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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Japanese Internment during World War II 

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

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

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

3. A New Deal for Some of the American People 

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

The Year Thanksgiving Changed to a New Date: Franksgiving

Thanksgiving now occurs in America on the fourth Thursday of November – but it has not always been the case. Here, Mac Guffey looks at how President Franklin D. Roosevelt changed the date of Thanksgiving in 1939 – and the issues it caused.

You can read Mac’s first article on the site, A Brief History of Impeachment in the US, here.

Troops enjoying Thanksgiving after the end of World War I, November 1918.

November 1939: ‘The Great Turkey Issue’

In the summer of 1939, an executive order was whimsically issued by the President of the United States, while vacationing at his resort. It came at the request of one of his Cabinet members, and it was executed without any due diligence other than a request by the head of a national business association for the change. His irresponsible action caused an unprecedented uproar across the country for three years.

Sound familiar?

That ‘Executive Order’ happened eighty years ago; the President was Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the issue that caused the uproar was the date of Thanksgiving.  

Traditions

Since 1863, when President Abraham Lincoln signed the executive order (then known as proclamations) officially proclaiming the first Thanksgiving and stipulating the last Thursday in November as the date of its observance, it became a yearly tradition followed by every President of the United States to do the same (except President U.S. Grant in 1869, but that’s another story). [1]

Periodically however, Novembers have five Thursdays. In Lincoln’s time, no one cared. But by 1939, another holiday tradition had become a part of America’s yearly holiday traditions – the Christmas shopping season. And it officially kicked off the day after Thanksgiving.

As the Daily Republican (Monongahela, PA) explained:

“It is a tradition among business men that advertising and display of Christmas goods is withheld until after Thanksgiving, and since that holiday would have fallen this year on the latest possible date, there would have been only 20 Christmas shopping days.” [2]

Big Business

Since the American economy was finally picking up its pace after being dormant for so many years due to the Great Depression, and because a minor recession in 1937-38 scared many business owners, some retailers were naturally concerned that losing six days of the Christmas shopping season might have a detrimental effect on their businesses. 

Therefore, Lew Hahn the general manager of a retail groups and more than 5,000 storeowners - the National Retail Dry Goods Association– wrote a letter to Harry Hopkins, Secretary of Commerce for FDR, with a request: An earlier Thanksgiving would be “good for business”. [3]

Time Magazinewryly noted FDR’s August response to the delegation’s request in its August 21stissue:

“At his Campobello cottage, Franklin Roosevelt broke his umptieth precedent, and gave a headache to football fans and turkey-growers by moving Thanksgiving Day up this year from November 30 to November 23.” [4]

Roosevelt explained that his decision was at the requests of thousands of businessmen and merchants, and since there was nothing sacred about the customary date – and no Federal law governing it – he moved it up a week. He also announced that all future Thanksgivings, beginning in 1940, would be on the second Thursday of November. [2]

Here’s a key fact worth noting at this point: Since there was no Federal law regarding the date of Thanksgiving, any President’s Thanksgiving proclamation truly affected only the District of Columbia and any territories belonging to the United States. It was actually up to the governors of each state to decide when to celebrate that day in their state. Since 1863, the governors traditionally just echoed the President’s proclamation.

Until 1939.

America’s Split Reaction

FDR’s lack of economic “due diligence”, his political oversight, and his insensitivity to the American public’s reverence for its traditions all combined to make this issue a political bludgeon and a public relations nightmare for his administration!  

The political backlash was immediate. 

“Mayor C.D. White of Atlantic City, N.J. dubbed it ‘Franksgiving’…” The term went national (and historical, and it was seemingly misattributed). [5*]

Alf Landon - FDR’s 1936 G.O.P. presidential opponent - pointed out:

“If the change has any merit at all, more time should have been taken in working it out so as to assure wholehearted co-operation instead of springing it upon an unprepared country with the omnipotence of a Hitler.” [6]

Other Republican politicos insisted that such important changes should be resolved through a deliberate, bipartisan legislative process, and not by arbitrary, executive decisions. Many Democrats agreed. 

