1924 Presidential election
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:42:27 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  1924 Presidential election
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Who do you vote for?
#1
Calvin Coolidge
 
#2
John W Davis
 
#3
Robert LaFollette
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 63

Author Topic: 1924 Presidential election  (Read 2480 times)
Asenath Waite
Fulbright DNC
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,431
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 18, 2021, 10:05:07 AM »

Going with Fightin Bob here and I would with or without hindsight. Though I don't know it at the time this would be the last presidential election in which I don't vote for the Democratic nominee.
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,589
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2021, 06:23:00 PM »

La Follette>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Coolidge>>Davis
Logged
Asenath Waite
Fulbright DNC
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,431
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2021, 07:48:50 PM »

La Follette>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Coolidge>>Davis

I'd still take Davis as a second choice, albeit a very distant second choice over Coolidge. He was better on immigration.
Logged
If my soul was made of stone
discovolante
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,261
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.13, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2021, 04:12:39 PM »

I'm deeply offended by the exclusion of Herman Faris, William Foster, and Frank Johns from this poll.

(either way it wouldn't change my vote for Bob and Burt, who I, shall we say, "stan")
Logged
Don Vito Corleone
bruhgmger2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,268
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2021, 04:21:53 PM »

If the election has been closer I would have voted Davis, but as it is LaFollette.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,459
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2021, 07:44:15 PM »

La Follette, because all Presidents should rock such an impressive pompadour.
Logged
Asenath Waite
Fulbright DNC
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,431
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2021, 02:23:25 PM »

La Follette, because all Presidents should rock such an impressive pompadour.

YES!!!!!
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2021, 11:20:00 PM »

La Follette>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Coolidge>>Davis

I'd still take Davis as a second choice, albeit a very distant second choice over Coolidge. He was better on immigration.

Davis gets a bad reputation as "one of those conservative Democrats" because of his various positions on issues relating to the South, but on matters of trusts/monopolies, immigration and a number of other issues he was certainly not conservative relative to Coolidge.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2021, 11:21:53 PM »

La Follette>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Coolidge>>Davis

I'd still take Davis as a second choice, albeit a very distant second choice over Coolidge. He was better on immigration.

Davis gets a bad reputation as "one of those conservative Democrats" because of his various positions on issues relating to the South, but on matters of trusts/monopolies, immigration and a number of other issues he was certainly not conservative relative to Coolidge.
Did Davis ever express an opinion on immigration?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2021, 11:26:12 PM »

La Follette>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Coolidge>>Davis

I'd still take Davis as a second choice, albeit a very distant second choice over Coolidge. He was better on immigration.

Davis gets a bad reputation as "one of those conservative Democrats" because of his various positions on issues relating to the South, but on matters of trusts/monopolies, immigration and a number of other issues he was certainly not conservative relative to Coolidge.
Did Davis ever express an opinion on immigration?

I don't know off hand, but it is hard to top Coolidge signing what was probably the most restrictive immigration law in history in terms of limiting it across the board.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2021, 11:31:16 PM »

La Follette>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Coolidge>>Davis

I'd still take Davis as a second choice, albeit a very distant second choice over Coolidge. He was better on immigration.

Davis gets a bad reputation as "one of those conservative Democrats" because of his various positions on issues relating to the South, but on matters of trusts/monopolies, immigration and a number of other issues he was certainly not conservative relative to Coolidge.
Did Davis ever express an opinion on immigration?

I don't know off hand, but it is hard to top Coolidge signing what was probably the most restrictive immigration law in history in terms of limiting it across the board.
What is the difference between the 1921 and 1924 immigration acts?
Logged
Paul Weller
HenryWallaceVP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,217
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2021, 11:35:48 PM »

La Follette>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Coolidge>>Davis

I'd still take Davis as a second choice, albeit a very distant second choice over Coolidge. He was better on immigration.

Davis gets a bad reputation as "one of those conservative Democrats" because of his various positions on issues relating to the South, but on matters of trusts/monopolies, immigration and a number of other issues he was certainly not conservative relative to Coolidge.

