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.

Thomas Paine, or Tom Paine was born in 1737 in Britain and dies in 1809 in New York City – in a very different world to that he had been born in. Here, Douglas Reid tells us about Paine’s life, including his roles in the American and French revolutions, as well as his extremely important book – Common Sense.

A late 18th century painting of Thomas Paine. By Matthew Pratt.

A late 18th century painting of Thomas Paine. By Matthew Pratt.

John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson wrote: “Paine is the most extraordinary man, this age, or this world, ever produced.” But elsewhere Adams also said: “He was the greatest mischief-maker of the age. “ He made his presence felt as a citizen of three countries and two revolutions. His earthly debut came in 1737 in Thetford, England as the older son of Quaker parents.

Thetford is a mid-sized market town 35 miles north of London. Home for the Paine family was typical for working class folk of the time – a modest thatched cottage on the edge of the village. Young Tom, from his bedroom casement, looked out on a low, windswept landscape that led 200 yards to “Hangman’s Hill”, the scene of many ghastly executions - a harbinger of the time that would come when Tom participated in the French Revolution.

Boys of Tom’s class would typically receive a basic education to 12 years of age. But young Tom was something of a natural scholar. He became self-taught, and he especially liked the works of Daniel Defoe and Jonathan Swift. He was soon expected to work seven years at a trade, and gradually to be formally recognized as a journeyman. Young Tom Paine proved to be a flop at any trade he tried. At last, he was apprenticed as a corset maker under his own family. Tommy Paine – corset maker? No, that could never be. By age 17 young Paine decided he could hear ‘the call of the sirens’ and he left home and headed to sea.

Although young when he began to haunt various shipping berths along the Thames, Tom was not in quest of the thrills of adventure on the high seas. His motivation was financial, plain and simple. He felt his working class education had been inadequate and he was very much a knowledge seeker. While most of his shipmates received their share of a ship’s profits in the morning, only to be in debt by the same afternoon, Tom was paying modest fees to listen to the several lecturers in town. Most of these talks were political in nature and the young man listened carefully.

 

Political beginnings

Paine developed his political creed through his twenties working as a schoolteacher, a corset maker, and (especially) as an excise taxman. It was during this time that he met Ben Franklin who convinced him that the American Colonies were on the road to separation from King and country. Franklin also advised him that a young man of his sort belonged there and Franklin suggested that Philadelphia should be his destination. Indeed, near the midpoint of 1774 that is where Tom Paine landed.

It was in transit from England to America that Paine completed his extended essay “Pure Reason” which remained the working title until shortly after meeting Doctor Benjamin Rush. Dr. Rush was generally considered the most accomplished medical man in 18th century America. Rush suggested Paine’s essay should be entitled, “Common Sense”.  And possibly the world’s best-known essay was born.

The first of two Continental Congresses met in the Pennsylvania State House during the summer of 1774. They sought mainly to patch up differences with the mother country over excise taxes. The basic views of the delegates at this conference broke down as follows: Approximately one-third were in favour of holding on to Mother England regardless of tax squabbles, one-third sat on the fence, one-third were restless and eager to separate.  “Common Sense” was published and the world would never be the same.

 

Common Sense

Common Sense burst from the printing press like a bolt of lightning. It ran to seven editions in just a few hours.  A copy of the mercurial missive reached George Washington two days after its debut on the streets of Philadelphia. His take: “I find Common Sense is working a powerful change there in the eyes of many men.” The world has not seen, before or since, a document that mesmerized a people like this brainchild of Tom Paine. But nothing man-made lasts forever. 

Common Sense did not alter the result but it certainly sped things up. After the initial sensation of the tract Paine contributed many speeches to the cause of the Revolution. And it needs to be said that Paine could not hold others in thrall in person the way he could by his written word. His physical appearance alone put many off.

