The Unites States remains the largest and most successful country economically in the world today. But how did it become so successful? Here, Daniel L. Smith argues that an economy underpinned on Christian values that led to the success of America – and that religion is a key factor in economic success more broadly.

Daniel’s book on mid-19th century northern California is now available. Find our more here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

The first American macadam road, Boonsborough Turnpike Road, between Hagerstown and Boonsboro, Maryland, 1823. Picture by Carl Rakeman.

The first American macadam road, Boonsborough Turnpike Road, between Hagerstown and Boonsboro, Maryland, 1823. Picture by Carl Rakeman.

Two words. We can either call it the old-fashioned “Protestant ethic.” Or, what’s better known today as “work ethic.”[1]

Believe it or not, an economy underpinned by Christian values fueled the growth and success America has been known for all over the world. I have heard the argument, “Why are other countries so broke and poor, while we are so spoiled rich?” This comment may be generalized, but it gives a great idea into a typical daily dinner-table conversation. Let’s clarify this.

Nations grow with time - economically, politically, and socially. You can look at a nation from it’s beginnings through to its ending, and its represented by what could resemble a tree that continues to branch outward. Laws are the basis for any civilization and start in a more basic fashion. Over time, laws will continually be added too and expanded upon, so helping to form a culture.

Since law and culture is created out of religion and religious function, there is only one logical conclusion: A nation’s government, which is based in laws rooted in religion, is the key primary source to any nation’s ultimate success.

While America has recently abandoned some of the traditional principles that have produced its prosperity, the country is still the most prosperous and successful nation in the world. Historian David Wolfe writes that “the best way to compare the real wealth of the people of one country with the wealth of the people of another is how many hours of work it takes a factory worker to earn the money needed to buy the same basic commodities in retail stores in that country.”[2]

To buy a kilogram of bread, for example, a factory worker must work 18 minutes in Moscow (Russia), 12 minutes in London (UK), and 8 minutes in Washington (USA). To buy a car (Volga, Ford), that work time is 35 months in Moscow, 8.5 months in London, and 4.1 months in Washington.[3]

 

Work and Necessity

Let’s say that you take a trip to the Philippines. You will find that clothes are around one-third to one-quarter the price of those in the United States. This might be great to the typical American traveler, but it is driven by lower salaries in the Philippines. An average American worker’s salary is ten times the pay that the average worker in the Philippines.

Ultimately, the average Filipino spends more of his paycheck on food and clothes than the average American—even though these necessities cost much less in the Philippines than in the USA. A key reason why Filipinos spend more of their money on other items is because appliances, cars, electronics, and other merchandise that is not made in their own country, often cost more than they do in the United States.[4]

It is this economic reality that applies to every single nation around the entire globe. Those societies that are built on Christian principles have a proper foundational view of natural resources, and will also carry the character to exert human energy, and be given access to the creativity of God leading to better tools, all of which cause man’s material assets to increase.

While any nation adhering to this truth will see their material welfare increase, most people and nations are quite poor. Dr. Stephen K. McDowell of Providence Foundation mentions that, “46% of the world lives in poverty today.” [5] While we can debate the exact percentage of people in poverty, we should still ask why are some countries so much poorer than others? Some claim lack of natural resources, yet some nations, like Japan, with very few natural resources are actually really prosperous. There are also many nations with abundant natural resources that are much less successful than countries with few natural resources.

And while we can consider factors other than natural resources as being important to economic success, I think my argument is important - and often overlooked: While not often considered by economists, ultimately I would argue that the religious basis of countries is a key factor in determining how many countries became wealthy and why they are wealthy today.

 

What do you think of the author’s argument that religion is a key factor in an economy’s success?

 

You can read a selection of Daniel’s past articles on: California in the US Civil War (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), Christian ideology in history (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), and the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post
5 CommentsPost a comment

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.

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.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

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.

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.

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

In this article, she considers why people often destroy parts of their own neighborhoods, and moves on to compare the 2020 protests to some in early American history: the Bacon’s, Shays’, and Whiskey Rebellions.

George Washington and his troops near Fort Cumberland, Maryland, before their march to suppress the 1791 Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania

George Washington and his troops near Fort Cumberland, Maryland, before their march to suppress the 1791 Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania

Sometimes history delivers a one-two punch: a landmark event enveloped in a historical year.  Times of war come to mind: August 6, 1945 - the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, an earth-shattering day smack in the middle of a record-breaking year as World War II came to a climatic end.

The year 2020 is progressing in a similar pattern, even if we are not in the grips of a world war. During one of the worst pandemics in world history, lies May 26: the day George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin while spectators captured the agonizing 7:46 minutes. Appropriately, it all went viral setting off violent protests unseen in decades.

“But why are they burning and destroying their own neighborhoods?”

 

It’s a question I’ve heard a million times from well-intentioned folks who champion racial equality but struggle to make sense of fiery protests. Historians have weighed in on the ‘why’, noting that in low-income areas, African-Americans do not own a lot of property and small shops charge unfair rates for inferior products, thus commercial destruction can be seen as a revolt against economic oppression. As for the psychology of rage, that too is misunderstood. Protests, including violent ones, are politically motivated, coordinated attacks on the status quo. Labeling Black Lives Matter as an angry mob bent on destruction is a political tactic bent on marginalization.

In the face of tumult, eyewitnesses search for understanding, but often history is overlooked. Violence is upsetting in any form, especially now that it’s crowd surfed on social media, but a quick scan of American history can demonstrate to neutral observers that violent tactics are as American as apple pie.

 

Bacon’s Rebellion

Life during colonial America was inconceivably harsh compared to our comfortable times. However, there are familiar parallels such as oppression, disease and riots. In 1676, Smallpox was ravaging indigenous people on the present-day American continent at warp speed.  Simultaneously, the expansion of white government was paving the way for violent uprisings and racial tension.

In 1676, Nathaniel Bacon, a plantation owner in Virginia, mounted a rebellion against the governor, William Berkeley, for assorted reasons ranging from personal snubs, to Berkeley’s refusal to grant freeholders such as Bacon carte blanche to kill Native Americans.