That's because he was a corporate tool. As H.L. Mencken wrote,

Quote
Dr. Davis is a lawyer whose life has been devoted to protecting the great enterprises of Big Business. He used to work for J. Pierpont Morgan, and he has himself said that he is proud of the fact. Mr. Morgan is an international banker, engaged in squeezing nations that are hard up and in trouble. His operations are safeguarded for him by the manpower of the United States. He was one of the principal beneficiaries of the late war, and made millions out of it. The Government hospitals are now full of one-legged soldiers who gallantly protected his investments then, and the public schools are full of boys who will protect his investments tomorrow.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2021, 11:42:40 PM »

La Follette>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Coolidge>>Davis

I'd still take Davis as a second choice, albeit a very distant second choice over Coolidge. He was better on immigration.

Davis gets a bad reputation as "one of those conservative Democrats" because of his various positions on issues relating to the South, but on matters of trusts/monopolies, immigration and a number of other issues he was certainly not conservative relative to Coolidge.

That's because he was a corporate tool. As H.L. Mencken wrote,

Quote
Dr. Davis is a lawyer whose life has been devoted to protecting the great enterprises of Big Business. He used to work for J. Pierpont Morgan, and he has himself said that he is proud of the fact. Mr. Morgan is an international banker, engaged in squeezing nations that are hard up and in trouble. His operations are safeguarded for him by the manpower of the United States. He was one of the principal beneficiaries of the late war, and made millions out of it. The Government hospitals are now full of one-legged soldiers who gallantly protected his investments then, and the public schools are full of boys who will protect his investments tomorrow.

And yet he ran against Coolidge claiming he was a tool of the monopolists and it is not for nothing that you had LaFollette running against both of them.

Also tight relationships between the business wing of the Democratic Party and Wall Street is not exclusive to the early 20th century. Was certainly true in the days of Cleveland and Clinton as well.
Logged
Asenath Waite
Fulbright DNC
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,431
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2021, 01:27:17 AM »

La Follette>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Coolidge>>Davis

I'd still take Davis as a second choice, albeit a very distant second choice over Coolidge. He was better on immigration.

Davis gets a bad reputation as "one of those conservative Democrats" because of his various positions on issues relating to the South, but on matters of trusts/monopolies, immigration and a number of other issues he was certainly not conservative relative to Coolidge.
Did Davis ever express an opinion on immigration?

Very favorably actually according to this article. Pretty good speech minus the Woodrow Wilson fandom: DAVIS URGES RIGHTS OF THE IMMIGRANTS; He Addresses Groups of Jews, Bohemians and Poles on His Last Night in Chicago: https://www.nytimes.com/1924/10/18/archives/davis-urges-rights-of-the-immigrants-he-addresses-groups-of-jews.html?searchResultPosition=1
Logged
Don Vito Corleone
bruhgmger2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,268
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2021, 03:54:46 AM »
« Edited: March 21, 2021, 08:24:12 PM by Don Vito Corleone »

La Follette>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Coolidge>>Davis

I'd still take Davis as a second choice, albeit a very distant second choice over Coolidge. He was better on immigration.

Davis gets a bad reputation as "one of those conservative Democrats" because of his various positions on issues relating to the South, but on matters of trusts/monopolies, immigration and a number of other issues he was certainly not conservative relative to Coolidge.

That's because he was a corporate tool. As H.L. Mencken wrote,

Quote
Dr. Davis is a lawyer whose life has been devoted to protecting the great enterprises of Big Business. He used to work for J. Pierpont Morgan, and he has himself said that he is proud of the fact. Mr. Morgan is an international banker, engaged in squeezing nations that are hard up and in trouble. His operations are safeguarded for him by the manpower of the United States. He was one of the principal beneficiaries of the late war, and made millions out of it. The Government hospitals are now full of one-legged soldiers who gallantly protected his investments then, and the public schools are full of boys who will protect his investments tomorrow.

Quote from: 1924 Democratic Platform
The democratic party believes in equal rights to all and special privilege to none. The republican party holds that special privileges are essential to national prosperity. It believes that national prosperity must originate with the special interests and seep down through the channels of trade to the less favored industries to the wage earners and small salaried employees. It has accordingly enthroned privilege and nurtured selfishness.

