J. William Fulbright: The Face of Postwar Internationalist Consensus Politics


Arkansas is a state not often associated with internationalism, academic achievement, and moderate liberalism. Yet, the state has produced some political figures of great significance: Joseph Robinson was Senate Majority Leader during the New Deal and played a fundamental role in shepherding it through, Hattie Caraway was the first woman elected to the Senate, Bill Clinton was a two-term president, Rep. Wilbur Mills was a titan on tax policy, and Sen. Tom Cotton is being discussed as possible presidential material in 2024. Senator J. William Fulbright (1905-1995) fits all the descriptors of my first sentence.

In 1942, the 37-year old former president of the University of Arkansas, J. William Fulbright, won election to the House. He had been known previously as an opponent of non-interventionism, having become an advocate for multilateralism in his Oxford days. Fulbright immediately made an impact on the debates on postwar planning, coming out early and often for the United Nations. In September 1943, the House adopted the Fulbright Resolution, which encouraged the United States to participate in an international peacekeeping organization, which would later be known as the UN. This was an impressive feat for a freshman, and the voters of Arkansas recognized it: in 1944, Fulbright defeated Senator Hattie Caraway for renomination and his influence on foreign affairs grew. In his first year in the Senate he proposed the creation of an agency funded through the sale of surplus of war property to fund cultural and educational exchange between the nations of the world and the following year this proposal was signed into law by President Truman. Today this is known as the Fulbright Program, and it remains the largest educational exchange agency that has ever existed.

Fulbright and the Cold War

Fulbright, like most Democrats, supported the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. He regarded foreign aid as a means of fighting communism, including aid to nations that were poor rather than impacted by World War II under the Point Four Program. However, he proved an opponent of admitting displaced persons in Europe to the United States and backed anti-communist domestic legislation, notably the McCarran Internal Security Act. His record on Fair Deal measures was mixed.

Fulbright notably backed Truman in the firing of General Douglas MacArthur for insubordination, but he didn’t always get along personally with the Democratic presidents he served with. He for instance headed up an investigation into Reconstruction Finance Corporation corruption during Truman’s presidency, with him calling Fulbright in response an “over-educated Oxford S.O.B” (Lauter & Folkhart) He also gave Truman some un-sage advice after the Democrats lost the 1946 midterms, arguing that he should resign as happened in British politics with a Prime Minister. Since Truman had no vice president, this would have made Senate Pro Tem Arthur Vandenberg, a Michigan Republican, the president. Truman publicly stated that Fulbright didn’t know his American history, and behind his back he referred to him as “Senator Halfbright”, an insult that both Joseph McCarthy and LBJ would employ.

Senator Fulbright was an anti-communist and voted for the McCarran Internal Security Act, but he came out early and often against his demagogic colleague from Wisconsin, Senator McCarthy. He was so opposed to him and his political style that he was the sole senator to vote against funding of his subcommittee. Like all voting Democrats in the Senate, he voted to censure him in 1954, which curbed his influence until his death in 1957.

The Ideology of Fulbright

Senator Fulbright is not necessarily the easiest politician to place on an ideological scale. His MC-Index score is a 28%, but Americans for Democratic Action thought him a moderate given their scoring, and, without counting absences, his scores ranged from 17% to 92% on their scale. On foreign policy, Fulbright could be relied on generally as a liberal vote while on domestic policy he balanced out his beliefs and those of his constituents and could sometimes side with the Conservative Coalition. This leads me to the issue that prevented him from ever considering a presidential run and the issue that is a black mark, so to speak, on his record.

Race, the Reality of Arkansas Politics, and Fulbright’s Faustian Bargain

Fulbright, as an Oxford educated man, Rhodes scholar, and former president of the University of Arkansas, it was rather hard for political observers to believe that he really believed in segregation. Whether he really believed in it or not, the politics of Arkansas made it impossible for him to not vote for segregation. As Senator George McGovern (D-S.D.) noted, “He rationalized his position by saying that he had a powerful position from which to influence U.S. policy and that raising his voice on behalf of civil rights legislation wouldn’t accomplish much since the Southern position was doomed anyway… somewhat painfully, I have to concede he probably made the only choice that was open to him” (Lauter & Folkhart).

In 1956, he signed the Southern Manifesto along with every other member of Arkansas’ delegation. He also subsequently voted against all civil rights legislation in the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson Administrations. Arkansas was, after all, the state that President Eisenhower sent federal troops to in order to enforce desegregation.  However, there was evidence that he was more moderate than many other Southern senators on race.

Fulbright was not averse to voting for federal nominees who happened to be black. Unlike many of his Southern colleagues, he voted for the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall as the first black justice in 1967, and in 1970 he voted to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Compared to his Arkansas colleagues on civil rights, Fulbright looks good, but compared to his colleagues across the nation, he looks bad. Fulbright, in effect, made a Faustian bargain: he had to vote against civil rights legislation until 1970 to attain the level of power and prominence that he did. Although he was no racial demagogue and tended to stay out of debates on race, he had to tow the line.

Fulbright and JFK

Fulbright was the longest serving chairman in history of the prestigious Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1959 to 1974, and although in 1961 he had been offered the post of Secretary of State, according to Arthur Schlesinger Jr., I asked why Rusk had finally emerged. Elizabeth said, ‘He was the lowest common denominator.’ Apparently Harris Wofford succeeded in stirring the Negroes and Jews up so effectively that the uproar killed Fulbright, who was apparently Jack’s first choice” (98). That year, he stated two weeks before the construction of the Berlin Wall that “I don’t understand why the East Germans don’t just close their border, because I think they have a right to close it” (Congressional Record). In 1962, Fulbright was briefed on the Bay of Pigs operation, and advised Kennedy not to go through with it, but he didn’t heed his advice and the operation ended in disaster. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, however, he took on a hawkish position to the Soviets.

Fulbright, the Vietnam War, and Jackson-Vanik

In 1964, Fulbright shepherded the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution through the Senate, but this came to be his greatest regret. He began criticizing Johnson at hearings on the Vietnam War in 1966 and this greatly upset him as the criticism of the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee lent the peace movement a credibility that student demonstrations could not. Fulbright subsequently wrote The Arrogance of Power (1966), a collection of his lectures critical of the Vietnam War. He also was critical of the Nixon Administration’s prosecution of the Vietnam War, including the administration’s expansion into Cambodia. Fulbright advocated and voted for the Cooper-Church Amendment ending the Cambodian expansion and prohibiting any expansions of troops outside South Vietnam. As a result, he became popular with young voters.

Although Fulbright disagreed with Nixon on Vietnam, he agreed with the Nixon Administration in its opposition to the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which restricted the president’s ability to grant most-favored nation status to nations that restricted emigration. This was aimed explicitly at the Soviet bloc, and Fulbright regarded this as overly idealistic. However, Congressional support was too strong and overcame Nixon’s and Fulbright’s objections.

In 1974, Fulbright lost renomination overwhelmingly to Governor Dale Bumpers. Bumpers was more liberal than him and the face of the New South Democrats, who were overall moderately liberal and sought to form multiracial coalitions. Given the growth of black voting in the Democratic Party, Fulbright’s history of voting against civil rights helped his defeat. Fulbright ultimately inspired a number of future leaders, most notably President Bill Clinton, who considered him a friend and mentor, and his legacy continues to this day with the Fulbright Program.