Although Bacon was from an affluent family, he was able to galvanize the obvious social and economic disparities that pervaded the region. He recruited a makeshift army that included poor farmers, slaves, and black and white indentured servants, marginalized groups who were oppressed by the wealthy and had axes to grind.

Bacon’s protesters were not peaceful. They instigated violence, pillaged farms, looted, and most notably burned the capital city of Jamestown to the ground - their own community. History books have never relegated that act to rage, instead it is clearly understood as a calculated anti-establishment move that diminished Berkeley’s power. The exact strategy was employed by protestors who set the Minneapolis police department ablaze, yet many commentators, including the President of the United States, have reduced their actions to that of an “angry mob.”

Bacon died of dysentery before he could see his rebellion through, but the wealthy plantation owners got the big take-away: the lower classes need further oppression to maintain the status quo, and enforcement of strict racial codes would be necessary to prevent poor whites, poor Blacks, and enslaved persons from joining forces in the future.

 

Shays’ Rebellion

The cherished American Revolution was, in itself, a violent protest against perceived tyranny from a legitimate government. In fact, Thomas Jefferson harkened back to Bacon as the first patriot fighting British oppression because it fit their rebellious narrative, despite the truth that Bacon’s rebellion was a power struggle between two stubborn men. But even after the procurement of liberty and establishment of democracy, violent uprising was inevitable.

After the Revolutionary War, many veterans who returned to their farms found themselves struggling to make ends meet. These poor farmers were often cash-strapped, so their local economies moved on the exchange of goods and services rather than paper currency. In western Massachusetts, wealthy coastal merchants began to insist on hard cash for goods while declining lines of credit. The lack of paper money made it impossible for the farmers to pay their debts because besides their farms, all they had was the shirts on their backs. They petitioned the government to print more money to level the field--they sought relief through the courts but the government, dominated by the wealthy, ignored their plight, and the bureaucratic scales never tipped in their favor.

In the face of economic oppression, what did these early Americans do? Rebel, of course. Protestors destroyed government property, assaulted tax collectors, and shut down the courthouse - the physical emblem of injustice.

The summer of 2020 is a mirror’s reflection in many ways. For example, in Portland, protestors drew strong federal responses when they occupied a courthouse, while protestors in Denver targeted the state Supreme Court. In Sacramento, peaceful demonstrations turned violent when citizens vandalized government property and occupied a park.

There is a major difference: the absence of Daniel Shays to coordinate a coup. Daniel Shays, a veteran and farmer directly affected, organized protesters into a full-scale insurgency that sought to topple the government from 1786 to 1787. Eventually the militants were quelled, and Daniel Shays escaped and lived the remainder of his days in poverty. But the violence of Shays' Rebellion resonated with the status quo leading to a stronger federal government that could squash violent rebellions that challenged the establishment. It even made its way into the preamble of the Constitution - ”insure domestic Tranquility.”

 

The Whiskey Rebellion

In 1791, the congressional branch of the newly formed United States of America decided to flex its muscle by imposing a tax on distilled beverages to pay down debt amassed during the Revolution. Since whisky had become the most popular drink, the controversial excise became known as the whisky tax. Whisky was a form of currency on the western frontier for poor farmers, especially in Pennsylvania, so to them it was really an income tax rather than an excise on domestic commerce. Farmers refused to comply - they viewed it as a tool of oppression from wealthy, eastern landowners.

Resistance quickly snowballed into violent insurrection - homes were burned down, property destroyed, and statues set ablaze in effigy. Unfortunately, violent unrest always claims innocent victims and tax collectors became casualties of war. There was Robert Johnson who was attacked by a mob of men disguised as women while he was traversing through his collection route. He was tarred and feathered and left for dead in the woods. John Connor, who attempted to arrest the perpetrators, met the same fate.

Similar events have unfolded today. In Oakland, a federal contract security officer, hired to protect federal courthouses, was shot and killed during a demonstration that turned violent. David Dorn, a retired police captain, was shot and killed by looters in a pawn shop.

Generally, it has been the Black community caught in the crossfire. First, Covid-19 hit African-Americans hard, resulting in higher mortality rates. Simultaneously, Black-owned businesses that were shut received limited government assistance compared to white communities. Then the protests erupted and the Black-owned businesses that were destroyed  may never recover.

History has been kind to the Whiskey Rebellion, which ran from 1791 to 1794. For starters, it’s not labeled as a riot, rather it’s a rebellion that embodies rugged individualism. This is in stark contrast to how the record treats the struggle for civil rights in the 1960s, which are labeled as race riots. Although the media has avoided labeling the George Floyd protests as riots, it’s inescapable when the President of the United States does so repeatedly from the Rose Garden.

How does this compare with the federal tenor during the Whiskey Rebellion? George Washington did prefer a diplomatic resolution but ultimately he is credited with using federal force to suppress the insurrections after years of climatic standoffs. A lingering lesson is that wealthy interests would always prevail.

But race was not involved so how do we celebrate the historical destruction of property and violence today? With a festival, of course!

 

What do you think of the comparisions between past protests and those of 2020? Let us know below.

History is increasingly becoming a part of the ongoing ‘culture wars’ in some Western countries. One of the main ways this is seen is through statue topplings. Here, Ophir Barak gives a British perspective, arguing that toppling statues will not necessarily help resolve issues in the way some people think they will - and that many people are confused between history and memory.

A portrait of Edward Colston, whose statue was toppled in Bristol, England in June 2020.

A portrait of Edward Colston, whose statue was toppled in Bristol, England in June 2020.

“What we remember as a society derives in the end from the kind of society we are and reflects the kind of society we want to be”.

These are the words of eminent historian, Richard Evans, whom in a recent article entitled “The history wars”, discusses the distinction between history and memory and why for centuries, society has struggled to differentiate between these two entities.

Though the message behind Evans’ words date all the way back to the start of modern civilization, the message undoubtedly continues to be relevant in the world we find ourselves in today. 

