sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alphonso Taft, Charles Phelps Taft, Elihu Root

FIRST PRINCIPLES FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPTS TO GUIDE POLITICS AND POLICY

makers of american political thought NO. 05 | , 2013

Constitutional Conservatives in the : , , and , Sr. Johnathan O’Neill

lihu root (1845–1937), William and the traditional limits of the but instead chose law. root graduated e Howard Taft (1857–1930), and presidency. In the realm of foreign from the law school of the university Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr. (1850– policy, their most notable stance was of the City of in 1867 and 1924) were leading members of Lodge’s defense of sovereignty and quickly had a thriving legal practice the republican Party during the opposition to ’s in the city. He married Clara Frances Progressive era of the early 20th demand that the united States join Wales in 1878 and had three children century. They strove to preserve the . Here root with her. He became a leader in state the core tenets of american consti- aided Lodge, but Taft supported the politics and served as united States tutionalism from the largest ambi- League. Indeed, as individuals, they attorney for the Southern District of tions of Progressivism. In this sense sometimes disagreed about policy New york from 1883 to 1885. they were not so much makers of or supported particular Progressive In 1899, President William american political thought as cham- reforms, but as a general matter, they McKinley appointed root to be pions and defenders of the nation’s regarded Progressivism as a grave Secretary of War. In this post, he principles amid the Progressive zeal threat to the Constitution. oversaw america’s growing overseas to abandon them. as the fi rst political fi gures to orga- possessions (including Taft’s gov- They resisted the Progressive nize in order to “conserve” american ernorship of the ). The drive for direct, unrestrained democ- constitutional principles in the face of lasting contribution he made was racy and the resulting attacks on the emerging Progressive policies to “lib- organizational reform of the military, courts, representative government, erate” america from those principles, especially the creation of a general these individuals can be considered staff system that made possible the

This paper, in its entirety, can be found at among the fi rst conservatives. Their coordination of strategy, planning, http://report.heritage.org/mapT-05 eff orts, though admittedly imperfect, and policy execution. Produced by the B. Kenneth Simon Center were the initial roots of the american root then served as Secretary of for Principles and Politics conservative movement. War during ’s Cover Photo from Library of Congress Collection second term (1905–1909), as The Heritage foundation lives Senator from New york (1909–1915), 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 Elihu Root was born in Clinton, and as president of the Carnegie (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org New york, in 1845 and in 1864 gradu- endowment for International Peace Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily ated from , where (1910–1925). For his eff orts in these refl ecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill his father taught. a Presbyterian, he positions, and especially for diplo- before Congress. was encouraged to enter the ministry macy that maintained peace in the makers of american political thought | NO. 05 February 15, 2013

Elihu Root

Born February 18, 1845, in Clinton, New York, to Oren Root, a mathematics professor, and Nancy Whitney Buttrick (Root).

Education Graduated from Hamilton College in 1864 and received his law degree from the University of the City of New York in 1867

Religion Presbyterian

Family Married Clara Frances Wales in 1878, with whom he had three children: Edith Root Grant, Elihu Root Jr., and Edward Wales Root.

Highlights • United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (1883–1885). • Secretary of War (1899–1904). • (1905–1909). • Senator from New York (1909–1915). • (1912). • President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1910–1925). • Ambassador Extraordinary to (1917). • Founding Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations (1918). • Co-Founder, (1923). • Co-Founder and President, American Society for International Law (1907–1924).

Died , 1937, in ; interred at the Hamilton College Cemetery.

Notable Quote “We shall not apologize for American institutions…. We have the right to say that we can be trusted to preserve and maintain the American system of free representative government handed down to us by our fathers.”

Pacific, he was awarded the Nobel William Howard Taft came Herron in 1886 and had three chil- Peace Prize in 1912. from a prominent family that dren with her. Helen was always Throughout his life, Root was was active in politics. Raised in an Taft’s closest adviser and consis- admired by his peers for his keen affectionate Unitarian household, he tently pushed him to pursue higher intellect and for honesty and integ- graduated second in his class from offices. One of his sons, Robert A. rity, though he also was known to in 1878 and obtained a Taft, became a Senator from Ohio be somewhat aloof. Despite his degree from Law School and a leading conservative voice in myriad achievements and world in 1880. Taft then worked briefly as the Republican Party in the 1940s travels, Root had a deep attachment assistant prosecuting attorney for and 1950s. to central New York State, where he Hamilton County and then as a col- In 1887, Taft was appointed to the always longed to be, and to Hamilton lector of internal revenue (his first Superior Court of Ohio by the state’s College, where he is buried. federal office). He married Helen governor. In 1890–1891, he served

2 makers of american political thought | NO. 05 February 15, 2013

William Howard Taft

Born September 15, 1857, near Cincinnati, Ohio, to and Louisa Torrey (Taft).