Author’s note: My grandfather met and casually befriended Senator Fulbright when he was in the State Department. He thought he was a nice guy, didn’t think the most of him on intellect, and noted that he was a publicity hound as he would never pass up the chance to shake hands with a homeless person if he saw reporters with cameras around.


Congressional Record — Senate, August 1, 1961, pp. 14222-14224.

Lauter, D. & Folkart, B.A. (1995, February 10). William Fulbright, Critic of Cold War Policy, Dead at 89. Los Angeles Times.

Retrieved from


Schlesinger, A.M. (2008). Journals 1952-2000. London, UK: Penguin Books.




The Ignorance and Anti-Semitism of Henry Ford

Henry Ford - Wikipedia

Although Henry Ford is known best for his founding of the Ford Motor Company, “welfare capitalism”, and the development of the Model T, a car affordable for the average American, he has a darker legacy…that is his political legacy.

Ford’s views on wider issues and his general lack of sophistication can be traced to his origins….he grew up on a farm and had limited formal education, attending a one-room school for a period of eight years when he wasn’t helping his family on the farm. Ford’s tremendous mechanical aptitude ultimately catapulted him into success, but he was an opinionated and stubborn man and this expanded into fields considerably outside of his knowledge and thanks to his wealth he was able to spread these views far and wide. His influence on politics begins in the 1910s.

Ford and the Peace Voyage

Henry Ford was a pacifist and he believed, tremendously naively, that he could end the war by sailing to Europe on a ship with a big white cross to try and reason with the belligerents. The voyage began on December 4, 1915 to divided reaction from the crowd witnessing the sendoff. Reactions included “the poor simp”, “the savior of peace”, and “a second Messiah” (Grossman, 2015). Accompanying him were 63 pacifists, 54 reporters, and four “Chicago babies”, three of whom were great-grandchildren of a co-founder of the Chicago Tribune. The voyage proved ill-fated, as the passengers started quarreling with one another when news reached them that President Wilson was increasing the size of the military, and pro and anti-Wilson factions developed as the anti-Wilson faction had drafted a resolution condemning the president and were demanding that others on the ship sign it. Ford was hoping for an endorsement of his peace voyage from President Wilson yet, according to reporter Carolyn Wilson, “In the first place, he couldn’t understand why anyone would refuse to sign the resolution…In the second place, he couldn’t understand the discussions” (Grossman, 2015). Ultimately, the ship arrived in Copenhagen, Denmark, but Ford, claiming illness, declined to go to Stockholm with the other pacifists and sailed home.

Ford and the First Libel Suit

In 1916, the Chicago Tribune released an incendiary article on Henry Ford that claimed he was “an anarchist”, “an ignorant idealist”, and “incapable of thought” for protesting military mobilization on the Mexican border (Admin). As previously noted, Ford was a pacifist and as part of this he opposed America’s involvement in World War I, a conflict he believed had origins in a conspiracy. He sued the Chicago Tribune for libel and the case dragged on until 1919, when he was called to the stand to testify. The questioning proved humiliating for Ford as it exposed his sheer ignorance of American history and government: he thought that the American Revolution occurred in 1812, that Benedict Arnold was a writer, and claimed that he had voted only once in his life: for James A. Garfield, even though Ford wasn’t old enough to vote in 1880. He also appeared to have trouble reading a document put before him and while he blamed his glasses, this gave people the impression that he was semi-literate if not illiterate. Ford was lampooned in the press for his testimony and a cartoon appeared with him wearing a dunce cap. Despite this, he won the libel suit but it was a Pyrrhic victory: he was awarded six cents (the equivalent of 83 cents today).

The perception of Henry Ford’s scope of knowledge isn’t helped by the fact that the quote “History is bunk” is often attributed to him, but the full quote is, “History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We don’t want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker’s dam is the history we make today. That’s the trouble with the world. We’re living in books and history and tradition. We want to get away from that and take care of today. We’ve done too much looking back. What we want to do and do it quick is to make just history right now” (Strohl). Although educated Americans had a laugh at Ford’s expense, working class Americans identified with him further as he wasn’t like other rich people they thought of.

Ford Runs for Senate and Destroys His Opponent’s Political Career

In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson, knowing Ford’s pacifistic beliefs, urged him to run for the Senate. Wilson figured having the master automaker in his corner would greatly aid his bid for the League of Nations. However, there were a few problems. First, Ford only accepted on the grounds that he would not campaign personally. Second, his grasp of politics and the office he would hold was limited. Evidence for this included Ford’s testimony in the libel case as well as his pledge to as senator “serve the people of the United States, and the people of the world”, which demonstrated a misunderstanding of what his role would be as a senator (Felten). Third, another wealthy Michigander, Truman Newberry, also wanted the seat. Ford attempted to secure both the Democratic and Republican nomination, only succeeding in the former. Ford, offended that anyone would challenge him, was bitter over his Republican primary defeat and after a close race in which Newberry was elected after attacking Ford’s antisemitism and pacifism, he brought a legal case against him for spending too much money in the Republican primary and used his wealth to finance investigations into him. He also claimed that Jews were behind Newberry’s election. The legal case against him was that he knowingly exceeded a legal cap on campaign spending in the Corrupt Practices Act that applied to elections and primaries. Newberry was tried before a judge and jury sympathetic to Ford and was convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment. Newberry appealed his case to the Supreme Court, which struck down the conviction, holding 5-4 that the Corrupt Practices Act applied to state primaries was unconstitutional and found unanimously that the judge in the case issued erroneous instructions to the jury.

Newberry had his defenders, including the Republican statesman Charles Evans Hughes, who had represented him in the Supreme Court, and stated “as gross a miscarriage of justice as had ever come under my observation” (Felten). The Republican Senate majority conducted their own investigation and produced a report that exonerated Newberry, while the Democratic minority asserted in their report that Newberry was fully aware of the spending in his campaign. On January 12, 1922, the Senate voted to affirm that Newberry had been legally elected, but Ford would end up getting his way. The 1922 elections increased the number of Democrats and progressive Republicans in the Senate, who were opposed to Newberry and wanted to kick him out. He shortly thereafter resigned, not wanting to continue fighting to keep his seat. In Newberry’s place, Michigan’s governor Alex Groesbeck appointed James J. Couzens, who was subsequently elected. He had been vice president and general manager of Ford.

Henry Ford and Jews

Henry Ford had a unique animus towards Jews that became clear in the 1910s. In 1915, he made it clear that he blamed a group of German-Jewish bankers for the start of World War I.  Strangely enough, Ford had been influenced in his pacifism by Rosika Schwimmer, who was of Jewish descent.

In 1918, he purchased the newspaper The Dearborn Independent, but only two years later it badly needed to raise subscriptions, and Ford and his secretary Ernest G. Liebold came up with the idea of writing articles about Jewish conspiracies. Liebold conducted much of the research, but the writer for most of it was William J. Cameron, who wrote based on the opinions and ideas espoused by Ford. The most notable and attention-grabbing of these articles were formed into a four-volume series titled The International Jew. Henry Ford fully believed that the push for peace and spreading awareness of Jewish plots went hand in hand. He argued in The International Jew that “The Jew is a race that has no civilization to point to no aspiring religion… no great achievements in any realm… We meet the Jew everywhere where there is no power. And that is where the Jew so habitually… gravitate to the highest places? Who puts him there? What does he do there? In any country, where the Jewish question has come to the forefront as a vital issue, you will discover that the principal cause is the outworking of the Jewish genius to achieve the power of control. Here in the United States is the fact of this remarkable minority attaining in fifty years a degree of control that would be impossible to a ten times larger group of any other race… The finances of the world are in the control of Jews; their decisions and devices are themselves our economic laws” (Simkin).  The series attributed the Russian Revolution, control of the press, control of motion pictures, the corruption of baseball, Jazz, Tammany Hall’s corruption, the Federal Reserve, bootlegging, and influencing Benedict Arnold’s treason among other things to Jews. Consistent with Ford’s pacifistic views, articles in The Dearborn Independent did condemn incidents of violence against Jews but also claimed that Jews had provoked them.