 

The British perspective

Britain is an ever-more diverse and multicultural nation, shaped by its vast and important history. To preserve and commemorate this history, over the years, public statues, monuments, and memorials have been built. This is done with the hope that they will continuously remind society of the glorious nation Britain once was, how that has shaped the society they live in today, and instill in people a desire to help maintain this status of glory into the nation’s future. This is essentially the phenomenon of cultural memory; it forms links between the past, present and future, through statues, monuments and memorials, to help us understand why our world is the way it is today. 

The most prominent example we see today, is the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol, western England. Made in 1895, the statue was built to commemorate the merchant Edward Colston, who made the bulk of his fortune from the slave trade and as the director of the Royal African Company. He used this fortune to support hospitals, schools, and workhouses in England. Up until his statue was very recently toppled due to the supremacist ways in which he made his fortune, Colston was mostly remembered as a philanthropist who helped improve the functioning of English society.

There has also been pressure to take down the statue of Cecil Rhodes, another “philanthropist”, who made his fortune from employing African workers in his diamond mines and claimed that the Anglo-Saxons were the “first and most elite race in the world”. Rhodes used his fortune to set up scholarships to Oxford University for foreign students who were deemed as part of the “elite Anglo-Saxon race”.

 

The impact of toppling statues

I presume that the people who toppled and defaced the Colston statue and those who have been pushing to take down Rhodes’ statue, thought that by doing so, in part it would help erase these histories. And once these statues have been taken down, or once some grand and meaningful actions have taken place, the message of racism they present seem to get left behind, only to be spoken of again when another cycle of racial injustices occur. Unfortunately, it is these thoughts, misconceptions and actions that have had detrimental effects on British society. 

Many people seem to think that through grand actions like taking down statues, you are effectively erasing history. Well that’s where they’re wrong. You’re not erasing the history of these historical figures - you’re erasing the negative memory that today’s society has created for them. 

Contrary to popular belief, statues, monuments and memorial sites aren’t necessarily about the past, but are about the recognizing the values that exist in the world today, through the historical figures that supposedly created and/or embodied them, that are in statues.

 

What history is

History is the study of events, periods, people, and methods of the past. Studying it as an academic discipline involves reading the facts and drawing your own interpretations and conclusions from it. And regardless of how positive or negative a certain historical period, figure or method was, it can never be erased. Memory is a lot more personal - it is about how you choose to view and remember the historical period, figure or method based on the facts that history has supplied you with. 

And this is what many people don’t know, and the very fact that they don’t know this, has led to issues that have had detrimental effects on our society. The ways in which history is sometimes presented and taught in schools is one of those issues. Schools and universities generally present history as a matter of categorizing figures and periods as either angels or demons. And that’s where they fall short and misunderstand the purpose behind teaching about the past. The underlying purpose and aims behind teaching history is to understand how and why certain events happened or how and why people pursued certain actions, and the effects those events and actions had on society at that time and what they mean for the society we find ourselves in today.

So, to those of you who thought that grand actions like toppling statues would erase history, I would encourage you to think again and look into the real purpose behind the study of the past and to really try and understand the distinction between history and memory. Only then will we be able to discover the true meaning and effects of such grand actions and understand that such actions won’t properly help us understand our past or resolve present issues.

 

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

The Ardagh Hoard was discovered in Ireland in 1868. While many artifacts found in this medieval hoard are beautiful pieces, the Ardagh Chalice is up with the Book of Kells when it comes to the most impressive artifacts in Irish history. Jenny Snook explains.

You can also read Jenny’s first article for the site here.

The Ardagh Chalice, 2005. Source: Kglavin, available here.

The Ardagh Chalice, 2005. Source: Kglavin, available here.

The Ardagh Hoard was found by two teenage boys ‘Jimmy Quinn’ and ‘Paddy Flanagan’ who were out digging potatoes in a ráth or ring fort at Reerasta, near Ardagh, Co. Limerick. It consists of four silver brooches, a plain copper-alloy chalice, and the Ardagh Chalice. This chalice dates to about 750AD, but it is clear the collection wasn’t buried before the early 10th century. The latest object, a silver ‘thistle’ brooch, was made around this time.

 

Origin

Who put the hoard there and where it came from are two questions that historians are still trying to answer. One suggestion is that it was part of the collection stolen from a monastery at Clonmacnoise, Co. Offaly in 1125. Another, states that it came from a similar location to the Derrynaflan hoard, found near Killenaule, Co. Tipperary in 1980. This hoard contains a similar, but not as impressive, chalice. No one knows who buried the Ardagh Hoard but obviously, they were never able to retrieve it.

It was discovered under a large stone slab, suggesting it was buried quickly for protection, during a time when church treasures were often stolen by the Vikings. Dr. Murray is now part of a research program that includes the study of Irish Viking graves. He states:

They stole them by the armful. Not appreciating the sacred nature of these objects, they broke them up, using the fragments to decorate their possessions and turning others into brooches for Viking women.[1]

 

Relocation

This hoard remained underground up until the mid-19th century. The land where Jimmy Quinn lived was rented from an estate owned by the Sisters of Mercy. The hoard was claimed by the Catholic Bishop of Limerick, George Butler. Paying Quinn’s mother £50, he went on to sell it to the Royal Irish Academy for £100 (some have quoted a figure of £500). [2] Neither were aware that some of these pieces were over 1,000 years old.

In 1890, the Ardagh Chalice was put on display at the National Museum of Ireland and has remained on public display there ever since. The Tara Brooch is a stunning Celtic work of art also on display at the museum, made between 650 and 750AD and discovered in 1850. After their discovery, these two artifacts were copied and spurred on Celtic Revival jewelry and metalwork, based on some of their features and intricate style.

 

Style

This kind of chalice is called a ‘calyx ministerialis’, made to pass out Eucharistic wine among the congregation. Even at the time it was made, the Ardagh Chalice was quite an old-fashioned design, similar to the common Byzantine and western chalices.

It is made of beaten silver and the rim of the bowl is decorated in gilt bronze. Some of the other decorations use gold, amber, enamel and glass, such as the multi-colored glass studs attached to the rim. Just below the rim, there’s a decorated band featuring the names of St. Paul and the 11 apostles. Some of the letters of the inscription are like the large initials featured in an impressive manuscript known as the Lindisfarne Gospels, dating back to the early 8th century. The similarity of these letters is one of the reasons why the chalice has been dated back to this period.