The governors of each state were forced to decide whether to follow Roosevelt’s proclamation or stick with the traditional fourth Thursday in November. The results were twenty-three states and D.C. followed FDR’s proclamation date of November 23rd, and twenty-three other states disagreed and kept the traditional date. Two states – Texas and Colorado - decided to honor BOTH days. [7]

The American public flooded the White House with letters and telegrams. One Brooklyn businessman immediately wrote to FDR regarding the President’s sweeping but unsubstantiated allegation that more shopping days benefitted merchants.

“The small storekeeper would prefer leaving Thanksgiving Day where it belongs. If the large department stores are overcrowded during the shorter shopping period before Christmas, the overflow will come, naturally, to the neighborhood store…We have waited many years for a late Thanksgiving to give us an advantage over the large stores, and we are sadly disappointed at your action in this ma tter[sic]…Kindly reconsider and oblige thousands of small retail storekeepers throughout this country.” [8]

Newspaper articles pointed out some of the glaring consequences of FDR’s hasty decision. One consequence was the $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 costs to the calendar business. In 1939, the ONLY calendars America had were printed ones, and they were used by every business, school, government office, and many individuals.

“It will be terrible” [Fredrick E. Baker, president of H.G. Brace Calendar Co.] said. “Better than 70 per cent of 1940 calendars have already been sold and about 50 per cent or $50,000,000 worth are already in production throughout the country. Most calendar makers begin production in January on the following year’s calendar.” [2]

Other articles detailed how America’s schools, both public and private, as well as both K-12 and universities were totally disrupted.  Like the calendar businesses, schools schedule everything in advance – school functions, vacations, and annual sports events. FDR's new date for Thanksgiving forced school boards, teaching staffs, athletic departments, and athletic conferences into emergency meetings to reconsider set schedules and decide whether and how to reschedule everything just prior to the start of the new school year.  Boston College decided to ignore it.

“Franksgiving was held yesterday but don’t let that worry you, our turkey stuffing day comes on the 30thwhen we get time from classes to stuff ourselves.” [9]

Besides all of that, many Americans were just plain angry that Roosevelt tried to alter such a long-standing tradition to help businesses make more money. A very sarcastic editorial, “Thanksgiving – A La FDR”, appeared in a small town weekly in upstate New York - ironically published ‘on Thursday of each week’.

“But why should the President stop with this slight change in the traditions of a nation? Why not extend his pet whimsies? We would suggest the following…Advance the observance of Thanksgiving Day to January first of each year, which, in accordance with presidential opinion, would give the public fifty-one solid weeks of Christmas shopping.” [10]

The uproar even found its way onto the Hollywood Big Screens with the 1940 Three Stooges short film No Census, No Feeling, and Irving Berlin’s 1942 filmHoliday Inn(Bing Crosby, Fred Astaire, and Marjorie Reynolds).  [11]

George Gallup Takes a Poll

Because the 1940 Presidential primaries and election were just around the corner and FDR was planning an unprecedented third term run, was every American against the change or was this just a party issue? George Gallup decided to take a poll and find out. 

According to Dr. Gallup, Republicans disapproved of the plan by a margin of 79 percent to 21 percent. Even the Democrats weren’t happy, with 52 percent in favor and 48 percent opposed. “Dictatorship,” “whimsy” and “just upsetting everything he can” were among the most frequent negative responses given to the poll-administrators. [6]

Gallup’s summary:

“What John Smith, U.S.A., thinks about President Roosevelt's plan to change Thanksgiving Day pretty much depends on what John Smith thinks of President Roosevelt…Though President Roosevelt acted in response to the wishes of retail organizations who want the period of Christmas shopping extended, the survey shows that a majority of Americans - and particularly Republicans - are in favor of letting the nation's turkeys live a week longer.”[6]

Gallup also added this final - and rather sage - comment:

“No issue to make cabinets totter, the turkey day issue is, nevertheless, a prime example of the way Americans sometimes see questions through party-colored spectacles [glasses].” [6]

Leftovers

Three weeks after FDR’s Thanksgiving proclamation – at dawn on September 1,1939 – German troops stormed across the Polish frontier. WWII had begun, capturing much of the world’s attention. 