In 1922, the four-volume series was translated into German, which inspired and influenced numerous Nazis, including Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Hitler Youth Leader Baldur von Schirach, the latter who attributed his antisemitism to the work. He stated, “We saw in Henry Ford the representative of success, also the exponent of a progressive social policy. In the poverty-stricken and wretched Germany of the time, youth looked toward America, and apart from the great benefactor, Herbert Hoover, it was Henry Ford who to us represented America” (Simkin, 2020). Hitler himself gave Ford two positive mentions in Mein Kampf.

The Second Libel Suit

In his first libel suit, Henry Ford was the plaintiff, but this time he was the defendant. Attorney Aaron Sapiro sued Ford for libel for making false accusations about him and his collective farming movement in California in The Dearborn Independent. William J. Cameron, the writer, claimed in court that Henry Ford had no input in the editorials, but according to academic Michael Barkun, “That Cameron would have continued to publish such controversial material without Ford’s explicit instructions seemed unthinkable to those who knew both men. Mrs. Stanley Ruddiman, a Ford family intimate, remarked that ‘I don’t think Mr. Cameron ever wrote anything for publication without Mr. Ford’s approval” (Barkun, 35). The lawsuit ultimately shut down The Dearborn Independent and resulted in a settlement that included a public apology and renunciation of anti-Semitic writings from Henry Ford. The result was important: Henry Ford, the nation’s leading anti-Semite, had been held accountable and forced to publicly apologize.

Ford and Nazi Germany

In 1938, Henry Ford accepted the award of the Grand Cross of the German Eagle from German diplomats for his 75th birthday in Dearborn, Michigan. Allegations of Ford himself or headquarters being responsible for the use of slave labor in German Ford plants are false, as according to Professor Simon Reich, “By the time that slave labor was introduced, Fordwerke was clearly under the direct control of the Nazi government, though administered through the company headquarters in Cologne (albeit by Robert Schmidt)” (Jewish Virtual Library). The Cologne plant was still technically under American ownership but the Nazis pulled the strings, and Schmidt was an appointee of the Nazis.


Ford’s two central beliefs revolved around Jews and pacifism so naturally he regarded the former as the opposite of the latter. It is an irony most bitter and terrible that Ford believed that, in his view, that by exposing Jewish conspiracies he would make the world a more peaceful place. He stated to the New York World in 1919 that “International financiers are behind all war. They are what is called the international Jew: German-Jews, French-Jews, English-Jews, American-Jews… a Jew is a threat” (Simkin, 2020). In truth, his pushing of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories was an indirect cause of one of the world’s most horrible wars as The International Jew was among the foremost works that influenced the Nazis. When I started writing about Ford, I didn’t quite realize the scope of how much damage he did with his influence. This work, or more accurately, piece of work, continues to influence anti-Semites around the world today.

The next post will be of an opposite figure in terms of education, shared Henry Ford’s goal of peace, and struggled with a different sort of prejudice: J. William Fulbright.


Admin, M. (2014, August 8). How to Prove Henry Ford is Dumb (In Court). Knowledge Nuts.

Retrieved from

How To Prove Henry Ford Is Dumb (In Court)

Barkun, R. (1996). Religion and the racist right: the origins of the Christian identity movement. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press.

Braswell, S. (2014, November 1). The Astonishing Ignorance of Henry Ford. OZY.

Retrieved from


Felten, E. (2018, November 27). History Lesson: Henry Ford Was the World’s Biggest Sore Loser. Washington Examiner. UNC Press.

Retrieved from


Grossman, R. (2015, December 11). Henry Ford, the Peace Ship, and four Chicago babies. Chicago Tribune.

Retrieved from


Reich, S. The Nazi Party: Ford Motor Company & the Third Reich. Jewish Virtual Library.

Retrieved from


Simkin, J. Mein Kampf: Nazi Germany. Spartacus Educational.

Retrieved from


Simkin, J. (January 2020). Dearborn Independent. Spartacus Educational.

Retrieved from


Strohl, D. (2018, January 14). Fact Check: What Henry Ford meant when he said “History is bunk”. Hemmings.

Retrieved from


The Expulsion Case of Truman H. Newberry of Michigan. U.S. Senate.

Retrieved from



The Confederates Who Had Political Careers…Outside of the Confederacy!


The modern talk about those who served in a political or military capacity for the Confederate side in the War of the Rebellion (yes, I use an alternative name for the Civil War and its accurate) is that they were traitors. Indeed, this reflects the view of many Radical Republicans in that day and age. However, President Grant was more forgiving and wanted national reconciliation, thus he allowed a significant number of people who had served on the Confederate side to serve. In 1872, Georgia’s voters elected Alexander H. Stephens to Congress, who was the Vice President of the Confederacy. The former Confederate states pretty much whenever they elected a Democrat were electing someone who had served in the Confederate government or served in the Confederate Army. Tennessee sent Isham G. Harris to the Senate, who had spearheaded the state’s exit from the union in 1861.

One of the more surprising developments, however, is states outside the Confederacy were electing former Confederates. Many of these were border states, in which loyalties had been divided. Kentucky’s, Missouri’s, Maryland’s, and West Virginia’s Democrats could have either sided with the Union or the Confederacy. However, most unusual is those who served in the Confederacy and served outside the Confederacy or border. These guys were:

Charles Thomas (D-Colo.), 1913-21.

Charles Thomas served in the Senate from 1913 to 1921, and as a native of Georgia had briefly served in the Confederate Army. Thomas was one of the more moderate Democrats and favored both Prohibition and women’s suffrage. He also opposed efforts at limiting extension of suffrage to only white women.

Atterson Rucker (D-Colo.), 1909-13.

Atterson Rucker served in the House from 1909 to 1913. Living in Missouri at the time of the War of the Rebellion, he was one of many Missourians who cast their lot with the Confederacy. His career ended when he lost renomination in 1912.

Rep. Thomas L. Glenn (P-Idaho), 1901-03.

A native Kentuckian, Glenn had lived in a bitterly divided state and he sided with the Confederates. In the 1890s he moved to Idaho and became active in the state’s politics, serving a single term in the House as a member of the Populist Party. Along with Senator Henry Heitfeld,

William A. Harris (P-Kan.), 1893-95, 1897-1903.

A native of Virginia whose father served in the House as a Democrat, William Harris fought on the Confederate side until the loss at Gettysburg, after which he knew the Confederates were beat and he deserted. In 1865, he moved to Kansas and worked as an engineer for the Union Pacific Railroad. Harris eventually became active in the state’s politics, and joined up with the left-wing Populist Party, serving a single term in the House before being elected for a single term in the Senate from 1897 to 1903. He is the only Confederate veteran to have served in any significant political capacity in Kansas.

Thomas B. Catron (R-N.M.), 1912-17.