Although it’s only 7 inches tall, it consists of 354 pieces.[3] Like the creation of the Book of Kells, it’s unknown how many people were involved, but it was probably made by several craftsmen.

The money given to them by the people who rented their land is one of the reasons why the Irish church had the funds to create such impressive works of art. The creation of the Ardagh Chalice, Derrynaflan Chalice, and the Book of Kells, represent the Golden Age of Ireland, lasting between the origin of Christianity in Ireland in the early 5th century, up to the end of the 9thcentury.   

Maeve Sikora, Keeper of Irish Antiquities at the National Museum of Ireland states:

It’s called the golden age because of the supremely high craftsmanship seen at the time. We have evidence of the amazing use of a variety of different artistic motifs and the use of many materials such as gold, silver, enamel, glass (Maeve Sikora, Keeper of Irish Antiquities at the National Museum of Ireland).[4]

 

Modern Day Significance

Today, experts still find the style of the Ardagh Chalice an incredibly difficult form of art to copy. It’s amazing to think it was made in natural light before methods of magnification were available. 

The chalice is still appreciated by the public today. Between 1990 and 1995, the Irish postal service, ‘An Post’, developed a set of stamps under the name “Irish Heritage and Treasures”, choosing the Ardagh Chalice for the £1 stamp. The Sam Maguire Cup is a famous piece modeled on the chalice, given to the annual All-Ireland senior football champions.

Maeve Sikora states:

One hundred and fifty years on, the chalice is still relevant. It can begin so many conversations around devotion, craftwork and science.[5]

 

What do you think of the Ardagh Hoard? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Jenny’s article on the 1916 Proclamation that helped to create an independent Ireland here.

 

 

Webography

·       https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/national-treasure-an-irishman-s-diary-on-the-ardagh-chalice-1.3634482 National Treasure: An Irishman’s Diary on the Ardagh Chalice

·       https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20238825.html Vikings Ransacked Church Gold for Jewellery

·       https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ardagh-chalice-shines-light-on-golden-age-37314647.html Ardagh Chalice Shines Light on Golden Age

·       http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/irish-crafts/ardagh-chalice.htm Ardagh Chalice: 8th-9th Century.

·       https://www.claddaghdesign.com/history/irish-treasures-ardagh-chalice/ Irish Treasures: The Ardagh Chalice

·       https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ardagh-Chalice Ardagh Chalice

 

Bibliography 

·       Wallace, Patrick F. and Ó Floinn, Treasures of the National Museum of Ireland: Irish Antiquities (2002). Gill & Macmillan Ltd. Dublin

[1] https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20238825.html

[2] https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/national-treasure-an-irishman-s-diary-on-the-ardagh-chalice-1.3634482 (This figure is taken from the ‘Irish Times’ which is a reliable source. In a lot of online pieces £100 is stated but in a lot of others it’s £500. This is how it’s described in the Irish Times where it mentions the £500 in brackets).

[3] https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/national-treasure-an-irishman-s-diary-on-the-ardagh-chalice-1.3634482

[4] https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ardagh-chalice-shines-light-on-golden-age-37314647.html

[5] https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ardagh-chalice-shines-light-on-golden-age-37314647.html

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

Abigail Smith, later Abigail Adams (1744-1818), was the wife of John Adams, the second President of the United States. Abigail, or Abby, had a very close partnership with John and so played an instrumental role in the Revolutionary War years and in the early years of an independent United States. Douglas Reid explains.

Abigail Adams in the 1760s. Painting by Benjamin Blyth.

Abigail Adams in the 1760s. Painting by Benjamin Blyth.

Abigail Smith was a petite woman. She was born in the seaside village of Weymouth, Massachusetts in 1744 to Puritan parents, her father being one of two Bible scholars serving the spiritual needs of 2,100 souls. She would never receive a day of formal education but as an introverted young lady she would meet a local young lawyer named John Adams and her fate was assured. The 54- year marriage of John and Abigail Adams was a partnership of heart and mind.

Abigail proved to be a natural scholar who inhaled her father’s library in large swallows, especially the prose and poetry of John Donne and the essays of Montaigne. It helped a great deal that her father encouraged her to read and then think about what she read. Subsequently her husband would also encourage her in these self-styled seminars and three occurrences together produced a scholar of no mean standing. Add to this mix her belated blossoming and this produced a young woman of fire and desire. And Abby made a point of cultivating the friendship of two special soul mates.

Abby began a three-year correspondence with the historian Catherine Macaulay. And she also developed a more enduring friendship with Mercy Otis Warren, a playwright of even greater renown. But her steadiest sounding- board was always John. John called Abby a heroine before I did. Himself a successful lawyer and a graduate of Harvard, John would soon provide his wife a practical course in politics and that course was underway by 1768.

 

Events heat up

In that year John was elected to the Massachusetts legislature, the first of several state and ambassadorships he would be assigned to serve. Thus began the earliest correspondence between John and Abigail. Now, in the 1770s the enmity between Mother Britain and the renegade States grew worse, and famously flared in 1775 in Concord and Lexington. The Revolutionary War was underway.

The years 1770 – 1776 might better be judged a shadow war, which grew hotter with Concord and Lexington. Redcoats and Minute Men simmered and smouldered. Perhaps these six years could be considered as a “phoney war”. One thing was certain. John’s time away from home was growing and a consequence was that Abigail was taking over the operation of the family farm as well as the early education of their children and minding the family finances. And then there was Portia.

Portia was known in ancient Rome as the beleaguered wife of Brutus the noble conspirator. Abigail adopted Portia as a pen name when exchanging letters with her husband and Mary Otis Warren and no one else. Portia was not the only reference to a mythic being in the Adams household. So was Phoebe.

Phoebe (A Moon Goddess) was the name of Abigail’s personal “servant” during her childhood. When Abby married John Adams, Phoebe went along with her. This, of course, raises the issue of slavery. Even a cursory examination of their lives reveals a couple opposed to slavery in a nation dedicated to liberty, but this continued to bother her. And on this issue, as nearly all others, the Adams’ agreed.