The republican party is concerned chiefly with material things; the democratic party is concerned chiefly with human rights. The masses, burdened by discriminating laws and unjust administration, are demanding relief. The favored special interests, represented by the republican party, contented with their unjust privileges, are demanding that no change be made. The democratic party stands for remedial legislation and progress. The republican party stands still.

Quote from: Literally the entire "Tariff and Taxation" Section from the 1924 Democratic Platform
The Fordney-McCumber tariff act is the most unjust, unscientific and dishonest tariff tax measure ever enacted in our history. It is class legislation which defrauds the people for the benefit of a few, it heavily increases the cost of living, penalizes agriculture, corrupts the government, fosters paternalism and, in the long run, does not benefit the very interests for which it was intended.

We denounce the republican tariff laws which are written, in great part, in aid of monopolies and thus prevent that reasonable exchange of commodities which would enable foreign countries to buy our surplus agricultural and manufactured products with resultant profit to the toilers and producers of America.

Trade interchange, on the basis of reciprocal advantages to the countries participating is a time-honored doctrine of democratic faith. We declare our party's position to be in favor of a tax on commodities entering the customs house that will promote effective competition, protect against monopoly and at the same time produce a fair revenue to support the government.

The greatest contributing factor in the increase and unbalancing of prices is unscientific taxation. After having increased taxation and the cost of living by $2,000,000,000 under the Fordney-Mc-Cumber tariff, all that the republican party could suggest in the way of relief was a cut of $300,000,000 in direct taxes; and that was to be given principally to those with the largest incomes.

Although there was no evidence of a lack of capital for investment to meet the present requirements of all legitimate industrial enterprises and although the farmers and general consumers were bearing the brunt of tariff favors already granted to special interests, the administration was unable to devise any plan except one to grant further aid to the few. Fortunately this plan of the administration failed and under democratic leadership, aided by progressive republicans, a more equitable one was adopted, which reduces direct taxes by about $450,000,000.

The issue between the president and the democratic party is not one of tax reduction or of the conservation of capital. It is an issue of relative burden of taxation and of the distribution of capital as affected by the taxation of income. The president still stands on the so-called Mellon plan, which his party has just refused to indorse or mention in its platform.

The income tax was intended as a tax upon wealth. It was not intended to take from the poor any part of the necessities of life. We hold that the fairest tax with which to raise revenue for the federal government is the income tax. We favor a graduated tax upon incomes, so adjusted as to lay the burdens of government upon the taxpayers in proportion to the benefits they enjoy and their ability to pay.

We oppose the so-called nuisance taxes, sales taxes and all other forms of taxation that unfairly shift to the consumer the burdens of taxation. We refer to the democratic revenue measure passed by the last congress as distinguished from the Mellon tax plan as an illustration of the policy of the democratic party. We first made a flat reduction of 25 per cent upon the tax of all incomes payable this year and then we so changed the proposed Mellon plan as to eliminate taxes upon the poor, reducing them upon moderate incomes and, in a lesser degree, upon the incomes of multi-millionaires. We hold that all taxes are unnecessarily high and pledge ourselves to further reductions.

We denounce the Mellon plan as a device to relieve multi-millionaires at the expense of other taxpayers, and we accept the issue of taxation tendered by President Coolidge.

Quote from: 1924 Democratic Platform
(b) The republican policy of a prohibitive tariff, exemplified in the Fordney-McCumber law, which has forced the American farmer, with his export market debilitated, to buy manufactured goods at sustained high domestic levels, thereby making him the victim of the profiteer.

Quote from: 1924 Democratic Platform
We denounce the recent cruel and unjust contraction of legitimate and necessary credit and currency, which was directly due to the so-called deflation policy of the republican party, as declared in its national platform of June, 1920, and in the speech of acceptance of its candidate for the presidency. Within eighteen months after the election of 1920 this policy resulted in withdrawing bank loans by over $5,000,000,000 and in contracting our currency by over $1,500,000,000.