Despite the war and our struggle to remain neutral, the ‘Franksgiving’ or Thanksgivinginconvenience continued to be a distraction in America for two more years. By 1941, the business data indicated that FDR’s date-change had no significant effect on Christmas retail revenue. In fact, it actually affected revenue negatively in some places. So bowing to public opinion in the fall of 1941, President Roosevelt returned Thanksgiving 1942 to its traditional date.

But Congress decided to formally mandate that Thanksgiving be observed on the fourth Thursday in November to prevent any future problems. President Roosevelt signed the legislation on December 26thwithout fanfare. [13]

‘The Great Turkey issue’ was finally over.

The ViewNow

Although that was eighty years ago this month, the causes of 1939’s ‘Franksgiving’ fiasco are still around. Those very same forces that created that upheaval – insensitivity to the public, executive orders without bi-partisan cooperation and executive due diligence, the strong political and economic force of big business and retail sales, and special access to the Oval Office - are all the same forces causing our current political, economic, and social uproar. And, unfortunately, our ‘party-colored spectacles’ are still warping the view of our political system, and its proper limitations.

Two Turkey Days anyone?

This is the first of a new monthly feature. We will select one story that occurred during that month from history and take a fresh look at the story through modern eyes.

You can let us know what you thought of this article below.

References

[1] Roy P. Basler, et al.eds. (1953). The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 9 vols. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.) v.6: pp.497-498. Also, Ulysses S. Grant, Proclamation 186—Thanksgiving Day, 1869 Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.Retrieved October 20, 2019 from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/204624https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-186-thanksgiving-day-1869

[2] “Roosevelt Advances Thanksgiving Day a Week; Business Pleased, But Grid Managers Aren’t”. The Daily Republican – Tuesday, August 15, 1939. Monongahela, PA.

[3] “Rebellion Grows Against Change in Thanksgiving Date by F.D.R.” Plattsburgh Daily Press – Wednesday, August 16, 1939. p.1.

[4] Time Magazine.(August 21, 1939: Vol. XXXIVNo. 8.). “The Presidency: Off the Floor” p.7.

[5] “Nation, Divided On The Date Of Thanksgiving, Thankful For Peace”. Plattsburgh [NY] Daily Press, Friday, November 24, 1939. p.1. [*] “Franksgiving’ is often misattributed to Thomas D. Taggart, Jr. The term appears in many newspapers during the fall of 1939. Taggart was a NJ state assemblyman AND a Democrat at the time. The Mayor of Atlantic City in 1939 was Charles D. White, a Republican. The term ‘Franksgiving’ was White’s portmanteau.

[6] Gallup, Dr. George. “News Release: August 25, 1939 - Public Sees Thanksgiving Issue Through Party Classes”. Gallup VaultRetrieved October 23, 2019 from https://news.gallup.com/vault/222494/gallup-vault-thanksgiving-sparked-partisan-storm-1939.aspx

[7] Waxman, Olivia. “The Real Reason Why Thanksgiving is Always on a Thursday”. Time.com – November 20, 2018. Retrieved October 22, 2019 from https://time.com/5455162/thanksgiving-on-thursday/

[8] “Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Thanksgiving Proclamation.” Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum. Retrieved October 23, 2019 from https://www.fdrlibrary.org/document-november

[9] Cullen, Art. “Tabloid”. The Boston College Heights – Volume XIX, Number 37, 24 November 1939. p.2. 

[10] Tefft, W.R. editor. “Thanksgiving  - A LA FDR”. Ticonderoga Sentinel - Thursday, August 24, 1939. p.2.