Tom Paine was of average size but he had a face with rosy cheeks. Throughout his life he had a face that burned with a steady, bright red colour. And his eyes released an incandescent black emanation that startled any interlocutor with menace. He was difficult to converse with but he was a genius with the written language. George Washington, for example, got Paine a job as a war correspondent. At the close of a day when negativity reigned following a loss in the field, Paine wrote on a drumhead by the light of a campfire:  “These are the times that try men’s souls.” And now France beckoned.

 

French Revolution

The firebrand orator soon made his voice known in a new arena – at the famed Tennis Court Oath of 1790. Later still he was to almost lose his head during the Reign of Terror. He had made the mistake of dressing like a Gironde. Lafayette was there to rescue him. Soon after this close shave, Paine fled across the channel to his country of birth but England was not large enough for Paine and George both. And soon he was back stateside, all the while crafting his burning prose. One more thing  - and this time it is of a personal nature.

During his French sojourn the omnipresent and stylish Lafayette presented the Brit turned American with a key - and not just any key. This long black key had been in long-time use at the centre gate of the Bastille.  Subsequently Tom gave the key to George Washington. Shortly after the death of the president, the key to the Bastille became a steady draw for visitors to Mount Vernon.

And I, lingering after hours was allowed to hold the key and feel the weight of it myself!

 

What do you think of Tom Paine’s importance in the American Revolution? Let us know below.

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 1, K.R.T. Quirion explains the background to the campaign, the struggles that FDR had after he contracted Polio, and an amazing comeback appearance in 1924.

Franklin D. Roosevelt on crutches in August 1924, several years after his illness. Here with Lieutenant Governor George Lunn, FDR, John W. Davis, and Al Smith at Roosevelt's family home in Hyde Park, New York. Source: FDR Presidential Library & …

Franklin D. Roosevelt on crutches in August 1924, several years after his illness. Here with Lieutenant Governor George Lunn, FDR, John W. Davis, and Al Smith at Roosevelt's family home in Hyde Park, New York. Source: FDR Presidential Library & Museum, available here.

INTRODUCTION

While there has been little focus on Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s campaign for governor of New York State in 1928, it is known that prior to the campaign he had taken “steps in the presidential direction.”[1] Amos Kiewe outlines FDR’s climb up the political ladder starting his election to the New York State Senate, his appointment to Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and finally, his nomination as Vice-President on the 1920 Democratic ticket. Ultimately, however, New York was the crucible in which FDR demonstrated his fitness for a shot at the nation’s highest office.

Unfortunately, Roosevelt’s vision of political grandeur was cut abruptly short when he contracted poliomyelitis—commonly known as polio—during a vacation to Campobello Island in the summer of 1921.[2] Despite his affliction, FDR would return to the public arena within three years and re-enter political office in seven. In hindsight, this short withdrawal from public life was a relatively small detour in FDR’s long political career. During the “nearly fatal initial phase of the [polio] attack” he might well have abandoned his political aspirations and retired to Hyde Park for good.[3] Instead, thanks to the support of his wife Eleanor and his life-long friend Louis Howe, Roosevelt overcame his affliction and began the long road of recovery.  

Over the next seven years, FDR strengthened his body, his mind, and his belief that there was a providential plan for his life. Davis explains how, in retrospect, FDR “knew absolutely that what had happened to him…was integral to God’s design.”[4] His wife Eleanor believed that her husband’s trial by fire was preparing him for the “great historic tasks he must ultimately undertake.”[5] Despite the great personal difficulty of this period, Eleanor and Howe were successful in keeping Roosevelt plugged into the political arena.