Now, as the first Continental Congress approached in 1774 Abby had become the best-read woman of her time. As the representatives of the states met, John found himself increasingly seeking Abby’s input. He told her “If I could write as well as you, my sorrows would be as eloquent as yours, but upon my word I can not.” He once used a quotation included in one of her letters in a speech before Congress. Then in 1778 Congress named John Adams as Commissioner to France and later to the Netherlands. Separated for years, the Adams were reunited in France and Abby watched the antics of the “beau monde” up close and personal.

 

A great partnership

Following a brief time at home John would travel to the Netherlands in an attempt to induce the Dutch to lend the struggling young nation a loan. He was unsuccessful on this occasion. However a second effort in this regard would be granted at a later date. Perhaps it is significant that Abby was with him on the second hearing but not on the first.

He always shared the details of his work with his wife and sought her advice. Politics always fascinated her. John basked in the recognition that went with public service. Abigail cherished a vicarious importance as the wife of a prominent public figure. Soon John was to be appointed the first ever Minister Plenipotentiary to England. This time the Minister’s wife accompanied him throughout the appointment. Mrs. Adams proved to be the epitome of the universal observation that travel enlightens and deepens. One colleague of John’s said of her “Mrs. Adams is the most accomplished lady I have seen since I left England.

It has to be said that Abby never probed deeply into the minds and souls of the people she met in Europe but she was a keen observer of anything external. Her natural purview was monuments, buildings, flowers, trees and behavior. Probably her favorite subject was women’s education. In her view a better education, far from destroying a woman’s femininity, made them better wives and mothers. As John rose to and through the office of vice-president under Washington and then himself president, Abigail was always there, always one of the partnership. When John was scheduled to review military troops in New Jersey and could not make it, Abby acted as his proxy. 

Abigail Adams first loyalty was always to John and she would never allow him to diminish his life’s work. For Abby, John remained forever the President and she never referred to him by any other name.

 

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

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

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.

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.

The Tudor Dynasty ruled the Kingdom of England and its realms, Wales and Ireland, from 1485 until 1603. It remains one of the periods of British history people are most fascinated by and includes two of the greatest and most famous – or in one case infamous – monarchs: King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I. Here, Victor Gamma explains why we continue to love the Tudors so much.

Portrait of King Henry VIII of England, 1542. By Hans Holbein.

Portrait of King Henry VIII of England, 1542. By Hans Holbein.

In the recesses of a magnificent palace, a man enters a rich chamber. He is wearing a doublet of blue and red velvet. It is lined with cloth of gold in addition to purple satin embroidered with gold. Underneath is a white silk shirt, frilled at the neck and wrists. His lithe movements betray an athletic tendency. All in all, he is a magnificent sight. He smiles as a woman enters. Her lustrous, black hair is only partially hidden by a gable hood with pinned up lappets and a hanging veil. Her jet-black eyes are set in a face that is not stunningly beautiful but rather handsome, of an olive complexion. It is his mistress. The man is married but his wife will not grant him a divorce. The scandal has become not only the talk of the court, but the talk of Europe. The couple embraces. The lady’s eyes, always expressive, sparkle under her lover’s passionate attention. After a moment of flirtation, the discussion turns serious. An argument ensues. She presses him to know when his divorce will finally come through. He is evasive and grows irritated. Her fiery temper gets the better of her and she lashes out, “It has been three years and we are no nearer the promised betrothal than we were then. I could have contracted an advantageous marriage by this time! I am about to turn 30.” The man, feeling the pressure of being caught between a stubborn wife and a nagging mistress, rushes out of the room in a huff. This is not a scene from a soap opera or made-for-TV historical drama. It is one of many real-life incidents in the life of the Tudors, and it is one element that makes this dynasty provide such rich fodder for an ever-adoring audience.  

In 1603 Elizabeth I, the last of the Tudors, died without an heir. Her successor, James I, was proclaimed king within eight hours. He set about immediately on a triumphant procession from Scotland to take the throne he had coveted so long. Even in this honeymoon period, though, signs appeared that anyone hoping for a continuation of the great Tudor administrations was in for a disappointment. At Newark, a thief was caught in the act and James ordered him to be executed without a trial. This was but once instance in which James displayed his utter lack of knowledge regarding English customs. He also brought with him a penchant for lecturing, a feature which did not endear him to those who suffered through them, including Parliament. The excellent rapport Elizabeth had nurtured with Parliament soured. He made peace with Spain, and deprived Englishmen of the popular enemy. Before long many an English heart yearned for the days of Gloriana, the Sea Dogs and the great victory over the Armada. Since that time, the Tudors, especially the gigantic personality of Henry VIII, have been celebrated in every media imaginable. The author has observed this phenomenon throughout his own lifetime. In childhood I learned the cut of the beautiful 15th century court costumes from  “Anne of a Thousand Days,” and “A Man for All Season.” Then as an adolescent I grew up on the outstanding BBC productions on “The Six Wives of Henry VIII,” and “Elizabeth R.” Down to our own times I have observed the success of the television series “The Tudors.” On any visit to Barnes and Noble, a lavishly illustrated book on the Tudors is almost certain to greet your eyes. Why this on-going obsession with a dynasty that died out over 400 years ago? Diverse elements serve to explain the perennial love affair with a long-past British dynasty. 

 

Made for television?

The Tudors were made for the camera. First, the Tudor dynasty was full of colorful characters and dramatic events; Henry VIII and his six wives.... fierce religious controversy.... the tragic tale of Lady Jane Grey... the great intelligence of Elizabeth I and the artistic accomplishments of her reign… Bloody Mary… Drake and Hawkins...Shakespeare, the list goes on. It doesn’t hurt that the sixteenth century was a pivotal time for Britain. During that bursting-at-the-seams hundred-year period, England transitioned from the medieval world to the modern. Most notably it marked the end of the Catholic Church in England. A new spirit of confidence and patriotism swept the country. Great naval exploits began the great English seafaring tradition. Whether as pirates, officers or explorers, Elizabethan sailors controlled the seas. And besides the political and religious changes, the Tudors themselves were interesting and complex people.