New Mexico’s first two senators were Albert B. Fall and Thomas B. Catron, both Republicans. The former became a corrupt Secretary of the Interior and the latter was a former Confederate. Catron had been a native of Missouri, and that state was bitterly divided, with him siding with the South. He rose to the rank of first lieutenant. However, after the Civil War he put on a new hat, becoming a Republican and moving to the New Mexico territory, where he learned Spanish and studied law. Catron became a powerful political force and major landowner in the territory and pushed hard for statehood. The reward for his efforts was election to the Senate, and there he aligned himself with the conservative wing of the GOP. However, in 1916 he lost renomination to a candidate who would lose the seat for the Republicans.

When State’s Rights Was Progressive

White-haired man with black coat

Although the term state’s rights is commonly associated with the political right in the United States and indeed most conflicts that have involved states vs. feds in recent years have had the right on the side of the states. However, this isn’t a rule and the earlier history of state’s rights proves it. The original advocates of state’s rights were Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democrats. The Federalists and Whigs believed in an active federal government to help the nation grow. This meant infrastructure projects such as bridges and canals so commerce could expand and permitting companies to form in multiple states. They viewed the federal government as a cooperative helper to business, not as a check on its power. The Federalists and Whigs were the supporters of the growth of corporations and the Jacksonians regarded state’s rights as a useful tool to combat such a growing power that Jackson and his supporters viewed as harming farmers and common laborers. The growth of the power and influence of corporations would reach its peak during the Gilded Age.

Jackson and the Second Bank of the United States

In 1819, the Supreme Court ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland that the Second Bank of the United States was constitutional by a 7-0 vote and that it could not be taxed by states. The political leaders of the state of Maryland had opposed the bank  and had passed a tax on all branches of banks that weren’t chartered by the legislature. The Second Bank was intended to help the growth of commerce, and Maryland sought to restrict it. Although Thomas Jefferson was the first major figure to espouse state’s rights, the official founding of the Democratic Party was under Andrew Jackson, a major proponent of state’s rights.

President Jackson and his supporters were deeply suspicious of concentrated economic power and took a dim view of the financial power of the Northeast. They opposed paper money as they believed it contributed to “a corrupting and demoralizing system that made the rich richer, and the poor poorer” (Remini, 127). Thus, only gold and silver coins were acceptable currency for them. They saw as the epitome of concentrated economic power in the Second Bank of the United States, a private institution created by Congressional charter to manage fiscal transactions for the U.S. government, with the federal government owning 20% of its capital. Jackson doubted the bank’s constitutionality and to make matters worse allegations abounded that the bank under its chief, Nicholas Biddle, had taken actions that favored John Quincy Adams in the 1828 election. Biddle was encouraged by Jackson’s supporters to select candidates from both parties as Bank of the United States officers, but he feared that using partisan balance as a criterion would inevitably detract from the quality of people who were officers of the bank.

Some of the opposition was based on fear of what federal authority on this issue could do to the institution of slavery. As future President John Tyler of Virginia, who would side with the Confederacy during the War of the Rebellion, warned, “if Congress can incorporate a bank, it might emancipate a slave” (Dangerfield, 98). As president, he would veto a proposed reconstitution of the Second Bank of the United States. Andrew Jackson was openly hostile, stating to a delegation of bankers discussing the reauthorization of the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, “You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out” (U.S. History).  In 1832, Bank President Nicholas Biddle and his allies in the Senate, Henry Clay of Kentucky and Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, attempted to reauthorize the bank four years early to provide an election dilemma for President Jackson and to ensure the bank’s extension.

If Jackson signed reauthorization of the bank, it would please Pennsylvania voters but it would displease his farmer and laborer constituency and if he were to veto reauthorization it would cost him in New England and in Pennsylvania. Congress voted to reauthorize and a majority of his cabinet supported it, but as Jackson said to Martin Van Buren in response to these efforts, “The Bank is trying to kill me, Sir, but I shall kill it!” (U.S. History) Jackson vetoed the Bank Recharter Bill, and ordered deposits removed from the Bank and placed in state banks. Before the veto of the Second Bank of the United States, presidents saw it as their place to only veto legislation they believed unconstitutional, but Jackson used arguments in his veto message that were ideological and political as well as constitutional. He stated in his veto message, “The rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes…When the laws…make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society – the farmers, mechanics, and laborers – have a right to complain of the injustice to their government” (Boissoneault). This set the precedent of presidents vetoing legislation they disagreed with and we haven’t looked back since. Jackson’s opposition, which controlled Congress at the time, was furious and passed a resolution censuring the president for “abuse of power”. In 1833, Biddle tried to reassert his power by constricting loans from the bank, which caused a mild economic downturn. Ultimately this power play didn’t help his case for extending the bank’s charter and in 1836 the Second Bank of the United States was ended. The economic repercussions of this wouldn’t be clear until after Jackson’s presidency, and his successor Martin Van Buren would take the political heat for it.

Jackson’s action against the commercial interests of the Northeast came to be greatly celebrated among Democrats for a long time and, along with his advocacy for working class people and farmers, resulted in them venerating Jackson with Jefferson as the greatest presidents. Indeed, it wasn’t until about the last twenty years that Andrew Jackson lost his spot on top ten lists for historians. His veto of the Second Bank also made him a pioneer of class politics and inspired future populist and progressive campaigns and planks, including that of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the first place was a response to the politics, economics, and social conditions of the Gilded Age. The Democratic Party at its start in the 1830s was, paradoxically to the eyes of the modern viewer, both for state’s rights and economically progressive.

Jackson, however, had his limits on state’s rights. He would not, for instance, permit South Carolina’s nullification of the Tariff of 1832 and used the navy to enforce it. He called anyone who would propose to secede from the United States a traitor and threatened the hanging of political leaders who tried it. Ultimately, Jackson signed into law a bill with lower tariffs. Tariffs, as I have written before, were until the 1970s understood as a position of the political right, as Americans for Democratic Action repeatedly counted votes for lower tariffs favorably in their legislative scorecards.

Historian Views on State’s Rights

Historian Michael Kazin (2017) writes, “The [Democratic] party’s founders in the 1830s believed that the federal government needed to stay out of most economic matters; but unlike conservative Republicans today, they did so because they thought that an interventionist government benefited the rich and well-connected”. Other progressives viewed state’s rights similarly…in 1927 Vernon L. Parrington, a left-wing literary historian, wrote with lament that the decline of state’s rights with the justified end of slavery opened the door to “the principle of capitalistic exploitation” (Genovese). In 1946, liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., a founder of the left-wing Americans for Democratic Action lobbying group, wrote the Pulitzer prize winning The Age of Jackson, which celebrated Jackson as a hero for the working class and emphasized his and his coalition’s checking of the power of business. This was the basis FDR could justify his legacy as like that of Jackson despite his different approach. As historian Eugene Genovese (2001) writes, “…although we tend to think of federal intervention as “progressive” and the relegation of regulatory power to the states as “reactionary”, the historical record shows nothing of the sort. After the Civil War the federal government, notably the courts, smoothed the way for big-business combinations (“pools”, “Trusts”), and it was the states that initiated restrictions”.


The New Deal transformed Democratic politics in terms of means, but not ends. Likewise, the Republican Party’s true ideological ancestors were the Whigs and the Federalists, for they stood for making the United States an easier place to do business in. Their means changed…the federal government, rather than state governments, were used to check capitalism. Additionally, the context of the Democratic Party has changed. As I have written in the past, who they view as a common person has greatly expanded. Many modern pop perspectives on history place an immense emphasis on racial issues, which means the primary focus on Jackson regards the Trail of Tears and his status a slave owner who uncritically embraced the institution. These are undoubtedly factors of his presidency that should be talked about and ones that Arthur Schlesinger Jr., to his regret, completely ignored in writing The Age of Jackson. However, such a heavy emphasis can serve to remove from public consciousness significant historical issues that, were we to place more emphasis on them, would improve public understanding of history.