The contraction bankrupted hundreds of thousands of farmers and stock growers in America and resulted in widespread industrial depression and unemployment. We demand that the federal reserve system be so administered as to give stability to industry, commerce and finance, as was intended by the democratic party, which gave the federal reserve system to the nation.

Quote from: 1924 Democratic Platform
The federal trade commission has submitted to the republican administration numerous reports showing the existence of monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade, and has recommended proceedings against these violators of the law. The few prosecutions which have resulted from this abundant evidence furnished by this agency created by the democratic party, while proving the indifference of the administration to the violations of law by trusts and monopolies and its friendship for them, nevertheless demonstrate the value of the federal trade commission.

We declare that a private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable, and pledge the democratic party to vigorous enforcement of existing laws against monopoly and illegal combinations, and to the enactment of such further measures as may be necessary.

Quote from: 1924 Democratic Platform
We favor the immediate passage of such legislation as may be necessary to enable the states efficiently to enforce their laws relating to the gradual financial strangling of innocent investors, workers and consumers, caused by the indiscriminate promotion, refinancing and reorganizing of corporations on an inflated and over-capitalized basis, resulting already in the undermining and collapse of many railroads, public service and industrial corporations, manifesting itself in unemployment, irreparable loss and waste and which constitute a serious menace to the stability of our economic system.

Quote from: 1924 Democratic Platform
Labor is not a commodity. It is human. We favor collective bargaining and laws regulating hours of labor and conditions under which labor is performed. We favor the enactment of legislation providing that the product of convict labor shipped from one state to another shall be subject to the laws of the latter state exactly as though they had been produced therein. In order to mitigate unemployment attending business depression, we urge the enactment of legislation authorizing the construction and repair of public works be initiated in periods of acute unemployment.

We pledge the party to co-operate with the state governments for the welfare, education and protection of child life and all necessary safeguards against exhaustive debilitating employment conditions for women.

Without the votes of democratic members of congress the child labor amendment would not have been submitted for ratification.


https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1807&context=wlulr

Quote
During his time in Congress, he championed the cause of workmen's compensation as an appropriate regulation of interstate commerce and favored free trade, despite the fact that his own constituents felt threatened by it. Perhaps the high point of his progressive record came when he offered a bill to limit the issuance of injunctions against strikers in labor disputes. It eventually became a part of the Clayton Antitrust Act.

Now, in fairness, as that article mentions, Davis was not the most Progressive Democrat, and in fact some Democrats felt he was too conservative (and considering what I've posted thus far, that says something about the Democratic Party of the 1920s and about party switch ideology in general), and he unfortunately went down the Al Smith route of turning to Conservatism in the 1930s and beyond. But to call him a Corporate Tool (in 1924 at least) is to ignore his career up to that point and his actions in the Wilson administration in particular in favour of party switch ideology.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2021, 08:55:11 PM »

Now, in fairness, as that article mentions, Davis was not the most Progressive Democrat, and in fact some Democrats felt he was too conservative (and considering what I've posted thus far, that says something about the Democratic Party of the 1920s and about party switch ideology in general), and he unfortunately went down the Al Smith route of turning to Conservatism in the 1930s and beyond. But to call him a Corporate Tool (in 1924 at least) is to ignore his career up to that point and his actions in the Wilson administration in particular in favour of party switch ideology.

Thank you for your inclusions of these texts.

Any revisionism of the post WJB and especially post Wilson Democratic Party has being to the right of the GOP is completely ridiculous. Yes you had me tooism as you always do when one party is dominant and the other tries to chase after it, like with those citing comments by Wilkie as some kind of proof of this fall flat likewise does it so here. Wilkie's liberal gymnasitics won't put him to the left of the New Deal, just like Davis's actions here would not put him to the right of Coolidge.