[11] Retrieved October 25, 2019 from The Three Stooges Website @ https://www.threestooges.com/1940/10/04/no-census-no-feeling/. Also, my parents told me the story behind Berlin’s Holiday Inngraphic the first time we watched Holiday Innon television back in the 1950s. Their personal stories were hilarious – (btw, they chose Thanks notFrank’s). The topic has intrigued me ever since. 

[12] “Abandons Early Thanksgiving: Roosevelt to Return to Old Date in November 1942”Hope[AK]Star – Tuesday, May 20, 1941. p. 1. Also,Jackson, Debbie and Pittman, Hilary. “Throwback Tulsa: Roosevelt created a ‘Franksgiving’ monster.”Tulsa World – November 16, 2017.Retrieved October 29, 2019 fromhttps://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/news/throwbacktulsa/throwback-tulsa-roosevelt-created-a-franksgiving-monster/article_9e6c3704-d31c-5c48-b79b-1a14a1a7f683.html

The Tale of Two First Ladies. Eleanor Roosevelt and Jane Pierce

In this article, Wendy S. Loughlin tells us about the results of a recent poll of first ladies. And discusses possible reasons why Jane Pierce came last in the poll and Eleanor Roosevelt first. 

Eleanor Roosevelt and Jane Pierce walk into a bar…

Well, maybe not. While Eleanor Roosevelt would have been more than comfortable walking into a bar (or a coal mine) and talking with whomever she met, Jane Pierce probably would have preferred to spend her time in isolation. Which, during her first two years as first lady, she did. 

A portrait of Jane Pierce.

It comes as no surprise that Eleanor Roosevelt takes the top spot in a recent ranking of first ladies. She always has. The ranking, based on a survey of historians, scholars and political scientists, has been conducted five times in the past 31 years. It evaluates first ladies based on 10 criteria: background; value to the country; being the White House steward; courage; accomplishments; integrity; leadership; being her own woman; public image; and value to the president.

Jane Pierce, wife of 14th president Franklin Pierce, comes in last.

You’d be hard-pressed to find a sentient American adult who isn’t aware of Eleanor Roosevelt and the multitude of reasons she is considered the best first lady. But most people don’t know much - or perhaps anything - about Jane Pierce, and why history does not look kindly on her.

Jane Pierce did not attend her husband’s inauguration in March 1853, nor did she preside over any inaugural balls, because there were none. Franklin Pierce moved into the White House directly following his swearing-in, but his wife took more than two weeks to join him there, and would inhabit the place almost like a ghost for the four years of his administration. The author Nathaniel Hawthorne, a close friend of Franklin Pierce, once referred to her as “that death head in the White House.”

And no wonder. By the time she became first lady, a week before her 47th birthday, Jane Pierce had lived through the deaths of all three of her sons. The first, Franklin Jr., died three days after birth in 1836. The second, Frank Robert, died of typhus in 1843 at age four. The loss of her third son, eleven-year-old Benjamin, was perhaps the most devastating. Born in 1841, “Benny” was just two years old when Frank Robert died, and became the sole focus of his doting mother. In January 1853, after Franklin Pierce’s election but before his inauguration, the family was involved in a train accident while traveling to Washington from Boston. Benny’s head was crushed and partially severed in the crash, and he died on the spot, his parents as witnesses.

Deeply religious, Jane Pierce hated politics and had prayed that her husband would lose the election, a sentiment apparently shared by Benny. Now, on the verge of becoming first lady, she believed God had taken her child because he would have been a distraction in the White House. When she finally joined the new president in Washington, she retreated to the upper rooms of the executive mansion and shirked all duties usually required of the first lady, spending her time instead writing sorrowful letters to Benny. She had the White House decorated in the black bunting of mourning. Her health, always uncertain, continued to suffer. Historian Richard Norton Smith calls her “the most tragic of the first ladies.”

Jane Pierce with her son Benjamin.

