armenians?” (Adolf Hitler, 1939) This leads to the direct conclusion that Hitler and the Nazi party of Germany realized they could theoretically commit genocide without any repercussions. 20

Multiple primary source accounts exist from individuals who witnessed the massacre or saw the Turkish government plans to exterminate the Armenians. These accounts range from Armenian victims to government officials who admitted to the slaughter in one form or another. The Ambassador for England, Henry Morgenthau, recorded his encounters with Talat and his dealings with the Armenian people, describing the obvious and overbearing nature of the Turkish animosity towards the Armenian people. On July 16, 1915, Henry Morgenthau in his ‘Report That Ottoman Turkey Is Seeking to Exterminate the Armenian Nation’ detailed the mass deportations and the use of racial extermination. “Have you received my 841? Deportation of and excesses against peaceful Armenians is increasing and from harrowing reports of eyewitness it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in progress under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion.”

Little remembered

The question remains, why is the Armenian Genocide a forgotten part of the history of the West? Why would something so traumatic and historically significant be brushed to the side as an insignificant part of the tragedy of World War I? The reasons for this forgotten part of history are largely intentional. The current government of Turkey outwardly denies the atrocity that occurred in the Armenian Genocide. Turkey holds that the casualties of the Armenian Genocide were not an act of intentional genocide but casualties of World War I that were largely the fault of Armenians who allied themselves with Russia. The geopolitical balance of the Middle East currently relies heavily upon the countries of Turkey and Israel as two of the nations who largely have favorable relations with Europe and the United States. Turkey refuses to accept responsibility for the events of the Armenian Genocide and in this regard does not like the United States from criticizing them for their historical atrocity. Many nations do not recognize the Armenian Genocide as genocide. The US only recognized the Armenian Genocide in late 2019, while Israel still does not recognize it. Israel’s refusal to acknowledge the mass suffering of the Armenian genocide is perplexing as the Armenian Genocide parallels the Holocaust in many significant ways. The United States’ only very recent of the Armenian Genocide stems from a careful balance of keeping Turkey as a tentative ally. 

The Armenian Genocide was one of the darkest moments of the 20th century. Countless lives were lost in the Turkish purge that was based on keeping Turkey Turkish. In some ways, the genocide may have also influenced the way that Adolf Hitler went about orchestrating the Holocaust. Though the modern day government of Turkey does not wish to accept responsibility for this heinous atrocity, it is the responsibility for the free people of the world to recognize genocide and condemn anyone who attempts to deny the memory of the countless souls that were lost. As the adage goes, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” (commonly attributed to Edmund Burke, see here).

Editor’s note: The quote from Hitler referenced in the article is disputed – see here. In addition, the exact number of deaths in the genocide remains disputed – see here.

Why do you think the Armenian Genocide is not better remembered? Let us know below.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and the 1928 New York Gubernatorial Campaign – Part 4 – Victory

Nearly exhaustive research has been done on Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR’s) four national campaigns, his controversial Presidency, and his leadership in WWII. Surprisingly little, however, has focused on his New York State gubernatorial campaign in 1928. This was the campaign and position in which FDR would prove his fitness for the presidency of the Unites States, a position he held from 1933 to 1945.

In part 4, K.R.T. Quirion explains how Roosevelt closed his campaign with a focus on the justice system, the close election results, and the longer-term consequences of Roosevelt’s victory.

You can read part 1 on how Roosevelt overcame a serious illness, polio, to be able to take part in the 1928 campaign here, part 2 on how Roosevelt accepted the nominarion here, and part 3 on Roosevelt’s opponent and how Roosevelt performed on the campaign trail here.

Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1930, while Governor of New York.

Back to New York City

After completing his up-State tour, FDR returned to the Democratic bastion in New York City and its boroughs for the final week of the campaign. There, he continued to develop and expand his platform of populist programs aimed at winning the support of the common man. In Queens, he addressed the problem of urban congestion. According to Roosevelt, a major contributor to overcrowding was the abandonment of farmland by rural populations. To combat this, he promised to actively pursue ways of retaining rural populations.[1] It was in the interest of urban and rural citizens alike that farms be adequately maintained. 