It is also worthy of note that the party line at the time about the monopolies as such were demanding in such a way as to ensure that Davis had to run a certain platform and serving Wilson also dictated likewise regardless of his personal views. It also worthy of note that during the 1900s many Democrats claimed TR's actions against the Trusts did not go far enough and that he was even on the take from them and yes many of these same Democrats were either horrible segregationists or silent enablers of such just like Wilson himself and to some extent FDR.
Logged
Paul Weller
HenryWallaceVP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,217
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2021, 01:30:36 PM »
« Edited: March 31, 2021, 01:37:25 PM by HenryWallaceVP »

I don't really care what the Democratic party claimed to stand for as long as it was the party of the South - the party of Jim Crow, lynchings, and the resurgent Klan. For me, it's impossible to look at the 1924 electoral map and see anything but a Civil War redux. With that backdrop, Davis is clearly to the right of Coolidge. I hate to quote the vile Mencken twice in one thread, but he was one of the more important political commentators of the 1920s, and this is what he had to say about the Civil War:

Quote
I am not arguing here, of course, that the whole Confederate army was composed of gentlemen; on the contrary, it was chiefly made up, like the Federal army, of innocent and unwashed peasants, and not a few of them got into its corps of officers. But the impulse behind it, as everyone knows, was essentially aristocratic, and that aristocratic impulse would have fashioned the Confederacy if the fortunes of war had run the other way.

Looking at that electoral map again, I cannot and have no desire to support the candidate of the slaveholding aristocratic Confederate South. Of course it's impossible to know what the electoral map will look like before you vote, but based on the 1920 results I think one could make a pretty close guess. In any case I obviously would've been an enthusiastic La Follette supporter, but if forced to choose between Coolidge and Davis I would easily choose Coolidge.
Logged
Fubart Solman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,697
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 03, 2021, 01:32:01 AM »

La Follette, obviously. I think I’d tilt Coolidge in second, but meh.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,475
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 03, 2021, 07:38:30 AM »

Definitely La Follette. 

Coolidge's policies as POTUS were generally not good, though I don't think he was a bad guy.  I give him credit for enfranchising Native Americans.  I also don't think he was particularly anti-immigrant either, certainly not for the time, as the vast majority of Congress supported the immigration legislation he signed.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 04, 2021, 11:47:23 AM »

La Follette>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Coolidge>>Davis

I'd still take Davis as a second choice, albeit a very distant second choice over Coolidge. He was better on immigration.

Davis gets a bad reputation as "one of those conservative Democrats" because of his various positions on issues relating to the South, but on matters of trusts/monopolies, immigration and a number of other issues he was certainly not conservative relative to Coolidge.

This, plus Davis was opposed to the Klan, which was THE major issue of the 1924 convention, along with Prohibition.

Davis was the moderate liberal America needed at that time.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2021, 09:03:21 AM »

The one who wasn't a right-winger.
Logged
Orser67
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,947
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2021, 01:41:49 PM »

I guess La Follette. La Follette was definitely too left-wing for me and I wonder if he had the right personality for president (I think he was great as a left-wing leader in the Senate but I prefer a more unifying president), but Coolidge is one of the last American politicians of his era that I would vote for. Davis's ideological leanings in 1924 (as opposed to his later career) are an interesting question, but I do get the sense that he was at least to the right of Wilson and James M. Cox, and I would have had a hard time voting for any Southern Democrat of that era (Wilson at least had spent his adult life in the North).
Logged
Asenath Waite
Fulbright DNC
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,431
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2021, 05:30:00 PM »

I don't really care what the Democratic party claimed to stand for as long as it was the party of the South - the party of Jim Crow, lynchings, and the resurgent Klan. For me, it's impossible to look at the 1924 electoral map and see anything but a Civil War redux. With that backdrop, Davis is clearly to the right of Coolidge. I hate to quote the vile Mencken twice in one thread, but he was one of the more important political commentators of the 1920s, and this is what he had to say about the Civil War:

Quote
I am not arguing here, of course, that the whole Confederate army was composed of gentlemen; on the contrary, it was chiefly made up, like the Federal army, of innocent and unwashed peasants, and not a few of them got into its corps of officers. But the impulse behind it, as everyone knows, was essentially aristocratic, and that aristocratic impulse would have fashioned the Confederacy if the fortunes of war had run the other way.