The Tudors have everything an audience could want; Passion, sex, power, conflict and strong characters. In the passion department, Henry VIII made up for his descendants shortcomings. Not only did he have six wives, he found time to carry on affairs with a variety of mistresses. A costume drama at its best, who can resist an alluring woman dressed up in full Renaissance regalia? But it wasn’t just its plentiful supply of love-interest. Henry wasn’t the only monarch with an over-active libido, Charles II’s reign also consisted of basically one royal fling after another. But Charles lacks the personal magnetism of Henry and only had one wife. Every school child knows that Henry VIII had six wives, and many can name at least some of them. But who remembers the name of Charles II’s wife?

Additionally, everyone loves drama. Even today, the royal-watching media feeds on one main narrative to keep its audience enthralled: dysfunction! Many other monarchs had devoted and sedate family lives which do not make for tantalizing reading or viewing. In fact they can be downright dull. What attracts people is the sensational and extraordinary. The Tudors possessed enough dysfunction to keep tabloids, if they had existed at the time, busy forever. Here we have a man with a succession of six wives, each of which provided her own tantalizing drama: two are beheaded, one dies in childbirth, one is tossed aside, but the king, ever the courtier, allows her a palace and a castle to live out her days, and one nurses him in his old age. After Henry we have a sickly youth, Edward VI, who is so nervous he throws up when he is proclaimed king. After a brief reign he tries, on this deathbed, to disinherit his own sister from the throne. He is followed by a queen who reigned for a grand total of nine days before her overthrow and execution. Her successor, Mary, spends most of her reign pining over her un-besotted (and absent) husband, burning heretics and trying to destroy everything her father tried to accomplish. Finally comes Elizabeth. She did the unthinkable and refused to marry during her long reign. She became the target of countless schemes and a succession of courtships, but survived everything to become one of the most praised rulers in English history. And of course, constant intrigue surrounded these events. 

 

Henry VIII

Let’s focus for a while on the most famous, or infamous, Tudor, Henry VIII. Britain today still bears his imprint. The England Henry VIII left behind in 1547 was much different than the one he inherited in 1509. This can be seen physically in the ruined shells of the monasteries that dot the English countryside, reflecting the turbulence of Henry's reign. It can also be seen in the monarchy's titles of fidei defensorand Supreme Head of the Church of England. Additionally, until recently, "Britannia rules the waves" was a reality largely as the result of Henry's labors. His work to build up England’s power at sea earned him the name “Father of the English Navy.” “Fortress England” also began to emerge in reaction to the threat of invasion. Medieval England was torn to shreds in the hands of this giant personality and thrust kicking and screaming into the modern age. The forces of change he unleashed became the dominant themes upon which Edward and Elizabeth built and Mary tried to destroy. Since England was to export its culture to the far corners of the globe, Henry's actions not only changed the course of English history, but affected the whole world. 

The spiritual landscape of England is ax§lso greatly reflective of Henry's will. The Anglican Church displays Henry's wish as a middle way between Catholicism and extreme evangelicalism. So passionate was he in his conviction that his subjects were united religiously that he gave in to tears when addressing Parliament. The division of Ireland into Protestant and Catholic realms began with Henry's attempt to establish the Reformation in that land. The break with Rome and subsequent events led to a growing anti-Catholic feeling which became increasingly identified with English nationalism. The critical event in this development was Henry's initial break from the Roman church. The Reformation that Henry began and established by law in the form of the Acts of Appeals and Six Articles. This has been called a 'revolution in jurisdiction.' The fundamental relationship between church and state was changed. The freedom of the church from secular jurisdiction, traced back to the Magna Carta and beyond, was shattered. All religious matters would now become a parliamentary concern under the authority of the king-in-parliament - in particular, the dissolution of the monasteries brought huge changes throughout the countryside. 

 

American connection – And success

Also, Americans are keenly aware that under Elizabeth, the first stumbling but bold efforts to establish an empire in the US took place. Those fly-speck beachheads would grow to a mighty torrent in the following generations. We know that although the first permanent English settlement would not be established until after the last Tudor died, it was this dynasty that started the process. Americans feel a special kinship with the Tudors for that reason. The story of the English-speaking United States really begins with names like Raleigh, Drake, and Hawkins.

Moreover, they were successful. They contained not one but TWO of the greatest royal administrators in history: Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth I (by the way, Henry VII, who started it all, was not a bad ruler as well!). The previous dynasties had too many ups and downs. The Hanoverians are known for losing America. Later dynasties don’t count because they had no real power. No one considered the House of Stuart successful by any stretch. Everyone loves a winner and the Tudors fit the bill and then some. With a small bodyguard and no standing army, they maintained and expanded the respect and power of the monarchy, preserved the peace, held their own against the best diplomacy and military Europe could throw at them, and guided the nation through changes that destroyed others. A comparison with France will shed some light on the measure of their success. France suffered from decades of cruel religious wars. While Britain, despite even more drastic change, experienced very little upheaval. The political and administrative skills of the Tudor monarchs are admired even today. Monarch and parliament enjoyed a stable and workable relationship. The development of a national consciousness, or 'Englishness', developed throughout the sixteenth-century.

The appetite for exploring the intriguing characters of “Bluff King Hal,” “Bloody Mary,” and “Gloriana” shows little sign of abating. So brace yourselves for the next Tudor drama, it's sure to come soon!

 

What do you think of the Tudors? Let us know below.

If you want to learn more about the Tudors, read Victor’s series on Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon here.

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 2, K.R.T. Quirion explains how a not-so-healthy Roosevelt ended up accepting the 1928 nomination, how he set up his campaign team, and the very start of his campaign in October 1928.

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

Franklin D. Roosevelt in Olean, New York. October 19, 1928.

Franklin D. Roosevelt in Olean, New York. October 19, 1928.