However, as rural populations moved to town, city people moved out. Roosevelt believed that two factors were contributing to suburbanization, the growth of popular sports and the democratization of the automobile.[2] New York’s highway program had aided the latter. As to the former, Roosevelt told the audience of Governor Smith’s long legal struggle to acquire for the “great rank file” of New York’s citizenry, adequate parks facilities.[3] He explained how entrenched interests attempted to subject the former Governor to “political embarrassment,” but that Smith fought for what “was approved by the people of the State” and won.[4] In closing, Roosevelt assured the assembled voters that the Democratic Party “will keep on winning as long as it goes ahead with a program of progress.”[5]

The justice system

During the campaign, FDR developed three of the four issues he had outlined in his acceptance speech. On October 30th in the Bronx, he finally addressed the fourth; a Roosevelt administration would be committed to the reforming of New York’s justice system. He considered the administration of justice to be foundational to effective governance.[6] On that account, New Yorkers had much to be proud of in their jurisprudential tradition. However, he believed that reform was necessary to ensure that the State could “keep pace with the fundamental changes in…social conditions.”[7] He warned that a number of factors—such as an increase in population, the growth of cities, and the growth of business—were coalescing resulting in dramatic consequences to the justice system. Specifically, he stated that “these increased complexities of our social relations have added to the difficulties of assuring fundamental justice to the individual man and women.”[8]

First and foremost, Roosevelt advocated for the use of targeted efforts to provide “more modern, more American methods” to address the causes of crime.[9] He hoped to reduce not only the slowness and costliness of litigation but also the volume. Regarding the recent proliferation of civil suits, Roosevelt retorted, “You know, we Americans just love to go to court.”[10]Affirmative steps were needed to reigning in the number of cases being brought to trial. As governor he intended to launch a fact-finding mission to determine “what cases cause the delay and the expense; what kinds of cases take up the time of the courts; what courts are most crowded; and, finally, what cases ought never have come to court at all.”[11]

He discussed other reforms that he would pursue if elected as well. On the civil side, he promised to work for a reduction in the number of jury trials, eliminate perjury, hold members of the bar to a stricter ethical standard, eliminate ambulance chasing and dilatory motions, and finally, to devise new administrative tribunals tasked with freeing the court system of certain kinds of cases. 

According to Roosevelt, the criminal justice system needed reform as well. If elected, he proposed twelve steps for study in the coming years. These included a complete overhaul of New York’s prison labor system, the establishment of state detectives to assist District Attorney’s and a revision of the Penal Code.[12] He also suggested the creation of a court system focused on minor crimes. Finally, he declared his intention to revise the firearms law. 

Roosevelt lamented that there was often “talk of one law for the rich and another law for the poor.”[13] Looking at the States justice system as a whole, he believed that reform was necessary, and that the people of New York did as well. In closing, he told the voters that “what we need is action, and I propose to do all in my power to see that it is brought about.”[14]

Roosevelt’s whirlwind campaign ended on the 5th of November in Poughkeepsie. There he was greeted by tens of thousands of supporters parading in his honor. Over the course of nineteen days, he had traveled 1,300 miles and had given almost 50 separate speeches. The next morning, he cast his vote at the Hyde Park Town Hall and then retired to his campaign headquarters in the Biltmore Hotel to await the returns.      

VICTORY

Up-State Republican leaders had early on declared that they were “nevermore confident in victory” and prophesied a “big increase in the vote” from their districts.[15] At first, the election returns seemed to verify their confidence. Nationally, Hoover had defeated Smith in a landslide that seemed to be taking Roosevelt down with it. By midnight Election Day, votes for Ottinger coming in from up-State had more than offset the Democratic powerhouse of NYC. The papers began calling the race for Ottinger on the morning of the 7th. For Roosevelt, however, it was still too close to concede. 

Late night on the 7th, Roosevelt, Flynn, and others in the campaign took notice of the “slowness of the returns from certain upstate counties” where they were confident that Roosevelt had strong support.[16] They suspected that entrenched officials in those districts were up to something. Flynn then issued a statement indicating that key figures of the Democratic State Committee—accompanied by a staff of 100 lawyers—would be heading up-State to investigate suspected voter fraud. Soon thereafter, “many thousands of normally Republican votes” that Roosevelt won began trickling out of the up-State precincts.[17]