Looking at that electoral map again, I cannot and have no desire to support the candidate of the slaveholding aristocratic Confederate South. Of course it's impossible to know what the electoral map will look like before you vote, but based on the 1920 results I think one could make a pretty close guess. In any case I obviously would've been an enthusiastic La Follette supporter, but if forced to choose between Coolidge and Davis I would easily choose Coolidge.

The Klan had pretty significant growth in the northeast and midwest as well though where it tended to be tied closer to the Republican Party. I don't think either political party in the 1920s or any region of the country was anything but backwards when it came to racism and anti-immigrant nativism.
Logged
Paul Weller
HenryWallaceVP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,217
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2021, 12:20:55 AM »

This isn't directly related to the subject of this thread, but since The Faith of a Liberal was published in 1924 I thought it would fit in this thread as well:

I've finished reading The Faith of a Liberal by Nicholas M. Butler. It is not really a book as such, but a collection of speeches made by Butler. Many if not most of the speeches are about the evils of socialism and various international affairs, while the last speech of the book is a most fascinating recollection of Butler's time spent as a student in Berlin and Paris in the 1880s. Still, I found a number of passages worth sharing here which pertain closely to this discussion:

Quote
The American spirit has been liberal from the outset. It was not tories but liberals who crowded the deck of the Mayflower and who made their home upon the stern and rockbound coast. It was not tories but liberals who pushed westward along the watercourses and over the mountain ranges to the rich lands and prairies of the Mississippi valley to make it one of the gardens and granaries of the world. It was not tories but liberals who met in the Continental Congress, in the Covention at Philadelphia, and on the floor of those earlier congresses when our nation's policies were in the making. It was not tories but liberals who rallied about Abraham Lincoln, and who at every sacrifice saved the Union and made all its people free. It was not tories but liberals who heard the call of anguished liberty from beyond the seas when the well-trained hosts of the most militaristic of empires had their swords at her throat.

Butler unequivocally proclaims the Pilgrims who boarded the Mayflower to be liberals. Apparently, he does not feel the need to add the prefix "proto-", as if 1620 were too early an age to have its own liberals and tories. Butler then proclaims the American revolutionaries and the supporters of Abraham Lincoln to be not tories, but liberals. Modern Republicans could learn a thing or two from this guy when they try to claim Lincoln as their own. Remember that this is not a Democrat talking, but a partisan Republican who served as a delegate at every convention from 1888 to 1936. This is exactly the sort of elite, upper crust WASP Republican that RINO Tom and NC Yankee love to describe as "conservative"; and here he is publishing a collection of his speeches in defense of liberalism. How interesting.

Quote
The liberal treasures the historic associations of his faith. He finds them in John Milton and John Hampden. He finds them in Benjamin Franklin and in Samuel Adams. He finds them in Thomas Jefferson and in Abraham Lincoln. He finds them in William Ewart Gladstone and in John Morley. He prefers those associations and their promise for the world to the glittering baubles of quickly passing place and power, when these gained by denying liberalism. He maintains his serenity and his confidence amid all discouragement, and feels able calmly to say to his opponents, as Gladstone said to the House of Commons when a hostile majority was about to throw out his first measure of Irish home rule: "The ebbing tide is with you and the flowing tide is with us."

Here, Butler lists John Milton and John Hampden, two Puritan radicals of the 17th century, as the first among a group of historic liberals. It seems Butler would agree with me that the Puritans were the founders of Anglo-American liberalism. He then once again describes Lincoln as a liberal, and ends by quoting Gladstone. Clearly, Butler does not view his beloved Republican party as the American counterpart to the British Conservatives.

Quote
The last fifteen or twenty years have seen the ending by the mere lapse of time and the nation's development of those controversies which were once fundamental. The paramount power of the nation has been effectively established and is now everywhere supported. Human slavery has been abolished. Authority to make internal public improvements and to administer in the interest of the whole people the public domain and its forest and mineral wealth, is conceded. The one remaining ground of party difference, the tariff, has completely changed its character with the growth in the Democrat Party of a large body of believers in a tariff for protection to home industries, and with the altered position of the United States as a creditor nation demanding for its own prosperity, for its wage-workers, and for its agriculture a steadily expanding international trade. One cannot maintain with a straight face a party division based upon the question whether a given rate of duty on imports shall be 20 per cent or 35 percent. If one will take pains to read formal party declarations recently made, say, in the States of New York, of Ohio, of Indiana, of Wisconsin, and of California, he will be speedily be cured of the notion that one and the same party name means one and the same thing in those different communities. In each of the two great historic parties there are millions of upright men and women who have no substantial differences with each other on grounds of principle, but who are continuing a mock battle with wooden guns after all cause for conflict has passed away and when a very different and bitter struggle is organizing on another part of the battlefield.