Boissoneault, L. (2017, March 23). Is Elizabeth Warren the Real Jacksonian on Capitol Hill? Smithsonian Magazine.

Retrieved from


Campbell, S.W. (2019). The bank war and the partisan press: newspapers, financial institutions, and the post office in Jacksonian America. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Dangerfield, G. (1965). The awakening of American nationalism: 1815-1828. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Genovese, E. (2001). Getting States’ Rights Right. The Atlantic.

Retrieved from


Kazin, M. (2017, August 10). The Two Andrew Jacksons. The Nation.

Retrieved from


Remini, R.V. (1984). Andrew Jackson and the course of American democracy, 1833-1845. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.

The War Against the Bank. U.S. History.org.

Retrieved from




MC-Index & Civil Rights, 1945-1946

This is yet another one of my data oriented posts, but I will provide some background to the context. In the aftermath of World War II, many issues were befalling the American people. Specifically, transitioning from wartime to peacetime. Part of this were the headaches that involved the maintenance of wartime price control. Indeed, many votes I am counting here involve price control. The key issue of the 1946 midterms was, as I have written about before, meat shortages, which were caused by price controls. Also hitting the American public was a housing shortage as many veterans were coming home to a short supply. Again, we have issues of price control being debated surrounding housing. Communism was yet another issue, particularly in the House, as the House Committee on Un-American Activities became a permanent committee. It was originally thought the committee would end after the departure from Congress of its chairman, Martin Dies Jr.

Labor union unrest also grew after World War II as most unions had followed the wartime “no strike” pledge and the country was beset with strikes, which emboldened organized labor’s critics. Proposals to crack down on organized labor and to exempt certain fields from coverage under the National Labor Relations Board abounded. Nearly all of the issues here were in the context of wartime to peacetime…including the establishment of HCUA as directing increasing scrutiny towards the USSR and communists at home. Civil rights even could be considered a part of this…although civil rights proposals had been made before the end of World War II, they were mostly restricted to anti-lynching and anti-poll tax legislation. The sense had grown greater than before that it was time to address civil rights, especially since we had just finished fighting an enemy force that took prejudice to its logical extreme.

At this point in my ideological scoring, civil rights hasn’t entered the liberal/conservative dimension…that comes after Harry S. Truman’s announcement of support for civil rights in 1948 and applies primarily but not exclusively to legislation regarding the private sector.

Civil rights votes plotted with MC-Index Scores for 1945-46

1945-46 Civil Rights-converted

Mike’s Conservative Index Vote Descriptions

1945-46 MC-Index-converted


John Lindsay: From Eisenhower Republican to Liberal Democrat

John Lindsay NYWTS 1.jpg

In 1958, the Republican establishment of the “silk stocking” district of Manhattan was looking to replace Congressman Rene F. Coudert, who was calling it quits after coming close to defeat for reelection in 1956. Enter John Lindsay (1921-2000). Lindsay had been an aide to Attorney General Herbert Brownell, who gave him his endorsement. He also won endorsements from other Republican figures, including advertising executive and former Congressman Bruce Barton, John Aspinwall Roosevelt, and Wendell Willkie’s widow, Edith. Lindsay kept the seat for the Republicans in a tough year for the party and performed better than Coudert had in the relatively good year of 1956, and in his first term he seemed to give everyone some reasons to like him. In his first year, Americans for Constitutional Action gave him a 79% while Americans for Democratic Action gave him a 67%. Lindsay was at the start of his Congressional career a fiscal conservative who made exceptions for public housing, a subject of interest for his district. He backed President Eisenhower’s vetoes on water pollution and public works projects and supported cutting government spending. However, Lindsay was also a social liberal who was anti-anti-Communist and when GOP elder conservative Noah Mason (R-Ill.) delivered a speech blasting the Warren Court, the freshman Lindsay spoke in the court’s defense. Indeed, he proved a firm supporter of the Warren Court’s decisions on criminal defendants, civil rights, and legislative reapportionment. He also proved an opponent of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. After the election of John F. Kennedy, his record began to drift in a decidedly liberal direction. Save for public works and food stamp legislation, Lindsay backed the Great Society and its flagship program, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which launched the “War on Poverty”. In his last year in Congress, 1965, Lindsay got a mere 7% from Americans for Constitutional Action and didn’t oppose Americans for Democratic Action on a single vote. His overall MC-Index score is a 31%. It was on his liberal record that he ran for Mayor of New York City.

Lindsay ran for mayor on a platform that declared that New York City was a city in decline and in need of reinvigoration. His campaign slogan was borrowed from political commentator Murray Kempton’s statement about him: “He’s Fresh and Everyone Else is Tired” (Fettmann, 2000). His opponents were Democrat Abraham Beame and Conservative Party nominee William F. Buckley Jr. The latter, a giant in conservative intellectual circles as founder of the publication National Review, ran as a protest candidate with no expectation to win. Between Lindsay, who was running on the Republican and Liberal tickets, and Beame, the real contest was between two liberals. Lindsay, although not the usual fare for New York City politics as a WASP who graduated from Yale, he won the election. His start was full of promise and he proclaimed his belief that New York City was “Fun City” and his desire to keep it that way. However, a strike from the Transport Workers Union of America began on his first day of office, which resulted in a stoppage of subway and bus service. Lindsay ultimately negotiated a settlement, but the payout from the settlement ($500 more in yearly pensions for all workers) combined with more residents on welfare and economic troubles forced Lindsay to push for higher taxes. He also focused on providing extensive financial aid to minority communities and reforming the police, which won him praise from the city’s black community, but his efforts to decentralize teacher’s unions pitted black and Puerto Rican parents in conflict with Jewish teachers and administrators. The ongoing tensions that resulted between the communities in the aftermath greatly troubled Lindsay. In 1968, a sanitation strike rocked the city, resulting in tons of garbage on the streets of New York City being blown around by gusts of wind. To make it worse, some garbage caught on fire.

Lindsay’s Response to the MLK Assassination and Troubles with his Administration

Lindsay’s response to the aftermath of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination was widely praised, as he addressed angry crowds in Harlem on that very day. As journalist Pete Hamill wrote, “John Lindsay that night confronted the dragons of a possible urban apocalypse…There are men and women alive today who might have died except for Lindsay’s uncommon valor” (Murphy, 2010). Given his compassionate and attentive leadership for the city’s black population, he was able to spare New York City the magnitude of civil disturbances and riots that occurred in the aftermath. His ability to engage with voters was one of his greatest strengths as mayor. However, he was negatively associated with New York City’s free spending ways, and when justified and not he was getting blamed for the city’s increasingly strained finances – his administration borrowed money to fund regular expenditures. In 1967, Lindsay’s administration produced the city’s very first construction budget to exceed $1 billion, most of which was to be offset by federal funds. The rise in crime in the city also occurred under Lindsay’s watch, and one of his emphases had been reform of the police through citizens commissions to report police misbehavior. He was frequently blamed by New York City voters for the city’s descent into crime, which although the rise had started under his predecessor, Robert Wagner Jr., it accelerated in his time in office and he proved unable to mitigate the situation.