DETERMINATION

When Al Smith was nominated by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for a second presidential run in 1928, Roosevelt was again approached about running in the New York gubernatorial campaign. Committed to his full recovery—and even more dubious about the Democrat’s chances of success in 1928 then he was in 1924—Roosevelt was determined to stay out of the political race, or so he thought. 

Roosevelt returned to his beloved Warm Springs after delivering Smith’s nomination speech in Houston. He was barely settled into his routine at the Georgia hideaway before he was summoned to New York City by the DNC. For the next three months, FDR remained on the periphery of the Smith campaign. Finally, in late September, Roosevelt escaped back to Warm Springs. He needed to get away, as much for his health as to avoid the importuning politicians who were already harassing and cajoling him to run for governor of New York.[1]

Howe agreed with Roosevelt’s decision not to run for three important reasons. First, he concurred with Roosevelt’s concern for his health. The second reason was their mutual awareness that FDR might be defeated. Third, they “felt that 1928 was too early for [Roosevelt] to run again for office.”[2] Smith implored Roosevelt on multiple occasions to reconsider his candidacy and each time Roosevelt remained unwavering in his opposition.

Once situated in Warm Springs, Roosevelt began taking increasing steps to “deliberately cut himself off from communication with” the Democrat delegates in New York that were pushing him to accept the nomination.[3] Eleanor, who had remained in New York was under pressure from the delegates to convince him to run. She held out until October 1, when she finally agreed to help Smith get in contact with her husband.[4] In the conversation that followed, Smith brought all the force he could bear against the reluctant Roosevelt. Finally, the combination of Eleanor’s tacit endorsement of his nomination, John Raskob’s promise to financially maintain the Warm Springs Foundation, and Smith’s decision to frame his plea on a personal basis, Roosevelt, at last, began to buckle.[5]

Smith and the DNC believed that without Roosevelt, he had no chance of carrying New York in the general election, and if he did not carry New York, then he had no chance of securing the electoral votes needed to win. Roosevelt argued against this line of reasoning, but once Smith had made the matter personal, Roosevelt knew that if he refused, he would likely lose the support of Smith and his political machinery in all future endeavors. As the conversation came to its conclusion, the exasperated Smith was nearly shouting into the phone. He asked whether Roosevelt would “actually decline to run if nominated.”[6] At this FDR waivered. He told Smith that if the convention, in full knowledge of his wishes, chose to nominate him, then he was unsure what he would decide. Roosevelt might as well have announced that he wanted to be drafted. For Smith, the effect was the same. 

The very next day, FDR was nominated by the convention in Rochester, New York. Mayor Walker of New York City announced FDR’s nomination to the crowded convention. He lauded the choice of such a “distinguished, honorable American” assuring the crowd that Roosevelt would “maintain the same high degree of efficiency, the same genius, in fact, in government, the same sterling honesty that has characterized the present Governor of this State.”[7] At 1:10 P.M. that afternoon, Roosevelt sent a message to the convention acknowledging his intent to accept the nomination.[8] The nomination of Roosevelt inspired Democratic party leaders.[9] Even the heavily Republican press was pleased with the nomination. Two New York papers, The Sunand The New York Telegram, which had both supported Herbert Hoover in the national election, immediately came out in support of Roosevelt.  

 

GETTING A “RUNNING” START

At once, Roosevelt set himself to the task before him. He plunged into the campaign with the same force of determination with which he had initially refused, though his past reluctance haunted his initial steps. As Kiewe explains, “the campaign ahead was largely defined by Roosevelt’s refusal to run due to the health issue.”[10] The disease that had paralyzed him was once again a hurdle to his ambitions. The New York Herald Tribune threw the first stone on October 3, one day after Roosevelt’s nomination. It complained that his nomination was “unfair to the people of the State who, under other conditions, would welcome Mr. Roosevelt’s candidacy for any office.”[11] Smith backed up his candidate by returning fire through the New York Times:

‘The real fact is this,’ the Governor said. ‘Franklin Roosevelt today is mentally as good as he ever was in his life. Physically he is as good as he ever was in his life….a Governor does not have to be an acrobat. We do not elect him for his ability to do a double back flip or a handspring. The work of the governorship is brain work. Ninety-five per cent of it is accomplished sitting at a desk. There is no doubt about his ability to do it.’[12]  

 

Despite Smith’s vigorous advocacy, Roosevelt would still have to prove to the electorate the truth of those assertions. The key to putting the questions regarding his disability to rest was to cultivate the image of an active and mobile campaigner.[13] He further defused the health question by making light of his disability. In an interview with the New York Herald Tribune, Roosevelt stated that “most people who are nominated for the Governorship have to run, but obviously I am not in any condition to run, and therefore I am counting on my friends all over the state to make it possible for me to walk in.”[14]

Even before returning to New York, FDR had begun planning his campaign. In a telegraph to some of his political allies in the City, Roosevelt indicated that he would run an aggressive campaign for himself as well as other Democratic candidates at the State and national level.[15] Instead of confining his race to the Democrat-controlled cities, plans were put into place to carry the campaign “into the ‘enemy’s country.’”[16]  These were the rural districts where Democratic voters had been rare in past elections.[17]

Roosevelt arrived in New York City six days after accepting the nomination via telegraph. He used his travel as an opportunity to campaign for Smith. In one speech on October 6, in Cleveland, Roosevelt revealed some of his up-coming platform for the New York race. Following a denunciation of religious bigotry, Roosevelt stated that he accepted the nomination because he was “so anxious to see Governor Smith’s policies continued that he was willing to make the effort.”[18] He also stated his belief that prohibition was a “cloak for something else” but in his view, the tactic’s effect was receding.[19]

 

Campaign team

His first stop in New York was Hyde Park where he was greeted by “200 of his neighbors in an impromptu celebration.”[20] On October 8th, FDR met with the candidate for Lieutenant Governor, Colonel Herbert Lehman, and other party leaders at the campaign headquarters in the Biltmore Hotel. The next day, Roosevelt met with Smith to finalize his campaign plans. Among the strategies adopted was the creation of a Citizens’ Campaign Committee designed to register voters and encourage people to go to the polls in November. When Smith last ran for Governor, the Democrats had instituted a similar Committee with success. This time, James Farley and the Chairman of the Democratic Committee, William Bray, were responsible for the up-State campaign, while the infamous Tammany Hall handled New York City and the boroughs. 