Education Graduated from Yale College in 1878 and from Cincinnati Law School in 1880.

Religion Unitarian

Family Married Helen Herron in 1886, with whom he had two sons and a daughter: Robert Alphonso Taft, Helen Taft, and II.

Highlights • Judge on the Ohio Superior Court (1887–1890). • U.S. Solicitor General (1890–1892). • U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the Sixth District (1892–1900). • Governor of the Philippines (1900–1904). • Secretary of War (1904–1908). • President of the United States (1909–1913). • Taught constitutional law at (1913 to 1921). • Chief Justice of the United States (1921–1930).

Died March 8, 1930; first President to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

Notable Quote “A people must learn to trust their fellows and those of high character, qualified by experience and learning, but not to trust them too much. Without a people so trained, the machinery of self-government, however seemingly perfect, will not suffice.”

as President Benjamin Harrison’s After losing his bid for reelection Massachusetts Puritan family—a Solicitor General, winning most in 1912, Taft taught constitutional law “Boston Brahmin” if there ever was of the cases he argued before the at Yale from 1913 to 1921. He fulfilled a one. His ancestors included George Supreme Court. From 1892 to lifelong dream when he became Chief Cabot, a friend of George Washington 1900, he was a judge on the Federal Justice of the United States (1921– and adviser to Alexander Hamilton, Circuit Court for the Sixth District. 1930), the only American to hold both whose sons and grandsons became Taft gained valuable executive expe- that office and the presidency. As among the wealthiest merchants in rience as governor of the Philippines Chief Justice, he helped pare back or in the 18th and 19th cen- from 1900–1904 and also as reverse some Progressive policies and turies. He graduated from Harvard Theodore Roosevelt’s Secretary of convinced Congress to pass legisla- College in 1871 and on the next day War starting in 1904. He was elected tion that gave the Court more control married Anna “Nannie” Davis, with President of the United States in over its docket. whom he had three children. 1908 as Roosevelt’s hand-picked Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr. Lodge graduated from Harvard’s successor. came from a long-established law school in 1874 and earned one of

3 makers of american political thought | NO. 05 February 15, 2013

Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr.

Born May 12, 1850, in Boston, Massachusetts, to John Ellerton Lodge and Anna Cabot (Lodge).

Education Graduated from Harvard College in 1872; received his law degree in 1874 and his PhD in 1876, also from Harvard.

Religion Episcopalian

Family Married Anna Cabot Mills Davis in 1891, with whom he had three children: Constance Davis Lodge, George Cabot Lodge, and John Ellerton Lodge.

Highlights • Lecturer on American history at Harvard University (1876–1879). • Massachusetts House of Representatives (1880–1881). • United States House of Representatives (1887–1893). • (1893–1924). • United States Immigration Commissioner (1907–1911). • First United States Senate Majority Leader (1920–1924). • Overseer of Harvard University (1911–1924).

Died November 9, 1924, in Cambridge, Massachusetts; interred at Mount Auburn Cemetery.

Notable Quote “The United States is the world’s best hope…. Leave her to march freely through the centuries to come, as in the years that have gone. Strong, generous, and confident, she has nobly served mankind.”

the first PhDs in history and govern- 1870s and 1880s. During this time, 1893–1924, a lengthy tenure that ment granted by that university in he also wrote several biographies of made him keen to guard the tradi- 1876. His dissertation, titled Anglo- leading American Founders, includ- tions and constitutional powers of Saxon Law, was published the same ing Alexander Hamilton (1882), that institution. year. He taught American colonial (1883), and George history at Harvard from 1876–1879 Washington (1889). Denying Theodore Roosevelt and served as an overseer from 1911 Lodge was a representative in the Republican Nomination to 1924. Of a decidedly scholarly and the Massachusetts General Court in in 1912 literary bent, he was an assistant 1880–1881 and served in the United The election of 1912 was momen- editor (under Henry Adams) at the States House of Representatives tous because the American politi- North American Review and wrote from 1887–1893. He represented cal system was struggling with how for numerous magazines in the late Massachusetts in the Senate from best to respond to industrialization.1

1. See Sidney Milkis, “The Transformation of American Democracy: Teddy Roosevelt, the 1912 Election, and the Progressive Party,” Heritage Foundation First Principles Series Report No. 43, June 11, 2012, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/06/the-transformation-of-american-democracy-teddy- roosevelt-the-1912-election-and-the-progressive-party.