Here, Butler observes that since the abolition of slavery and the end of Reconstruction, the two parties no longer disagree on anything besides the tariff, and even on that issue are barely different. I hate to toot my own horn here, but I have observed basically the same thing:

After 1876, when the Republicans abandoned Reconstruction and the Democrats largely repudiated their Civil War era politics, both parties were less ideologically coherent and more identity-based, with only a couple signature policies like the tariff and free trade distinguishing them.

Butler's solution to this ideological incoherence, which I didn't include in the quoted passage, is a new party system in which "the overwhelming majority of Republicans and the overwhelming majority of Democrats [...] form a Democrat-Republican Party (to revive a name that was in use in this country a century ago) which would represent the predominant liberalism of our people. Over against such a progressive liberal party would be a distinctly radical party, to which should go al those who now call themselves Democrats or Republicans, but are in reality neither."

But to return to the quoted passage, I love Butler's line about how "one cannot maintain with a straight face a party division" based upon slight tariff differences - one can only wonder if NC Yankee is in fact unable to keep a straight face when he makes such arguments. Once again, I have expressed a similar sentiment before:

If I have been charged with minimizing the importance of trade and the other economic issues, would you not accuse Douglass of the same thing? I happen to agree with him, and if I lived back then I would like to think that I, too, would consider equal treatment under the law more important than the tariff rates or the price of imports.

Quote
The two-party system is what makes it possible for the American Constitution to work. That is why we always have two parties, although in the history of a hundred years the issues between them, the principles they profess, have often so sharply changed.

Very short quote, but nice to see Butler acknowledge, as many still refuse to, that the principles of the two major parties sharply changed over time.

Quote
No attempt can be made in this brief time to explain the present situation as regards our political parties: It is not to be wondered at that foreign observers find it difficult to follow our party divisions, but there is this key: All parties in Europe find their basic division between the conservatives and the liberals or radicals. There are those, decreasing in number, perhaps, but still powerful, who would have things as they were [and] there are those woho would change them in various directions called liberal or radical. What I should like to make clear is that in the European sense there is no conservative party in the United States; they are all divisions of liberal parties of one kind or another. There is no party, and never has been any party, in the United States that would have supported the programme, for example, of Disraeli in England a generation ago, because that programme, whether good or bad makes no difference, was the outgrowth of conditions with which American experience and American opinion were quite unfamiliar, and American parties begin where European traditional conservatism leaves off. Unless one understands that, he cannot use European terms understandingly in discussing American political developments and party conduct.

Butler makes it quite clear that the divisions between the two parties are anything but clear, least of all to foreigners more suited to ideologically coherent party politics. He then explains that both parties in the United States are varying shades of liberal and neither conservative in a European sense, but he stops after this paragraph. I would have liked to see how he contrasted Republican and Democratic liberalism, but based on what he said earlier I doubt he would have thought there was much of a difference at this point in time.

Quote
Beginning nearly three hundred years ago in England, a movement of opinion was started which, growing broader and deeper as it swept onward, found expression in the English, the American, and the French Revolutions, in the breaking down of absolutism in other lands, and in holding up the ideal of political democracy as the goal toward which liberal and progressive thought should move in order to advance civilization and to improve the condition and increase the satisfactions of individual men. As democracy grew in power and in influence, as as the teachings of its great exponents, particularly those who wrote and spoke the English tongue, gained a steadily widening hearing, men came to accept the notion, first, that democracy was inevitable, and, second, that it was beneficent.