 

The 1928 chance

His moment came in 1928. New York governor and presidential hopeful, Al Smith, indicated his desire to have FDR continue his legacy in the Empire State. More importantly, Smith knew that the “margin between victory and defeat…in the national race might well be provided by a victorious Democratic gubernatorial candidate in New York, and it was a margin that Roosevelt and Roosevelt alone could assure.”[6] At first, FDR was staunchly opposed to entering the race. He refused Smith’s initial invocation to run, citing concerns about his health.[7] Privately, Roosevelt believed that 1928 would be a bad year for Democrats and preferred to wait until the 1932 election. He finally yielded to Smith on October 2, on the condition that the delegates chose to nominate him with “full knowledge of his personal situation and wishes.”[8] The very next day, the Democratic convention in Rochester, NY nominated Roosevelt by acclamation. 

Over the next month, Roosevelt crisscrossed New York State, stumping in every city where he could make time for a speech. This important race attracted individuals, like Judge Samuel Rosenman, that would become intertwined in FDR’s political career for the next 17 years. The race was so invigorating that he once exclaimed if “I could keep on campaigning twelve months longer, I’d throw away my canes.”[9] As the New York polls closed on November 7, 1928, the votes appeared to favor the Republican candidate, Albert Ottinger. But, by the 19th, Roosevelt had won by a razor-thin margin of less than half of 1% of the total vote.[10]

What allowed a candidate who had spent the last eight years living on the periphery of New York politics, to win a heavily contested race with a mere three weeks of active campaigning? This article examines the challenges that FDR faced in convincing the New York electorate that he was fit for the Governor’s Mansion. The article explores how he overcame concerns about his physical health by presenting himself as an active campaigner. It also looks at Roosevelt’s experimental coalition of labor, agriculture, minority, and urban voters and the platform he used to convince these widely differing constituencies to give him their vote. Finally, this article argues that the 1928 campaign boosted FDR to the forefront of national politics and laid the groundwork for convincing the national electorate that he was ready for the White House in 1932. 

Though initially reluctant to his candidacy, once nominated, FDR boldly met the challenges of the race. His 1928 platform and his tenure as Governor of New York laid the foundation for his national policies in the White House. Eight years after his gubernatorial race, President Roosevelt would tell supporters at the 1936 Democratic National Convention (DNC) that their generation of Americans had a “rendezvous with destiny.”[11] For Roosevelt, when destiny came knocking, he confidently answered. 

 

POLITICS, POLIO, POLITICS AGAIN

Despite his nearly miraculous victory in the gubernatorial campaign, the 1928 race was not run in a vacuum. Roosevelt had been on a political trajectory long before contracting polio. After his outstanding record as assistant secretary of the Navy, FDR sought to establish himself as the “heir to Wilsonian Progressivism.”[12] A platform to project that image presented itself in 1920 when the DNC named Roosevelt the running mate of their Presidential nominee, James M. Cox. Though the election did not favor the Democratic ticket, it did allow FDR to build a national network within the Party.[13] Another important side-effect of the election was that FDR was able to build up his permanent secretariat.[14] He would rely heavily on his so-called “Cuff-Links Club” in future campaigns and in office.

Following the landslide loss of 1920, Roosevelt and his family retired to Campobello Island for some much-needed respite. However, the fatigue that he was hoping to recuperate from “did not go away.”[15] Instead, disaster struck a few days into the vacation. The young political maverick had his aspirations of future office dashed when he contracted polio which left him permanently disabled. As Amos explains, “the disease was a devastating shock to the energetic Roosevelt.” Not only did he have to re-learn basic skills and face the “mental anguish of a life-long disability”, but he also had to cope with the stigma of polio.[16] In the early 1900s, polio was viewed as the “disease of the unclean and unhygienic” and the “poor and low class.”[17] This aura clung even to Roosevelt. Despite his upper-class upbringing, even he struggled to shake this humiliating stigma.