Quiet in the White House

Washington has always been a social town and the position of first lady has always been primarily a social role. To some extent, the political (albeit indirect) contributions of many of the first ladies have come through their prowess as hostesses, through which they have created the social settings that allowed for political relationships and agreements to flourish. Franklin Pierce took office at a time when such agreements were sorely needed - on the eve of the civil war, the country was deeply divided over slavery - but Jane made no public appearances for the first two years of the administration.

Eventually, she came around… kind of. She attended a reception on New Year’s Day 1855, her first public appearance, and sporadically served as hostess for the remainder of her husband’s term. But when she did, she usually wore black and had “a sad, distracted look.”

Like Calvin and Grace Coolidge, Franklin and Jane Pierce were a classic case of opposites attract. It has been speculated that “Silent Cal,” famously dour and taciturn, may have achieved the presidency in part because of Grace, who had such an ebullient personality she was nicknamed “Sunshine” by the White House staff. Similarly, the outgoing Franklin and the withdrawn Jane were a seeming mismatch. And while they were purportedly devoted to each other, Jane may have done as much to hurt her husband’s presidency as Grace did to help hers.

Or maybe Franklin Pierce did enough damage on his own. Regarded by historians as one of the worst presidents in history, Pierce pursued policies that likely perpetuated the breakdown of the union and led to war. Though he had been elected in a landslide, he failed even to win the nomination of his party for a second term.

And therein lies a kind of conundrum regarding the first ladies ranking. To a certain extent, the reputation of the president’s wife will always be inextricably tied to that of her husband.  Before you compare Jane Pierce to Eleanor Roosevelt, compare the abysmal presidency of Franklin Pierce to that of Franklin Roosevelt, a four-term president who led the country through World War II, died in office a hero and is still remembered as one of the best presidents in U.S. history (In C-SPAN’s 2009 Historians Presidential Leadership Survey, Roosevelt is ranked third from the top, and Pierce third from the bottom).

Of course, Eleanor Roosevelt was a great first lady in her own right. Her contributions to human rights, to international relations and to the role of first lady remain unmatched, and her work continued even after she left the White House. She is one of the most admired women in American history. But how would we regard her today if she had come into the White House grieving the loss of a child, or if her husband had been a failure?

Tell us what you think. Do you have a favorite first lady? Share your thoughts below…

Read more great history in our digital magazine History is Now. It is available by clicking here and downloading the app for iPad and iPhone. It is also free for up to two months if you subscribe!

References

• Siena Research Institute/C-SPAN First Ladies Study: http://www.siena.edu/sri/firstladies
• National First Ladies Library, Jane Pierce biography: http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=15
• C-SPAN, “First Ladies: Influence & Image” – Jane Pierce: http://firstladies.c-span.org/FirstLady/16/Jane-Pierce.aspx 
• Anne Middleton Means, “Amherst and Our Family Tree”: http://books.google.com/books?id=Zcw0AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Amherst+and+Our+Family+Tree&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MNwcU6OuC8emygGw2oGwBw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Amherst%20and%20Our%20Family%20Tree&f=false
• New Hampshire Historical Society – manuscript collection: http://www.nhhistory.org/libraryexhibits/manuscriptcollection/manuscript.html
• Philip B. Kunhardt III & Peter W. Kunhardt, “The American President”: http://books.google.com/books?id=m-pNPgAACAAJ&dq=Kunhardt+american+president&hl=en&sa=X&ei=57YcU4ysH4TuyAHX-YHIBA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA 
• C-SPAN 2009 Historians Presidential Leadership Survey: http://legacy.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx
• Burlington Free Press, “Burlington-born first lady Grace Coolidge was happy to ‘talk for two’”: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130224/ARTS/302240006/Burlington-born-first-lady-Grace-Coolidge-was-happy-to-talk-for-two-
• The White House, Franklin Pierce biography: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/franklinpierce
• The New York Times, Eleanor Roosevelt obituary: https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1011.html