As the race began to shift in Roosevelt’s favor, Ottinger released a statement saying that he was ready to “concede nothing.”[18] Republicans were holding out for a few favorable up-State districts as well as about 20,000 absentee ballots. By this time, Roosevelt had returned to his beloved Warm Springs where he was recuperating from the campaign and awaiting its final verdict. On the 18th of November, Ottinger telegrammed Roosevelt his concession stating that “Undoubtedly the final count…will declare your election…You have my heartiest good wishes for a successful administration.”[19]

The election ended with 2,142,975 votes going to Roosevelt and 2,117,411 to Ottinger. Roosevelt was victorious by a razor-thin margin of a mere 25,564 votes. [20] New York State Democrat’s had paid dearly for these votes with campaign funds listed at $5,028,706.02 and expenses of $4,845,774.78. The Republicans, on the other hand, reported astonishingly small receipts of $867,874.25 and expenditures of $832,225.62.[21] Each vote cost the Democratic State Committee $2.26. This was astoundingly expensive when compared to the $0.39 per vote spent by Republicans. [22] In economic terms, the Roosevelt campaign was a disaster. Even in the overall vote, Roosevelt was not very successful, winning only by a plurality of 0.6 percent.[23] Nor had he delivered New York to Smith in the national election as originally hoped. Nonetheless, Roosevelt had fought hard and won.

A personal success

Despite his bitter-sweet victory, the gubernatorial campaign was a fantastic personal success for Roosevelt on several fronts. Given that his previous eight years had been spent living on the periphery of New York politics, his ability to carry the state despite only three weeks of campaigning was a testament to his continued political renown. It was a testament to Howe and Eleanor’s feverish work behind the scenes over those eight years as Roosevelt’s eyes and ears. And, it was a testament to the lasting impact of his “Happy Warrior” speech in 1924. 

This combination of factors boosted Roosevelt’s campaign on to an equal footing with Ottinger’s from the start. If he had dropped out of the public eye after contracting polio in 1921, he would have been unlikely to have been considered for the Governorship at all. Assuming he was considered, he would have been at a great disadvantage compared to his highly prominent and active political opponent. 

Even though challenges to his health would re-surface, the 1928 gubernatorial race presented Roosevelt with an opportunity to implement strategies to deal with this critical issue. He presented himself as a physically strong candidate that appeared in excellent condition. By appearing indefatigable, despite the breakneck speed of his campaign, voter concerns about his health were assuaged. In face-to-face meetings, New Yorkers were continually surprised “by his vigor.”[24] In the eyes of the electorate, Roosevelt appeared more than capable of handling matters of State despite his physical ailment. In future campaigns, he would repeat these strategies with great success. 

The gubernatorial campaign also affirmed Roosevelt’s new Democratic coalition strategy. The pattern of Democratic voter distribution in the 1928 result among cities, towns, and villages as well as between industrial and agricultural areas “indicated a trend” that confirmed the validity of forging a new coalition between labor, agriculture, minority, and urban voters.[25]During the next four years he would cultivate and mold this coalition into the base of the new Democratic Party. He accomplished this in part by working to establish a “permanent national organization, which would ‘extend its…help to…campaigns in between elections and…serve to constantly educate the public.”[26]    

Finally, the 1928 campaign elevated Roosevelt as the “heir apparent to the leadership of the Democratic Party.”[27] Following the election, he commissioned a national survey of the Democratic leadership designed to look at several important party matters. Out of the 979 responses from forty-five states “approximately 40% said that they were for Roosevelt or were leaning in his direction…” and “…15 percent specifically declared that he should be the party's next presidential nominee.”[28] From his position as the de facto leader of the Party, Roosevelt was able to further strengthen his new Democratic coalition. 

The leadership Roosevelt displayed during the campaign and his first term in office not only secured him a second term as governor but also secured his place at the helm of the Democratic Party. Over the next four years as governor, he developed the policies and strategies that he would later employ as the nation’s chief executive. His response to the stock market crash of 1929 and the following years of economic depression highlighted his ability to cope with a crisis. By 1932, he was once again poised to rendezvous with destiny.

Now, you can read K.R.T Quirion’s recently published series on telegraphy in the US Civil War here, or the secret US Cold War facility in Greenland here.

[1] Roosevelt, “Campaign Address (Excerpts), Queens, N.Y. October 29, 1928,” 55.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 56.

[4] Ibid. 

[5] Ibid., 59.

[6] Roosevelt, “Campaign Address (Excerpts), Bronx, N.Y. October 30, 1928,” 62

[7] Ibid., 63.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 63-4.