The physical and psychological struggle that FDR endured during the initial stages of his recovery was then multiplied by the fear that his political aspirations had been dashed in one cruel blow. The disease engulfed his body and swallowed all hope of political grandeur in its wake. Instead of sinking into the depths of history as the tragic shadow of his cousin Theodore, FDR was carried through the storm by his wife Eleanor and the political acumen of his close friend and advisor Louis Howe. Roosevelt managed to stay politically active from the sidelines.  He never dropped out of public life. With the help of Eleanor and Howe, he continued his extensive political correspondence “virtually without interruption.”[18]  

 

Politics after Polio

Roosevelt’s first major political action following his disability was his endorsement of Al Smith for Governor of New York in 1922. This wise investment would pay dividends for FDR within the decade. Following a successful term as Governor, Smith was impeccably positioned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1924. Early that year, Roosevelt formally endorsed Smith’s candidacy. Though harboring doubts about the election, Roosevelt “calculated that the Smith campaign would keep his name before the public.”[19]

His strategy paid off amidst the chaos of the 1924 Democratic Convention. When he took the lectern to deliver Smith’s nominating speech at Madison Square Gardens in New York City, onlookers waited with bated breath as he moved slowly and carefully to the podium. He proceeded across the stage alone “swinging his weight from his hips.”[20] Even this physical stunt was a calculated political decision. In June of 1922, Roosevelt had begun training himself to exercise some amount of independent movement.[21] He believed that the appearance of health and independent movement was a necessity if he ever wished to hold political office again. This had been the reason for his physical training. Roosevelt knew that no modern leader had reached the highest rungs of political office without the public perception of good health and physical command. His performance at the Convention went a long way in proving that he was ready to return to politics.

In addition to demonstrating his physical recovery, the remarks at the DNC earned him even greater political points. His “Happy Warrior” speech resounded with millions of people from all across the nation who listened over the radio.[22] Davis writes that Roosevelt “was the central figure of the only scene that would brightly shine…out of the Garden’s prolonged and gloomy turmoil.”[23] The publicity that Roosevelt reaped from this speech was as significant for his political future as it was proliferous.[24] Following the Convention, a columnist for the Herald Tribune wrote that, “[f]rom the time Roosevelt made his speech…he has been easily the foremost figure on the floor or platform…” and “...has done for himself what he could not do for his candidate.”[25]

The momentum Roosevelt created at the Convention translated into an invitation to run for Governor of New York that very year. He declined, however, explaining that he would “not run for public office until he could walk without crutches.”[26]Despite this commitment, which he would cite again in 1928, FDR would soon concede to the pressure of politics. 

 

Now, read part 2 on how Roosevelt accepted the nomination here.

What do you think of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s response to getting Polio? Let us know below. 


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

[2] A 2003 study published in the Journal of Medical Biography has placed the actual nature of FDR’s disease in question. The accepted diagnoses has been polio. However, a team of medical research led by Dr. Armond S. Goldman, Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, Texas has shed new light on this once solidly held fact. Their research suggests that FDR actually suffered from Guillain–Barre´ syndrome, a disorder in which the body's immune system attacks part of the peripheral nervous system. Despite the probability of this assertion, for the purposes of my research, I will maintain the widely accepted diagnosis as it neither adds nor detracts from the content of this article, whereas “rocking the boat” so to speak, by replacing the commonly accepted diagnosis with a rare and difficult to pronounce disorder is distracting at best and confusing at worst. Armond S. Goldman, 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): 1. 

[3] Kenneth S. Davis, FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928, (New York, NY: Random House, 1972), 10-11.

[4] Ibid., 11.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Davis, FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928, (New York, NY: Random House, 1972), 851.

[7] Special to The New York Times. (Oct 03, 1928). “Roosevelt Held Out to the Last Minute.” New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[8] Davis, FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928, 852.

[9] “Roosevelt Attacks Theories of Hoover,” (Nov 02, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 1.

[10] “Ottinger Concedes Roosevelt Victory,” (Nov 19, 1928), New York Times (1923-Current File), 6.

[11] Franklin D. Roosevelt, “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.

[12] Gil Troy, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., and Fred L. Israel, History of American Presidential Elections: 1789-2008Vol. II, 1872-1940, (New York, NY: Facts on File, 2012), 1037.