Apart from Howe and Farley, there were several other indispensable figures in Roosevelt’s campaign. The Bronx Democratic Boss, Edward J. Flynn, was among the first to join Roosevelt’s team. Flynn had been active in Smith’s presidential election but, because of New York’s importance in the national election, he detached himself from the Smith campaign to aid Roosevelt and secure the State’s desperately needed electoral votes. Raymond A. Moley, a professor at Columbia University was summoned to aid the campaign as speech draftsman and as a consultant on issues of crime prevention and criminal justice.[21]

Then there was William H. Woodin. A life-long Republican and the President of the American Car and Foundry Corporation, Woodin had endorsed the Smith campaign in July. He personally contributed $25,000 to the Democratic national campaign fund. Woodin was enlisted as Roosevelt’s “financial dictator.”[22] Henry Morgenthau, Jr. was personally recruited to direct the campaign’s agricultural platform. One of the most important aids brought into was Samuel I. Rosenman who joined after Roosevelt requested an advisor that could supplement his deficiencies concerning the legislative history of the parties in New York.[23]

After conferring with Smith and his team at the Democratic campaign headquarters in the Biltmore, Roosevelt made his first formal interview with the press concerning the gubernatorial race. There, he announced that he did not favor re-enacting the Mullan-Gage State Prohibition Enforcement act. He further added that while traveling throughout the country he had found the Prohibition acts of other States no more effective than those of New York, which relied exclusively on Federal laws.[24] When asked if, as Governor, he would veto a Legislative bill for the enforcement of Prohibition, he replied in the affirmative.[25] He closed his remarks by promising to run an active campaign “with a lot of handshaking and close contact with the voters.”[26]

 

Campaign starts

By Friday, October 12, the campaign itinerary was released. It listed Roosevelt speaking at nineteen events over nineteen days beginning on the 17th in Binghamton. His final speech would be made on the last night of the election, November 5, in Poughkeepsie at a neighborhood rally.[27] The campaign was officially kicked off when Roosevelt officially accepted the nomination at the National Democratic Club on the 16th. He opened his speech saying, “I accept the nomination for Governor because I am a disciple in a great cause.”[28] The cause he was referring to was the continuation of Governor Smith’s reforms. Continuing, consolidating and making permanent these reforms was the first great issue of the campaign. The second great issue, Roosevelt declared, was whether New York would “undertake new improvements” in government to “keep pace with changing times.”[29]

“Progress means change,” he said, and there were four areas he had in mind. [30] The first was the passage of law mandating the public retention of State-owned water-power resources. Second, he called for a reform of the Judicial System. He asserted that the judiciary “failed to keep pace with the advancement[s] of a practical age.”[31] The final two points focused on New York’s rural districts. He believed that measures were needed to improve the economic conditions of agricultural communities. Finally, he called for governmental reorganization policies at the State level to extend to county and town administrations as well.[32]

With these points Roosevelt launched his campaign. His opponent for the governorship, Albert Ottinger, had already accepted his party’s nomination and begun campaigning. During his acceptance speech, Ottinger indicated his stance on the opposite side of the water-power issue. The Republican Party in New York had long stood against the policy advocated by Roosevelt. Ottinger, in lockstep with his party, was a consistent advocate of private waterpower. If elected, he promised to create a commission of experts to investigate the subject and recommend policy.[33]     

 

Now, read part 3 in the series on what happened during the short 1928 New York Gubernatorial campaign here.

What do you think of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to accept the nomination in 1928? Let us know below.


[1] Davis, FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928, 838.

[2] Ibid., 839-840. 

[3] Ibid., 848.

[4] On October 1, Roosevelt had deliberately planned to spend “a long afternoon of picnicking at the Knob, miles from the nearest phone, planning to return to his phoneless cottage barley in time to dress for the political speech he was to make that evening in Manchester, ten miles from Warm Springs.” Thus, he had hoped to “double lock the door of unwanted opportunity.” However, Eleanor knew, as did the Smith, that Roosevelt would not refuse a “person-to-person” phone call from his wife. With this backdrop, Eleanor knew that her assent to Smith’s plea was “no neutral, noncommittal gesture.” Rather, she knew that it would be interpreted by her husband as a silent conclusion that he should accept the nomination. Ibid., 846, 848.

[5] Ibid., 851.

[6] Gunther, 253.

[7] Special to The New York Times, (Oct 03, 1928), “Roosevelt Lauded by Mayor Walker,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[8] 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), 2.

[9] “F.D. Roosevelt Drive Will Start at Once; To Centre Up-State,” (Oct 04, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File, 1.

[10] Kiewe, 158.

[11] Goldberg, 108. 

[12] From a Staff Correspondent of The New York Times, (Oct 03, 1928), “Choice of Roosevelt Elates Gov. Smith,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1-2.

[13] Kiewe, 159. 

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

[15] “F.D. Roosevelt Drive Will Start at Once,” 2.

[16] Ibid., 1.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Special to The New York Times, (1928, Oct 07), “Bigotry is Receding, Says F.D. Roosevelt,” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[19] Ibid.

[20] “F.D. Roosevelt Back; Sees Leaders Today,” (Oct 08, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[21] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1928-1932, 33.

[22] “Roosevelt Confers with Smith to Map Campaign in State,” (Oct 10, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[23] Davis, FDR: The New York Years 1928-1932, 35.

[24] “Roosevelt Opposes Any Move to Revive New York Dry Law,” (Oct 09, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[25] Ibid

[26] Ibid., 2.

[27] “Roosevelt to Make Wide Tour of State,” (Oct 13, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[28] Franklin D. Roosevelt, “The Candidate Accepts the Nomination for the Governorship, October 16, 1928,” 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), 13.

[29] Ibid., 16.

[30] Ibid., 14.

[31] Ibid., 15.

[32] Ibid., 16.

[33] “Roosevelt Demands State Keep Power,” (Oct 17, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

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.