The Kerner Commission

In 1967, Lindsay was one of the public officials appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson to serve on the Kerner Commission, and quickly he and Senator Fred Harris (D-Okla.) came to be the driving forces of the committee and were largely responsible for the committee’s report that the causes of urban riots were a lack of economic opportunity and warned that American society was moving into two societies: white and black, separate and unequal, and called for an extensive program to remedy the situation. The report blamed white society for the creation and maintenance of the ghettos.

The Blizzard and Lindsay’s Political Switch

On February 8, 1969, a massive blizzard hit the east coast, with New York City being especially impacted. The response of Lindsay and New York City’s government was widely panned, and many areas remained snowed in for over a week. Lindsay was accused of giving favorable treatment to Manhattan over Queens. Diplomat and undersecretary general for the United Nations Ralph J. Bunche wrote to Lindsay, stating that he had never “experienced such neglect in snow removal as now” (Chan, 2009). When Lindsay visited Queens, the response to him was quite poor. He was booed on the streets, a woman screamed that “You should be ashamed of yourself”, and another woman told him to “Get away, you bum” (Chan, 2009). The reception to his visit wasn’t entirely negative, however. One woman told Lindsay that she thought he was “a wonderful man” to which he responded, “And you’re a wonderful woman, not like those fat Jewish broads up there”, referring to residents of a nearby apartment complex who had criticized him (Chan, 2009). This comment wasn’t reported at the time…had Lindsay made such a remark in the age of social media it would have been devastating, as he was already being accused of disfavoring Jews. As a result of the backlash to the Lindsay Administration’s incompetence on the blizzard, Lindsay lost renomination by the Republican Party, but won the Liberal and Independent nominations and managed to win reelection against Republican state Senator John J. Marchi of Staten Island and Democrat Mario Procaccino, the latter who coined the term “limousine liberal” to describe Lindsay and his supporters. However, he was politically weakened and he complained that the city was impossible to govern, an assertion that would be disproved by future mayors.

In 1971, Lindsay switched to the Democratic Party and that year saw yet another strike, this time of county and municipal employees who didn’t work for two days, resulting in drawbridges being stuck in the up position and massive amounts of sewage spilling into waterways. The following year he ran for the Democratic nomination for president, but he fared about as well as de Blasio in his run. In 1973, he declined to run for reelection. By 1975, New York City had to ask the federal government for a bailout, which was, after some hesitation from President Ford, granted. In 1980, Lindsay tried one more time to win office when he sought the Democratic nomination for the Senate in 1980, which he came in third. He subsequently served as a guest host on Good Morning America. Lindsay died on December 20, 2000 at the age of 79.

Lindsay’s time as New York City’s mayor is widely regarded as a failure because the city got worse under his watch on crime, fiscal irresponsibility remained the rule, welfare dependency increased, economic conditions worsened, and white flight increased. New York City was, under Lindsay, anything but “Fun City”. His first press secretary Woody Klein’s book on him was titled, Lindsay’s Promise: The Dream That Failed. The best that can be said for Lindsay honestly was that he managed to reduce the severity of unrest in New York City after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. His administration was a difficult one full of crises which he was largely not prepared to handle aside from throwing money at them.


Chan, S. (2009, February 10). Remembering a Snowstorm That Paralyzed the City. The New York Times.

Retrieved from


Fettmann, E. (2000, December 21). A Man for His Times; The City Ultimately Overwhelmed Lindsay. New York Post.

Retrieved from


Murphy, J. (2010, September 3). From ‘Fun City’ to Crisis State: John Lindsay and Hugh Carey. City Limits.

Retrieved from



A Defense of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney

Before I start here, I want to make something crystal clear: there will be no defense in this post of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). This is the least defensible part of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s (1777-1864) legacy, it is the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court, and it was based in historical illiteracy. This is the primary reason the House voted to remove his bust from the Capitol along with that of Confederates. However, I will defend his overall legacy on the court and by extension why his bust should stay. Before I write my defense, I will outline the case against him.

Roger B. Taney - Brady-Handy.jpg

The Case Against Taney

Given the rise of “woke” culture that has its basis in Frankfurt school neo-Marxism, the culture’s devoted adherents want to reexamine and deconstruct American monuments, memorials, culture, and even legal traditions. As part of this, Congress was persuaded to pass legislation that would remove the busts of Confederates as well as Chief Justice Roger B. Taney from the Capitol. Taney’s offenses include his racism, the sort of which was widely held in his day, and especially his ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which ruled that black people were not and had never been citizens of the United States, free or enslaved and struck down the Missouri Compromise limiting slavery. This reflected Taney’s long-held view that blacks lived and worked in the United States by the tolerance of the American people, thus they had privileges rather than rights of citizens.

Taney and his fellow justices had hoped this decision would resolve the controversy of slavery, but instead it inflamed it and resulted in the only resignation on principle in history from the Supreme Court: Justice Benjamin Curtis, the only Whig justice, who wrote an extensive dissent that disputed the historical accuracy of Taney’s citizenship claim and noted that black men could at the time of the Constitution’s ratification vote in five of the thirteen original states, called it quits after the decision. Worse yet, President James Buchanan had applied pressure to the Supreme Court to rule this way and convinced Northerner Robert Cooper Grier to side with the majority to prevent the decision from being thought of as “sectional”. Such influence was highly irregular and would be regarded today as improper.  The 14th Amendment itself was a direct overturning of the Dred Scott decision.

During the Civil War, although Taney didn’t jump ship for the Confederacy, he sympathized with the Southern states in their secession. As noted by Tewell (2016), Taney wrote to former President Franklin Pierce during the war stating, “that a peaceful separation, with free institutions in each section is far better than the union of all the present states under a military government, and a reign of terror preceded too by a civil war with all its horrors”. He blamed President Lincoln and the Republicans for the Civil War and voted against the decision in the Prize Cases, which permitted Lincoln to blockade Southern ports, a vital prerequisite for winning the War of the Rebellion. Taney regarded Lincoln’s war policies generally as unconstitutional. It does seem quite fitting that the punishment for a Chief Justice who engaged in historical illiteracy in his worst ruling would be a removal of his bust from the Capitol.

However, Taney was Chief Justice for a whopping 28 years: 1836 to 1864. There certainly was more that this Professor Snape looking character did than Dred Scott and his reluctance regarding the Civil War, right? Indeed, there was, and it is why I make the case for his bust to stay.

The Case For Taney

While making this case, I want to give a little background on Roger B. Taney himself. He grew up in an aristocratic Maryland family which had owned slaves. Taney himself, however, was not personally favorable to the practice and freed all the slaves he inherited by the 1820s. In 1818, he defended Reverend Jacob Gruber, an abolitionist who was accused of trying to foment a slave rebellion after issuing a strong anti-slavery sermon, and in the process stated, “Slavery…is a blot on our national character…every real lover of freedom confidently hopes that it will be effectually, though it must be gradually, wiped away…every friend of humanity will seek to lighten the galling chain of slavery, and better, to the utmost of his power, the wretched condition of the slave” (Bender). Although originally a Federalist, Taney broke with the party over its opposition to the War of 1812. He eventually came to support Andrew Jackson’s campaigns and after the Petticoat Affair that resulted in him firing almost his entire cabinet, he appointed Taney Attorney General. President Jackson later appointed him Secretary of the Treasury, where he relied directly upon Taney to carry out the demise of the Second Bank of the United States, which he executed with gusto. This led him to be, like Martin Van Buren, one of the people Jackson felt he could trust. In 1836, Jackson rewarded him by nominating him to succeed the late John Marshall as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Taney was regarded by Whigs as something of a partisan hack and Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky led the opposition to his confirmation. His confirmation, however, was in one way a political masterstroke: he was the first Catholic to ever sit on the Supreme Court, and this helped win Catholic voters to the Democratic Party. They would be largely unified in affiliation until Roe v. Wade in 1973.