[13] Ibid.

[14] John Gunther, Roosevelt in Retrospect, A Profile in History, (New York, NY: Harper, 1950), 217.

[15] Richard T. Goldberg, The Making of Franklin D. Roosevelt: Triumph Over Disability, (Cambridge, MA: Abt Books, 1971), 28.

[16] Kiewe, 155.  

[17] Ibid.

[18] Davis, FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928, 673.

[19] Goldberg, The Making of Franklin D. Roosevelt: Triumph Over Disability, 70. 

[20] Ibid., 71.

[21] Roosevelt in fact could not walk. Instead, he used the muscles in his upper body and torso and swung his legs—which were re-enforced with heavy steel braces—so that he could give the appearance of walking. 

[22] Davis, FDR: The Beckoning of Destiny 1882-1928, 756.

[23] Ibid., 755.

[24] “[T]he New York World proclaimed that ‘Franklin D. Roosevelt stands out as the real hero of the Democratic Convention of 1924.’ Said the World: ‘Adversity has lifted him above the bickering, the religious bigotry, conflicting personal ambitions and petty sectional prejudices…It has made him the one leader commanding the respect and admiration of delegates from all sections of the land.’” Ibid., 757.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Gunther, Roosevelt in Retrospect, 247.

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 Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington, D.C. was taken over from November 3 to 9, 1972 by the American Indian Movement. Here, Daniel L. Smith returns to the site and tells us about this event.

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

Tipi with the sign "American Indian Movement" on the grounds of the Washington Monument, Washington, D.C. in 1978. Source: Warren K. Leffler, available here.

Tipi with the sign "American Indian Movement" on the grounds of the Washington Monument, Washington, D.C. in 1978. Source: Warren K. Leffler, available here.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) headquarters building was raided, ransacked, vandalized, and ultimately occupied for almost a week from November 3 to 9, 1972. 

Nearly 500 Native Americans marching with the American Indian Movement (AIM – a progressive grassroots movement) ended their attention grabbing parade called the Trail of Broken Treaties, in front of the BIA building in Washington D.C. This cross-country political parade was intended to highlight Native Americans’ social issues, such as their standard of living and obligated treaty rights as legally sovereign nations.

Activist and news contributor Bob Simpson would point out that “leaders of the Trail of Broken Treaties were negotiating with the Interior Department over the question of housing. Suddenly fighting broke out between several GSA security guards and a group of young Indians.” He goes on to say that “apparently the guards misunderstood that the BIA had given the Indians permission to stay in the building past closing time. The guards were quickly overpowered and escorted from the building. Indians ran through the BIA building at 19th and Constitution, breaking up furniture to barricade entrances and manufacture makeshift weapons. The occupation was on.”[1]

Once inside the BIA’s building, protesters displayed their frustration towards the interior of the building. They threw furniture against windows and doors barricading themselves against potential police interference. Other members of the group set multiple fires in different interior offices and vandalized the polished marble lobbies. Unfortunately many historic documents were destroyed in the vandalism.[2]

The following day on November 4, John Chancellor, reporting desk anchor for NBC News said: “Several hundred American Indians remained in the Bureau of Indian Affairs building in Washington today. They took it over late yesterday after scuffles with police.” Moments later, news field-anchor John Cochran reported live stating: “It was peaceful if not quiet at the Indian Affairs Bureau, but nothing was settled today. The Indians are waiting for the Administration to respond to their demands for reforms in the way the government deals with Indians. And they’re asking for a decent place to eat and sleep while in Washington. Until they get it, they vow to stay in what they call their embassy.”[3]

 

Altercations and Theft

After a few days of altercation, the protesters began to run out of supplies. There was quickly little food and provisions to sustain their opportunistic operation. The AIM protesters would not allow police or government representatives to cross into the Bureau of Indian Affairs building. Because of this, two children of BIA employees were recruited to bring in supplies and rations to the protesters.