[10] Ibid,64.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid., 66.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Oct 18, 1928), “Roosevelt Assails Campaign Bigotry,” New York Times (1923-Current file), 1.

[16] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1928-1932, 45.

[17] Ibid.

[18] “Ottinger Refuses to Concede Defeat,” (Nov 08, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[19] “Ottinger Concedes Roosevelt Victory,” 1.

[20] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1938-1932, 47.

[21] Special to The New York Times, (Nov 27, 1928), “Democrats List Funds at Albany,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[22] See Table 1. 

[23] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1938-1932, 47.

[24] From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Oct 22, 1928), “Roosevelt Stands Campaigning Well,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[25] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1928-1932, 47.

[26] Earland I. Carlson, “Franklin D. Roosevelt's Post-Mortem of the 1928 Election,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Aug., 1964), 300.

[27] From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Nov 11, 1928), “Roosevelt Hailed by South as Hope of Party in 1932,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[28] Carlson, “Franklin D. Roosevelt's Post-Mortem of the 1928 Election,” 307.

 Bibliography

Primary Sources

“Big Ottinger Vote Predicted Up-State.” (Oct 12, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104441542?accountid=12085.

“F.D. Roosevelt Back; Sees Leaders Today.” (Oct 08, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104448848?accountid=12085.

F.D. Roosevelt Drive Will Start at Once; To Centre Up-State. (Oct 04, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104470038?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Choice of Roosevelt Elates Gov. Smith.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104308830?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 3, 1928). “Ottinger Advances Queens Sewer Issue in Opening Campaign.” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104425583?accountid=12085

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 18, 1928). “Roosevelt Assails Campaign Bigotry.” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104438214?accountid=12085

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 20, 1928). “Roosevelt Begins Work on Message.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104443997?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 24, 1928). “Roosevelt Confers on Labor Program.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104398916?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 11, 1928). “Roosevelt Hailed by South as Hope of Party in 1932.”New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104416279?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 19, 1928). “Roosevelt Scouts Tariff Prosperity” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104437219?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 22, 1928). “Roosevelt Stands Campaigning Well.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104310663?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Oct 3, 1928), “Roosevelt Yields to Smith and Heads State Ticket; Choice Cheers Democrats,” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104308778?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger Accepts Power as Big Issue.” (Oct 16, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File).  Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104430730?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger Concedes Roosevelt Victory.” (Nov 19, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104439338?accountid=12085. 

“Ottinger Refuses to Concede Defeat.” (Nov 08, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104415539?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger to Visit 14 Up-State Cites.” (Oct 13, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104460248?accountid=12085.

Roosevelt, Franklin D. “Acceptance Speech for the Renomination for the Presidency, Philadelphia, Pa.” June 27, 1936. The American Presidency Project. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15314.

“Roosevelt Attacks Theories of Hoover.” (Nov 02, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104414619?accountid=12085.

“Roosevelt Confers with Smith to Map Campaign in State.” (Oct 10, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104321497?accountid=12085. 

“Roosevelt Demands State Keep Power.” (Oct 17, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104423627?accountid=12085. 

“Roosevelt Opposes Any Move to Revive New York Dry Law.” (Oct 09, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104367563?accountid=12085. 

Roosevelt, Franklin D. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Vol. 1, The Genesis of the New Deal 1928-1932. New York, NY: Random House. 1938.

“Roosevelt to Make Wide Tour of State.” (Oct 13, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104433007?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (1928, Oct 07). “Bigotry is Receding, Says F.D. Roosevelt.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/104469322?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (Nov 27, 1928). “Democrats List Funds at Albany.” New York Times (1923-Current File).Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104304172?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Roosevelt Held Out to the Last Minute.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104326803?accountid=12085. 

Special to The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Roosevelt Lauded by Mayor Walker.” New York Times (1923-Current File).Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104326338?accountid=12085. 

Woolf., S.J. (1928, Oct 07). “The Two Candidates for the Governorship.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/104433929?accountid=12085.

Secondary Sources

Davis, Kenneth S. FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928. New York, NY: Random House. 1972.

__________. FDR: The New York Years 1928-1933. New York, NY: Random House. 1985.

Goldberg, Richard Thayer. The Making of Franklin D. Roosevelt: Triumph Over Disability. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books. 1971.