4 makers of american political thought | NO. 05 February 15, 2013

Theodore Roosevelt and Eugene themselves to campaign against and poise necessary to conduct the Debs, the socialist candidate, advo- Roosevelt in 1912, but they declared business of the convention. Root cated fundamental constitutional their support for Taft and made plain made controversial but defensible change, while William Howard Taft their shared view that Roosevelt’s rulings on the seating of contested and Woodrow Wilson (at least during proposals would undermine the delegates, which prevented Roosevelt the campaign) said that reform could rule of law and elevate the immedi- from seizing the machinery of the be accomplished within existing gov- ate will of majorities above sober party and its platform from Taft. His ernmental structures.2 deliberation. keynote address sidelined Roosevelt Root, Taft, and Lodge were deeply Root was highly regarded as a by making Republican Party accom- distressed by Roosevelt’s program man of intellect, character, and prin- plishments and unity a major theme. and his attempt to capture the ciple. He, even more than Lodge, was On behalf of the party, Root also Republican Party for himself as the the conscience and elder statesman welcomed positive government embodiment of the nation’s sup- of the Republican establishment. As action within the bounds of the posed Progressive destiny. Roosevelt such, he took on the distasteful but Constitution. attacked the Supreme Court and critical task of chairing the party On the all-important question of advocated use of the recall by popu- convention of 1912 in Chicago. This constitutional preservation, Root lar vote—in effect a plebiscite—to duty placed him on a collision course was plain: “We shall not apologize remove judges and overturn judicial with the Roosevelt insurgency. for American institutions…. We decisions. He also favored mak- Roosevelt had trounced Taft in the have the right to say that we can be ing the Constitution more easily several states that had held primary trusted to preserve and maintain the amendable. elections and on that basis sought to American system of free represen- Running for an unprecedented wrest control of the convention from tative government handed down to third term as President, he thus the party regulars and secure the us by our fathers.”3 Constitutional aligned himself with anti-consti- nomination. limitations on arbitrary power and tutional Populist and Progressive protection for rights, he insisted, demands that had been circulating Root, Taft, and Lodge were “cannot be enforced except through since the 1890s. His proposals would deeply distressed by Roosevelt’s the determinations of an indepen- have undermined the rule of law by dent and courageous judiciary…. The making judicial decisions subject to program and his attempt to keystone of this balanced and stable shifts in popular opinion and would capture the Republican Party structure of government, established have undermined respect for the for himself as the embodiment by our fathers, will not be shattered 4 Constitution, as well as its stabiliz- of the nation’s supposed by Republican hands.” The speech ing effect, by making it similarly concluded with quotations on this Progressive destiny. changeable. point from The Federalist, Chief As TR’s radical views became Justice , and Abraham clear, Senators Root and Lodge, his Upon his election as chairman, in Lincoln. Root thus cast Roosevelt personal friends, abandoned him. a performance too often overlooked beyond the principles of both the Taft, the sitting President and a for- in the history of American politics, American Founding and (not inci- mer federal judge with a well-known Root presided over the convention dentally) the Republican Party. devotion to limited government with an unflappable evenhanded- As the incumbent President, Taft and the rule of law, also rejected ness and good humor. Despite the seized on the constitutional issues the position of his erstwhile men- tense, bitter, and frequently raucous as proof that Roosevelt was unfit tor. Root and Lodge could not bring proceedings, he had the respect for office. He warned that one who

2. Wilson, of course, was a Progressive who was hostile to the Constitution. See Ronald J. Pestritto, “Woodrow Wilson: Godfather of Liberalism,” Heritage Foundation Makers of American Political Thought No. 1, July 31, 2012, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/07/woodrow-wilson. 3. Elihu Root, The United States and the War, The Mission to Russia, Political Addresses, eds. and James Brown Scott (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1918), p. 290. 4. Ibid., p. 294.