Although pop history and the press condemns him as if his only legacy were Dred Scott, opinions of him from those who have studied the court and those who served with him on the court are drastically different. The late legal scholar Bernard Schwartz ranked Taney the third greatest justice of all time in 1995. Taney served as a counterbalance to the old Federalist justices who were ultra-supportive of property rights. The Jacksonian spirit of the time was, as a Jacksonian editor put it, “We believe property should be held subordinate to man, and not man to property, and therefore that it is always lawful to make such modifications of its constitution as the good of Humanity requires” (Schwartz, 103). This doesn’t sound out of step at all with the views of the modern Democratic Party. Taney established the constitutional concept of police power, which can be employed to limit property rights and held that property rights must be able to be controlled by the public. If many contemporary liberals were not so focused on identity politics, they might even recognize him as an economic progressive for his time. However, Taney tempered his view of public rights and the anti-corporate nature of the Jacksonian Democrats in his some of his most monumental decisions: Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837) and Bank of Augusta v. Earle (1839). In the former case, the Charles River Bridge Company had constructed a bridge between Boston and Charlestown in 1785, with a contract of 40 years of toll collection before the bridge was turned over to the state. The legislature expanded this to 70 years in 1792. There was growing public frustration by the 1820s over the continued collection of tolls by the wealthy Charles River Bridge Company and their refusal to make improvements to the bridge. In 1828, the legislature granted the Warren Bridge Company a charter to build a new bridge only 275 yards away from the old one, placing it in direct competition. The Charles River Bridge Company sued, alleging that under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution this was illegal: “No State shall…pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, impairing the Obligation of Contracts…” (U.S. const. art I., § 10). The Warren Bridge Company held that this contract was not exclusive and that the original didn’t explicitly prohibit the construction of a new bridge. Although the case was first considered under Chief Justice John Marshall, the case was delayed for years and during that time he died and Andrew Jackson had appointed three new justices.  Furthermore, the old bridge had closed as the new toll free bridge from the Warren Bridge Company had been constructed.

Taney ruled in favor of the Warren Bridge Company that the contract for the construction of a bridge had not been the exclusive right of the Charles River Bridge Company, while dissenting Justice Joseph Story considered the contract with Charles Bridge to have been implied to be exclusive. The decision was interpreted as a victory for Jacksonian state’s rights advocates while for the Whigs it was interpreted as a loss for property rights. Taney, however, was not as keen as his critics feared that he would tear down the federalism of his predecessor. He tempered it and in some ways he even expanded it. In Augusta, Taney ruled that a state was permitted to prohibit a foreign business from doing business in the state or could regulate said business, but that such conditions must be explicitly stated. Businesses existing in one state were permitted to make contracts and do business in other states. The only dissenter was Jacksonian John McKinley. Had the contrary position been adopted, it would have seriously strained interstate commerce. Through his philosophy which largely upheld Marshall’s jurisprudence while adding a Jacksonian emphasis on public interest, Taney won over many former foes, including Henry Clay, who came to respect his character. Even Benjamin Curtis, who resigned over the decision Taney engineered, thought of him as a “man of singular purity of life and character” (Cotter). Justice Samuel F. Miller, a Lincoln appointee who had initially despised him, reached a similar conclusion about him. Felix Frankfurter credited Taney as the justice “who adapted the Constitution to the emerging forces of modern economic society” (Schwartz, 107). Another great Chief Justice, Charles Evans Hughes, who distinctly stood against racism in his time on the court and authored the opinion in the Scottsboro case, concurred with this assessment. He wrote in his ABA article, Roger Brooke Taney: A Great Chief Justice, “It is unfortunate that the estimate of Chief Justice Taney’s judicial labors should have been so largely influenced by the opinion which he delivered in the case of Dred Scott. . . . [T]he Dred Scott cased passed into history as an event pregnant with political consequences of the highest importance, and having a most serious effect upon the prestige of the Court. . . . Nothing could be more unjust than to estimate the judicial work of the days of Taney by a disproportionate emphasis upon the decisions which were called forth by the vexed questions growing out of the institution of slavery and the prospect of its extension. Rather I should like to take this opportunity to recognize the importance services of Chief Justice Taney in setting forth principles that are guiding stars in constitutional interpretation. . . .” (Cotter).

Chief Justice Taney was fundamental in the formation of American constitutional law, yet our newspapers choose to only emphasize his very worst decision, Dred Scott. This says more about contemporary politics than it does about his. It is also worth noting that he opposed the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War through his opinion in Ex parte Merryman in 1861, holding that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus. The Lincoln Administration ignored this opinion, but his opinion has attracted support from contemporary legal experts. Praise for his legacy can again be found from Felix Frankfurter, who went on to state about him, “The devastation of the Civil War for a long time obliterated the truth about Taney. And the blaze of Marshall’s glory will permanently overshadow him. But the intellectual power of his opinions and their enduring contribution to a workable adjustment of the theoretical distribution of authority between two governments for a single people, place Taney second only to Marshall in the constitutional history of our country” (Schwartz, 108).

Taney’s spot is deserved for his contribution to the development of American jurisprudence. He could have reversed the course of John Marshall to a radical view of state’s rights that would have hindered the development of commerce, but instead he built upon Marshall’s work while adding some alterations of his own. He developed the concept of police power in the name of placing restraints on the power of burgeoning corporations, a stance which progressives could hardly disagree. While I personally would not agree with all his decisions, I acknowledge his contributions and many of his precedents stand to this day. I have written on monuments and memorials before, and a bust to Taney is not meant to celebrate the worst of his career, it is to recognize his contributions to American jurisprudence, for which Dred Scott v. Sandford plays no part today thanks to the constitutional remedy of the 14th Amendment.


Bender, B.M. (2018, April 4). America’s Most Infamous Chief Justice: A Profile of Roger B. Taney. Hare & Bell. 3.


Cotter, D. (2019, May 29). Roger B. Taney: One Decision Makes a Legacy, Part II. The National Judicial College.

Retrieved from


Schwartz, B. (1995). Supreme Court Superstars: The Ten Greatest Justices. Tulsa Law Review, 31(1).

Retrieved from


Tewell, J.J. (2016, October 25). Roger B. Taney Was as Bad as You Think. History News Network.

Retrieved from


U.S. const. art I., § 10


The Redemption of Delaware

Delaware - Wikipedia

If Joe Biden wins the presidential election in 2020 he will be the first president from the state of Delaware. His state has had a long and difficult history on racial issues but the contrast between 1860s and Reconstruction Delaware and civil rights era Delaware is tremendous. Delaware had been a slave state, and although most blacks in the state were free by the Civil War, the slave owners in the southern portion of the state held a lot of power and the support of the state’s two leading political families: the Bayards and the Saulsburys. Both were staunch defenders of the institution of slavery. Senator James Bayard Jr., for instance, had represented a group of slave owners suing an abolitionist for helping their slaves escape, which brought the man near bankruptcy. He believed that not only should the South be allowed to secede, but that Delaware should as well. Bayard had backed John Cabell Breckinridge, the pro-slavery Southern Democratic candidate, in the 1860 presidential election. Willard Saulsbury, on the other hand, could be considered a “War Democrat”. His effectiveness, however, was hampered by a drinking problem and he wrote racist treatises on blacks. In the 1860 election, the state voted for Breckinridge and Democrats won big largely through campaigning for slavery and against racial equality.