Gunther, John. Roosevelt in Retrospect, A Profile in History. New York, NY: Harper. 1950.

Troy, Gil, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., and Fred L. Israel. History of American Presidential Elections: 1789-2008, Vol. II, 1872-1940. New York, NY: Facts on File, 2012.

Journal Articles           

Carlson, Earland I. “Franklin D. Roosevelt's Post-Mortem of the 1928 Election.” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Aug., 1964): pp. 298-308.

Goldman, Armond S., Elisabeth J. Schmalstieg, Daniel H. Freeman, Jr, Daniel A. Goldman and Frank C. Schmalstieg, Jr. “What was the cause of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s paralytic illness?” Journal of Medical Biography. (11, 2003): pp. 232–240.

 Kiewe, Amos. “A Dress Rehearsal for a Presidential Campaign: FDR's Embodied "Run" for the 1928 Governorship.” The Southern Communication Journal. (Winter, 1999): pp. 154-167.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and the 1928 New York Gubernatorial Campaign – Part 3 – The Campaign

Nearly exhaustive research has been done on Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR’s) four national campaigns, his controversial Presidency, and his leadership in WWII. Surprisingly little, however, has focused on his New York State gubernatorial campaign in 1928. This was the campaign and position in which FDR would prove his fitness for the presidency of the Unites States, a position he held from 1933 to 1945.

In part 3, K.R.T. Quirion tells us about Roosevelt’s opponent, Albert Ottinger, and then how Roosevelt performed on the campaign trail.

You can read part 1 on how Roosevelt overcame a serious illness, polio, to be able to take part in the 1928 campaign here, and part 2 on how Roosevelt accepted the nominarion here.

Franklin D. Roosevelt in Hyde Park, New York in 1928.

THE OPPOSITION

Like Roosevelt, Albert Ottinger had an impressive resume. A graduate of New York University School of Law, Ottinger was elected to the State Senate of New York in 1917 and 1918. In 1921 he was appointed Assistant Attorney General of the United States. Three years later he resigned from this position and was elected Attorney General of New York. He was re-elected in 1926 as the sole survivor of a Democratic landslide. That year every other member of the Republican ticket went down in defeat.[1] Roosevelt knew that Ottinger was a “very promising gentleman” as well as a serious political opponent.[2]

In an early interview with S.J. Woolf of the New York Times, Ottinger said that, “[t]he inhibitions, ‘thou shalt not lie’ and ‘thou shalt not steal,’ would perfectly describe the work upon which I have been employed throughout my term of office as Attorney General, and I shall continue to employ them in my future work.”[3] He also took the opportunity to tout his record of fighting for the common man. Ottinger recalled how, when a statute requiring voting machines to be installed throughout New York City was being debated, he had fought for the enforcement and protection of each citizen’s right to vote, and for that vote to “be honestly counted.”[4]

He claimed that he was for the honest enforcement of all State laws, including those deemed harsh, archaic or repressive. Tempering these remarks, he said that there is a humane manner to accomplish the execution of a law. Where a law is humane it must be “humanely interpreted and applied.”[5] As an example, he pointed to his work with the Workmen’s Compensation act.[6] By clearing out backlogged cases as Attorney General, Ottinger claimed to have granted quick relief to the maimed. Furthermore, his fight against loan sharks, grafters, and other types of criminal fraud enabled him to campaign as a “champion of ‘little people.’”[7]

Besides accepting Roosevelt’s challenge to make the water-power policy a primary issue of the race, Ottinger used his nomination speech to reveal other parts of his platform. He focused on minimizing the “extravagant expenditures of Smith’s administration. In its place, he pledged to focus on the economy, revise the taxation system and “abolish the State income tax.”[8] He also announced his intent to establish a state bureau of investigation to “detect crime and discover the criminal.”[9]Finally, he vowed to stamp out corruption in state and local governments.[10] On the prohibition question Ottinger—unlike Roosevelt—decided to stay silent.