Again, Butler recognizes the English Civil War as the birthplace of modern liberalism, not as some premodern "origins" point. I get the sense that this used to be understood intuitively, back when American men of letters knew the history of England quite well, but today it has to be argued about.

Quote
There is no progress in abandoning liberty. The only hope of progress is to make manking more worthy of liberty, more understanding of liberty, more competent for liberty. That way progress lies, and not in a great series of compulsions, limitations, prohibitions of one sort and another, that put the life of the individual and society in a strait-jacket at the behest of opinion. Liberty has its dangers. Liberty is not a path of roses; but tell me what path known to history so surely leads to human satisfaction and to human happiness as liberty with all its troubles, with all its temptations, and with all its dangers? There is none.

I included this passage because it is indicative of the tenor of many of Butler's speeches. Again and again he preaches on the subject of liberty and decries the intrusions of the federal government into state and local matters. This gives the lie to NC Yankee's foolish claim that the Republicans were a "big govt conservative party"; or else why would a "small govt liberal" like Butler have felt so at home there? Butler clearly viewed the Republicans as the party of his form of liberalism since their founding, as exemplified by Abraham Lincoln. If one is to call Grover Cleveland a "classical liberal" instead of a conservative, one must do the same for Calvin Coolidge.

Quote
There is a close parallel between slavery and prohibition. Slavery was not long ago proclaimed as the principal cause of civilization, indeed as the sole cause. It was defended and extolled as a divine institution by precisely the same type of clerical mind that defends and extols prohibition. It ate out the vitals of our nation for over a half-century, just as prohibition is doing now. It was incorporated in our constitutional system, and even as late as 1861 the attempt was made so to amend the Constitution that it could never be abolished. Even after Lincoln had been inaugurated and the Civil War had begun, this proposal was ratified by the States of Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois Men and women of the highest intelligence and noble character who hated slavery were called upon to accept it and to obey the laws based upon it because they were the alw. Precisely the same arguments are urged in support of the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act, and precisely the same attitude is taken toward them. My own feeling toward prohibition is exactly the felling which my parents and my grandparents had toward slavery. I look upon the Volstead Act precisely as they looked upon the Fugitive Slave Law. Like Abraham Lincoln, I shall obey these laws so long as they remain upon the statue book; but, like Abraham Lincoln, I shall not rest until they are repealed. The issue is one of plain simple, unadorned morality.

Butler compares slavery to prohibition, making the point that his liberal convictions which lead him to oppose the one institution also necessitate opposition to the other.

Quote
The American mind and temper were sternly, almost savagely, individualistic. The conditions of pioneer life both invited and rewarded this mentnal attitude and method. The Stuart monarchy, the Tory doctrine of government, and the activitie of George III and Lord North had combined to make Americans resentful of any government at a distance and antagonistic to it.

Again, starting with the Stuarts. The 17th century matters!

Quote
Those who would clearly understand the genesis of the Fifteenth Amendment and the way in which it fitted into the scheme of political thought following the Civil War, will find the facts set out succinctly and with accuracy by Mr. Blaine in his Twelve Years of Congress. The ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, accomplished in 1870, was hailed as putting the capstone upon the National Government as rebuilt after the Civil War. Male suffrage was now to be universal. The full power of the nation declared that neither race, nor color, nor previous condition of servitude should be cause for the denial or abridgment, whether by the United States or by any State, of the right of any citizen to vote. No declaration could be more definite, none more specific, and none could deal with a matter more fundamental in democratic government.

In case there was any doubt, this passage should make absolutely clear that the Radical Republicans were the liberals and radicals of the Reconstruction era whilst their Democratic opponents were the conservatives and reactionaries.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 20, 2021, 12:41:31 AM »

The Klan had pretty significant growth in the northeast and midwest as well though where it tended to be tied closer to the Republican Party. I don't think either political party in the 1920s or any region of the country was anything but backwards when it came to racism and anti-immigrant nativism.

Indeed; the Republican party in Indiana was essentially the Klan party in the 20s, for example. Not terribly surprising when we consider that the Democratic party in the Northeast was the party of Catholics, Jews, and immigrants during this period.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.081 seconds with 14 queries.