It was reported that the AIM’s actions created the loss, destruction, and theft of many historical records—mainly critical treaties, property deeds, and water rights documentation.[4] Even Native American officials stated that the consequences of the AIM’s actions could set Native American culture back 50 to 100 years—with a final estimated loss of nearly $2.28 million dollars in damages and theft by the hostile takeover of the BIA to the American taxpayer.[5]

In the end, it was the Nixon Administration who would secretly sign the “Menominee Restoration Act” on December 22, 1973. This policy would ultimately give the Menominee fully-recognized tribal status by the U.S. government, and return their land assets to trust status. Although only one tribe benefitted from this policy, it was a direct message sent to those who understood Nixon’s political interests - especially when it could be seen that his administration quite quickly agreed to these demands.

 

Corruption Through Proxy

More broadly, Nixon did have some sympathy with the Native American rights movement. Prior to the BIA takeover in Washington D.C, President Nixon stated in his 1970 address to Congress: 

“The special relationship between Indians and the Federal government is the result instead of solemn obligations which have been entered into by the United States Government. Down through the years, through written treaties and through formal and informal agreements, our government has made specific commitments to the Indian people. 

For their part, the Indians have often surrendered claims to vast tracts of land and have accepted life on government reservations. In exchange, the government has agreed to provide community services such as health, education and public safety, services which would presumably allow Indian communities to enjoy a standard of living comparable to that of other Americans. 

This goal, of course has never been achieved…”[6]

 

Younger Native Americans and First Nations peoples would give the most support to the American Indian Movement’s radical cause. The groups and entities found sympathetic to the BIA takeover of 1972 were:

·       The National Indian Brotherhood of Canada

·       Native American Civil Rights Fund

·       Native Indian Youth Council

·       National American Indian Council

·       National Council on Indian Work

·       National Indian Leadership Training

·       American Indian Committee on Alcohol and Drug Abuse

 

Other entities that endorsed and supported the takeover were:

·       The Native American Women’s Action Council

·       United Native Americans

·       National Indian Lutheran Board

·       Coalition of Indian-Controlled School Boards

·       Black Panther Party for Self Defense

 

To Conclude

There is almost always a political motive behind current events. Occupations, building takeovers, and progressive grassroots movements are all just a part of radical American history. It takes a certain rebellious ideology to undertake this type of insubordinate behavior and defiant action.

This is also the same type of ideology and behavior that commits citizens to the destruction of their own history. 

Isaiah 5:20 says, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”

 

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.


[1] Simpson, Robert. "Native Americans Take Over Bureau of Indian Affairs: 1972." Washington Area Spark. Last modified May 10, 2013. https://washingtonareaspark.com/2013/03/26/native-americans-take-over-bureau-of-indian-affairs-1972/

[2] The Washington Post (Washington D.C.). "Amnesty Denied To Indians." November 10, 1972. https://www.maquah.net/Historical/1972/images/72-11-10_amnesty_denied.jpgNote: An initial first estimate was officialized at about $250,000 in damages within the building.

[3] "Occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs" NBC News, New York, NY: NBC Universal, 11/03/1972. Accessed Sat Jan 11 2020 from NBC Learn: https://highered.nbclearn.com/portal/site/HigherEd/browse/?cuecard=5170  

[4] The Washington Post (Washington D.C.). " Justice Eyes Way to Charge Indians.” November 10, 1972. https://www.maquah.net/Historical/1972/images/72-11-1_justice_charge_indians.jpg

[5] The Washington Post (Washington D.C.). " Damage to BIA Third Heaviest Ever in U.S..” November 11, 1972. https://www.maquah.net/Historical/1972/images/72-11-11_damage_to_BIA.jpg

[6] Nixon, Richard. "Special Message to the Congress on Indian Affairs." The American Presidency Project. Last modified July 8, 1970. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-congress-indian-affairs