Ottinger waged an active campaign throughout the State. Beginning with his acceptance speech in NYC on October 16, Ottinger spoke sixteen times in fourteen up-state cities before returning to Manhattan on the 24th.[11] Early on he associated himself with Herbert Hoover and the wider national election. At his first stop in Elmira, NY, Ottinger told the crowd that he believed the people of New York would “Hooverize [the] election…and…draft the brains of that gigantic genius of organization for…the benefit of all the American people.”[12] Political leaders up-State had assured  him that “all those supporting Hoover would support [him].”[13] According to Oliver James, the Chairman of Ottinger’s campaign committee, the plurality of 600,000 up-State votes would decide the election.[14]

FROM BINGHAMTON TO POUGHKEEPSIE

Ottinger’s campaign men could make predictions of a massive up-State vote for their candidate because it was a historically Republican voting bloc. For that very reason, FDR chose to run a hard campaign in the up-State counties; whereas his Democratic predecessors had chosen to rely on their traditional bastions in the major cities. Instead, he had a theory for a new Democratic coalition of labor, agriculture, minorities, and urban voters. Seeking to forge this coalition, Roosevelt carefully crafted his platform with their interests in mind.

In Jamestown—a minor New York city but the heart of one of the States' most prominent agricultural centers, Chautauqua County—Roosevelt delivered his first message to the agricultural interests of the up-Staters’. After affirming the Democratic platform on agriculture, Roosevelt declared that he “aimed to go even further.”[15] He said that he wanted to see “the farmer and his family…put on the same level of earning capacity as their fellow Americans.”[16] Acutely aware that he was speaking in a primarily Republican district, he told the assembled crowd that his fight was “not with the Republican rank and file” but with the leadership.[17] Roosevelt had given a similar speech in Elmira—“the heart of dairy country”—the day before and was greeted by an audience that showed enthusiastically that they “appreciated his effort to deal constructively with their specific problems.”[18]

Roosevelt decided to roll out his labor plank in Buffalo on the 20th. He had originally planned to speak on a different subject but changed his plans when Ottinger “had the nerve to talk about what the Republican Party has done for labor.”[19] In Buffalo, Roosevelt delivered one of his most memorable lines from the campaign. “Somewhere in a pigeon-hole in a desk of the Republican leaders of New York State is a large envelope, soiled, worn, bearing a date that goes back twenty-five or thirty years.”[20] This envelope, he continued, has “Promises to labor” written on the front and is filled with identical sheets of paper dated two years apart.[21] “But nowhere is a single page bearing the title ‘Promises kept.’”[22] He closed by indicting “half-way measure[s]” proposed by a Republican “smoke-screen commission,” and challenged the crowd to compare the two party’s programs.[23]

Roosevelt then listed the Democrats’ promises to labor. First, he pledged to “complete Governor Smith’s labor and welfare program.”[24] Second, he promised to give old-age pensions a fair consideration.[25] He also guaranteed to establish an advisory board on minimum wage for women and children, extend the Workmen’s Compensation Act and liberalize “laws relating to the welfare of mothers and children.” [26] The Roosevelt administration would be committed to the principle that the “labor of human beings is not a commodity.” [27]

Social Programs

The next evening in Rochester, Roosevelt addressed the social programs that were central to the liberal platform of the New York Democratic Party. He began his discussion of these “human function[s]” of government by reminding voters of the great strides in education achieved by Governor Smith.[28] Despite the progress already made, FDR admitted that additional State aid would be needed to continue raising the minimum educational standards throughout the State. 

Drawing a parallel between education and healthcare, he said that an expansion of medical service was needed statewide.[29]He lauded the Democratic Senate for passing bills increasing social welfare and government assistance but denouncing the Republican House for ignoring these “pleas” which they had “strangled to death in committee.”[30] If elected, he planned to accelerate the momentum already gained and ask for the money to expand healthcare assistance throughout the State.[31]

Finally, he addressed the issue of old-age pensions. New York’s great need for an old-age pension law was nowhere more apparent than when examining the State’s Poor Laws. In Rochester, he exclaimed that “[I]t just tears my heart to see those old men and women,” going into the County Poorhouse. [32] He concluded that if an adequate old-age law was passed there would be no need to reform the Poor Laws. Instead, they would be repealed “forever and ever.”[33] Roosevelt summarized all that he was trying to accomplish with his campaign by the motto, “Look outward and not in; look forward and not back; look upward and not down, and lend a hand.”[34]