With Bayard out of the Senate by the vote on abolishing slavery in 1864, Senators George Riddle and Willard Saulsbury voted against. However, Delaware’s At-Large Congressman, Nathaniel Smithers, voted for. After the abolition of slavery, the state’s leadership and voters doubled down on antagonism to equal rights, and the state until the late 19th century. The Saulsbury brothers and the Bayards wielded influence throughout the 1870s and 1880s. However, as the rule of the Saulsburys and Bayards was approaching its end, more and more black residents were moving into the middle class and gaining the vote and Republicans were gaining in power. The racial tensions eased, but segregation remained a reality of life until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. However, even as early as the 1920s the black vote was proving important: in 1922, Democrat William Boyce defeated Republican House incumbent Caleb R. Layton, with the primary factor behind his defeat being his vote against the Dyer Anti–Lynching Bill as many black voters crossed over to back Boyce.

In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that segregation in schools was unconstitutional. Senator John J. Williams of Delaware stated his opposition to the decision as it was “judicial activism”, but he urged compliance as opposed to leaders in Southern states, who pushed defiance. This was credited with preventing civil disturbances in the state. In a marked contrast to the record of the days of the Civil War and Reconstruction, Delaware’s federally elected officials all voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the constitutional ban on the poll tax, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Williams, however, did vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1968. In that period, their officials were: Republican Sen. John J. Williams (MCI: 95%), Democratic Sen. Joseph Frear (MCI: 63%), Republican Sen. J. Caleb Boggs (MCI: 66%), Republican Rep. Harry Haskell (MCI: 69%), Democratic Rep. Harris McDowell (MCI: 5%), and Republican Rep. William Roth (MCI: 79%).


John Rousselot: The Most Successful Bircher


Although the 1960 election was a loss for Richard Nixon against John F. Kennedy, House Republicans made gains in Congress, a rebound from the disastrous 1958 midterm elections. One of the victors was John Rousselot of San Marino, California, director of a successful public relations firm. Rousselot quickly became regarded as one of the most conservative members of Congress and was one of two at the time who were members of the John Birch Society. From educational television to public works, he opposed just about everything John F. Kennedy was for. Although Rousselot had suffered polio in childhood and walked with a limp as a result, it didn’t stop him from playing on the Congressional baseball team. He was a rising star in the conservative movement, but his vigorous defense of the John Birch Society and redistricting cost him reelection in 1962. He subsequently served as the organization’s director of public relations and in 1964 he released a record titled “The Third Color”, in which he argued that the civil rights movement had been thoroughly infiltrated by communists…the line the John Birch Society was pushing at the time. In 1970, Congressman Glen Lipscomb died of cancer and Rousselot ran to fill the vacancy, easily prevailing in the conservative district. Through his friendly and good-natured personality, he was able to gain more influence in Congress and in 1974 he helped his friend, liberal Republican Pete McCloskey of San Mateo, California, win renomination. Rousselot pushed for balanced budgets, deregulation, and reducing the growth of the food stamp program while in Congress.

In 1979, Rousselot left the John Birch Society as he was mulling a Senate campaign, citing both Robert Welch’s leadership claim that Dwight Eisenhower was a communist and that he didn’t want to be viewed as being beholden to any organization. He ultimately opted not to challenge Democrat Alan Cranston the following year, but he managed to piss off a powerful political actor: Phil Burton. In 1980, Rousselot recruited a strong candidate who came close to defeating Phil’s brother, John, in his San Francisco district. In retaliation, Phil Burton, who played a major role in California redistricting, had Rousselot redistricted into a Democratic Latino district. Although he valiantly tried to hold on to the seat in the 1982 midterms, including having his wife deliver a speech in Spanish, he was defeated. President Reagan subsequently tapped Rousselot to be one of his advisors. He subsequently served as head of the National Council of Savings Institutions. In 1992, Rousselot attempted a comeback, but his connections with convicted fraudster Charles Keating harmed him as he was linked to the industry’s collapse in 1987 and he lost the GOP nomination.

Rousselot died in 2003, and he stands ultimately as the most successful politician who was in the John Birch Society. John Schmitz served less than two full terms in Congress, Edgar Hiestand served ten years in Congress, and Larry McDonald, who served eight years as a Democrat from Georgia, was on KAL 007, an airplane shot down by the Soviets the year he became chair of the society.


John H. Rousselot, RIP. (2003, May 23). Human Events.

Retrieved from


Congressman Mosher’s Prescient Warning

In the 1960s and 1970s, the presence of moderate to liberal Republicans was far greater in the Republican Party than today, and one of these people had an important warning about our future.


Republican Charles Mosher (1906-1984) was elected to Congress from Ohio’s 13th district (southwest of Cleveland) in 1960. The district had a long history of Republican affiliation: from 1919 to 1977 Democrats only held the seat for six years, but Mosher’s record in the House is reflective of the change the district underwent during his time. He was in his first three terms moderately conservative. Mosher was notably both a member of the NAACP and the ACLU, uncommon for a Republican. In the late 1960s he began moving in a more liberal direction, becoming staunchly liberal on social issues, strongly opposed to Nixon’s Vietnam War policies, and moderately liberal on economic issues. In his first four terms (1961-69), Mosher had averaged a 65% on the MC-Index, whereas in his last four terms (1969-77), he averaged a 27%. The times were so different for the parties that he wasn’t even the most liberal Republican Congressman from Ohio – that was Charles Whalen. Mosher supported President Ford on more issues than Nixon as he was on good personal terms with the former. Overall, his lifetime MC-Index score was a 46%. Mosher was also the first Republican to vote against Vietnam War appropriations in 1967 and considered his greatest regret voting for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. However, what I find most notable about this man is what he said at the end of his career that carries a great deal of relevance today.

In 1976, Mosher opted to retire, not wanting to stay in office after the age of 70. Having served as the ranking Republican on the Science and Technology Committee, he came to realize what lay ahead in the future. Mosher found that Congress had more information at its disposal but was less and less able to make decisions. As he stated in his last interview as a representative, “Perhaps we are confused by the facts, perhaps we are so much more aware of the complexities of the world that it makes us indecisive – much more than we were a few years back when we flew by the seat of the pants” (The Washington Post). Mosher also issued a warning about the increased amount of information, stating that people find it difficult to process this increased flow of information that people would rather choose to look for simple answers than confront the complexities the information tells us. Although he observed this forty-four years ago and he has been dead for thirty-six years, the phenomenon he speaks of is truer than ever today. We see more and more polarization fueled by people using the vast pool of information and connection who seek out other like-minded people and views. It thus becomes harder to craft consensus policies.

Mosher was succeeded easily by liberal Democrat Don Pease, who won 66% of the vote. The district had changed substantially in its politics. In 1982, the 76-year old Mosher was awarded a master’s degree in government from Oberlin College, becoming the oldest person to be awarded a degree from the university. His thesis, in keeping with his thinking about the longer run future, was that representatives should be elected to four-year terms and senators eight so they can think more about policy than reelection.


Ex-Rep. Charles Mosher of Ohio. (1984, November 17). The New York Times.

Retrieved from


Smith, J.Y. (1984, November 18). Former Rep. Charles Mosher of Ohio Dies. The Washington Post.

Retrieved from