From Water-power to Prohibition

The water-power issue was front and center in Syracuse. On the 23rd, he regaled the audience with the twenty-one-year long struggle between public and private power interests in the use and administration of water resources throughout the State. He weaved a complex narrative which portrayed the Republican Legislature as putting special interests above the good of the public, while the Democrats—and particularly Governor Smith—fought for the people of New York. He claimed that Ottinger’s election would mean the abandonment of the policy supported by the electorate.”[35] Worse still, it would mean the immediate abdication of power resources to “development by private corporations.”[36]

Syracuse turned out to be the most effective speech of the campaign.[37] This intense barrage forced Ottinger to address the issue on a battlefield of Roosevelt’s choosing. Ottinger explained his actions in terms designed to convince the electorate of his “profound devotion to the public interest.”[38] Even while Ottinger scrambled to cover his tracks on the power issue, FDR declared that the people had already made up their minds.     

Later that same day in Utica, Roosevelt reiterated his stance against the re-enactment of State Prohibition Laws. Citing his tenure on the National Crime Commission, Roosevelt explained that all across the nation there was an “undoubted increase in crime.”[39] One factor contributing to this drastic crime surge was the bootlegging of liquor.[40] He expressed concern that Prohibition had caused a proliferation of criminal activity and was leading to a general disrespect for the law. In light of this, he appealed to the voters, urging them to fight the enactment of additional prohibition laws at the state level. He believed that state dry laws added to the confusion rather than streamlining enforcement. Instead, he believed that the Federal Volstead Act was sufficient—when properly enforced—to fulfill the needs of New York.

By the 26th, the campaign was seeing massive support from the up-State counties. Recounting his travels to a gathering in Troy, Roosevelt told how his motorcade was “kidnapped” in Fonda by a group of people in forty or fifty cars.[41] His abductors directed the campaign to the town of Gloversville. In past elections, “two Democrats, and sometimes three” went to the Gloversville polls on Election Day.[42] When Roosevelt arrived in the town, he was greeted by some two thousand people who had gathered to hear him speak. Later that same day the campaign made another impromptu stop in Amsterdam to speak before a group of sixteen hundred. “Too bad about this unfortunate sick man isn’t it,” he quipped.[43]

With the up-State tour complete, FDR returned to New York City with one week left of this fateful election.

Now, read the final part in the series, ‘Victory’, here.

What do you think of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s activity on the campaign trail? Let us know below. 

[1] S.J Woolf, (1928, Oct 07), “The Two Candidates for the Governorship,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[2] “Roosevelt Demands State Keep Power,” 2.

[3] Woolf, “The Two Candidates for the Governorship,” 1.

[4] Ibid., 1.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ottinger explained that the Workmen’s Compensation act was a “beneficial statute passed in the interest of the injured workman.” Ibid. 

[7] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1928-1932, 31.

[8] “Ottinger Accepts Power as Big Issue,” (Oct 16, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[9] Ibid, 2.

[10] Ibid.

[11] “Ottinger to Visit 14 Up-State Cites,” (Oct 13, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[12] From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Oct 3, 1928), “Ottinger Advances Queens Sewer Issue in Opening Campaign,” New York Times (1923-Current file), 1.

[13] “Big Ottinger Vote Predicted Up-State,” (Oct 12, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[14] “Ottinger to Visit 14 Up-State Cites,” 1.

[15] The platform included a “pledge for a careful study” of the farming economy and a pledge for an investigation into the “farm tax situation.” Roosevelt, “Extemporaneous Campaign Address (Excerpts), Jamestown, N.Y., October 19, 1928,” 27.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid., 29.

[18] From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Oct 19 1928), “Roosevelt Scouts Tariff Prosperity” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[19] Roosevelt, “Campaign Address (Excerpts), Buffalo, N.Y. October 20, 1928,” 30.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid., 30-31

[22] Ibid., 31.

[23] Ibid., 32.

[24] Ibid., 34-35.

[25] Ibid., 35.

[26] Ibid., 36.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Roosevelt, “Campaign Address (Excerpts), Rochester, N.Y. October 22, 1928,” 38.

[29] Ibid., 41.

[30] Ibid., 42.

[31] Ibid., 41.

[32] Ibid., 43.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid., 44.

[35] Ibid., 50.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Davis, FDR: The New York Years, 42.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Roosevelt, “Campaign Address (Excerpts), Utica, N.Y. October 25, 1928,” 51.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Roosevelt, “Campaign Address (Excerpts), Troy, N.Y. October 26, 1928,” 54.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Ibid.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

“Big Ottinger Vote Predicted Up-State.” (Oct 12, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104441542?accountid=12085.

“F.D. Roosevelt Back; Sees Leaders Today.” (Oct 08, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104448848?accountid=12085.

F.D. Roosevelt Drive Will Start at Once; To Centre Up-State. (Oct 04, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104470038?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Choice of Roosevelt Elates Gov. Smith.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104308830?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 3, 1928). “Ottinger Advances Queens Sewer Issue in Opening Campaign.” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104425583?accountid=12085

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 18, 1928). “Roosevelt Assails Campaign Bigotry.” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104438214?accountid=12085

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 20, 1928). “Roosevelt Begins Work on Message.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104443997?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 24, 1928). “Roosevelt Confers on Labor Program.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104398916?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Nov 11, 1928). “Roosevelt Hailed by South as Hope of Party in 1932.”New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104416279?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 19, 1928). “Roosevelt Scouts Tariff Prosperity” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104437219?accountid=12085.

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times. (Oct 22, 1928). “Roosevelt Stands Campaigning Well.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104310663?accountid=12085. 

From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Oct 3, 1928), “Roosevelt Yields to Smith and Heads State Ticket; Choice Cheers Democrats,” New York Times (1923-Current file). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104308778?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger Accepts Power as Big Issue.” (Oct 16, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File).  Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104430730?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger Concedes Roosevelt Victory.” (Nov 19, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104439338?accountid=12085. 

“Ottinger Refuses to Concede Defeat.” (Nov 08, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104415539?accountid=12085.

“Ottinger to Visit 14 Up-State Cites.” (Oct 13, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104460248?accountid=12085.

Roosevelt, Franklin D. “Acceptance Speech for the Renomination for the Presidency, Philadelphia, Pa.” June 27, 1936. The American Presidency Project. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15314.

“Roosevelt Attacks Theories of Hoover.” (Nov 02, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104414619?accountid=12085.

“Roosevelt Confers with Smith to Map Campaign in State.” (Oct 10, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104321497?accountid=12085. 

“Roosevelt Demands State Keep Power.” (Oct 17, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104423627?accountid=12085.

“Roosevelt Opposes Any Move to Revive New York Dry Law.” (Oct 09, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104367563?accountid=12085. 

Roosevelt, Franklin D. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Vol. 1, The Genesis of the New Deal 1928-1932. New York, NY: Random House. 1938.

“Roosevelt to Make Wide Tour of State.” (Oct 13, 1928). New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104433007?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (1928, Oct 07). “Bigotry is Receding, Says F.D. Roosevelt.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/104469322?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (Nov 27, 1928). “Democrats List Funds at Albany.” New York Times (1923-Current File).Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104304172?accountid=12085.

Special to The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Roosevelt Held Out to the Last Minute.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104326803?accountid=12085. 

Special to The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Roosevelt Lauded by Mayor Walker.” New York Times (1923-Current File).Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/104326338?accountid=12085. 

Woolf., S.J. (1928, Oct 07). “The Two Candidates for the Governorship.” New York Times (1923-Current File). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/104433929?accountid=12085.

Secondary Sources

Davis, Kenneth S. FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928. New York, NY: Random House. 1972.

__________. FDR: The New York Years 1928-1933. New York, NY: Random House. 1985.

Goldberg, Richard Thayer. The Making of Franklin D. Roosevelt: Triumph Over Disability. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books. 1971.

Gunther, John. Roosevelt in Retrospect, A Profile in History. New York, NY: Harper. 1950.

Troy, Gil, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., and Fred L. Israel. History of American Presidential Elections: 1789-2008, Vol. II, 1872-1940. New York, NY: Facts on File, 2012.

Journal Articles           

Carlson, Earland I. “Franklin D. Roosevelt's Post-Mortem of the 1928 Election.” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Aug., 1964): pp. 298-308.

Goldman, Armond S., Elisabeth J. Schmalstieg, Daniel H. Freeman, Jr, Daniel A. Goldman and Frank C. Schmalstieg, Jr. “What was the cause of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s paralytic illness?” Journal of Medical Biography. (11, 2003): pp. 232–240.

Kiewe, Amos. “A Dress Rehearsal for a Presidential Campaign: FDR's Embodied "Run" for the 1928 Governorship.” The Southern Communication Journal. (Winter, 1999): pp. 154-167.