5 makers of american political thought | NO. 05 February 15, 2013

so “lightly regard[ed] constitu- theirs in part to end the bitter dis- Chief Justice, Taft dutifully upheld tional principles” and so “misun- putes about tariff schedules that had legislation that enforced the amend- derstood what liberty regulated by long divided the Republican Party. ment, but only Root lived to see its law is” could not be trusted with a They also feared that confronting the repeal in 1933 with the passage of the third presidential term. Taft also Supreme Court with another income Twenty-first Amendment. intimated that Roosevelt was not tax statute, like the one it had over- Senator Root’s constitutional con- the kind of man likely to stop at just turned in 1895, would further under- servatism was apparent in his lead- one more. Contra Roosevelt’s con- mine support for the institution of ership of a small band of opponents ception of himself, Taft insisted judicial review. It is also worth not- of the Seventeenth Amendment, that Americans had not given “into ing that the first income tax passed which provided that Senators be the hands of anyone the mandate under the Sixteenth Amendment directly elected by the voters of their to speak for them peculiarly as the had a top rate of 7 percent and respective states. (Senator Lodge people’s representative.”5 In accept- affected only 2 percent of the popula- also opposed it; President Taft ing the nomination, Taft said that tion—hardly the stuff of the modern was ambivalent but offered luke- preserving the Constitution “as it regulatory-welfare state.8 warm support.) Under the original is” from attacks on the judiciary was Constitution, Senators were selected 6 “the supreme issue” of the campaign. Root had both the courage by the state legislatures. Root, Taft, and Lodge regarded and the ability to reiterate the Against the Progressive demand it as a great victory for the consti- for direct democracy that underlay tutional order that Roosevelt had Founders’ view that the Senate the proposal, Root had both the cour- been denied the Republican Party was designed precisely to check age and the ability to reiterate the nomination in 1912, even though they democracy. Founders’ view that the Senate was knew Woodrow Wilson would likely designed precisely to check democ- win the election. Taft later said that The three men differed on the racy. They knew, in his words, that the great issue had been decided by Nineteenth Amendment (wom- the “weakness of democratic gov- his nomination over Roosevelt rather en’s suffrage): Taft offered a tepid ernment was its liability to change than by the election itself. This endorsement, while Root and with the impulse and enthusiasm was because Roosevelt’s program Lodge opposed it. All three, how- of the moment” and “realized that was denied the legitimacy of adop- ever, agreed that the Eighteenth there needed to be some guardian tion by one of the two major parties. Amendment (Prohibition) was a dan- of the sober second thought.” The Roosevelt got more votes than Taft gerous mistake and out of keeping Senate, said Root, “was to be a body in the election, but the party split with American principles. They saw more secure in tenure, different in ensured that an electoral loss was in it as meddling and impractical and the manner of its election, different fact a win for the Constitution.7 argued that the rule of law would be in its responsibility, more conserva- undermined when the amendment tive, more deliberate than the other The Progressive Era was inevitably flouted (as in fact House.”9 Amendments happened). Here was an informed and val- All three men accepted the neces- Moreover, national Prohibition iant defense of the Founders’ politi- sity of an income tax (the Sixteenth offended federalism by taking over cal science in the most uncongenial Amendment). The idea had wide- a question long left to the differ- of circumstances. Root knew that spread support, and they gave it ing views of states and localities. As Senators derived their ultimate

5. William Howard Taft, Address at Boston, April 25, 1912, Senate Document 615, 62nd Cong., 2nd Sess., 1912, pp. 19 (quotes), 18; William Howard Taft, “Speech of William Howard Taft Accepting the Republican Nomination for President of the United States,” Senate Document 902, 62nd Cong., 2nd Sess., August 1, 1912, p. 21 (quote). 6. Taft, “Acceptance Speech,” p. 11. 7. See William A. Schambra, “The Origins and Revival of Constitutional Conservatism: 1912 and 2012,” Heritage Foundation First Principles Series Report No. 44, August 20, 2012, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/the-origins-and-revival-of-constitutional-conservatism-1912-and-2012. 8. Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 113. 9. Elihu Root, Addresses on Government and Citizenship, eds. Robert Bacon and James Brown Scott (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1916), pp. 260, 274.

6 makers of american political thought | NO. 05 February 15, 2013

authority from the people, as they up aggrandizing federal power. was “unsafe” and “a little startling must in a government based on con- In response to the argument that in a constitutional republic.” Its sent, but this did not mean that they corruption tarnished state legis- ultimate tendency was to be “law- should merely reflect every passing latures’ choice of their Senators— less.”13 Rather, the “true view of the impulse of public opinion. Indirect which in fact happened less than executive functions,” said Taft, was election by the state legislature was Progressives alleged—Root offered a that the President had no power the Founders’ attempt to ensure the basic truth about republican politics: “which cannot be fairly and reason- necessary distance from immediate The remedy was responsible citizens ably traced to some specific grant of public opinion while still keeping who demanded better. The amend- power or justly implied and included Senators responsible to the citizenry. ment’s error was thus “a proposition within such express grant.” Contrary that the people who cannot elect hon- to Roosevelt’s claims, there was no Taft knew and showed in est men from their own neighbors can “undefined residuum of power which his words and actions that elect honest men to the Senate of the he can exercise because it seems United States.”11 On the basis of this to him to be in the public interest.” a constitutionally limited error, Root insisted, the Senate was Taft made it plain that Roosevelt’s executive need not be a weak helping to destroy the very federalism stewardship theory was beyond the executive. central to its own reason for being. Constitution. 14 It is true that Taft’s words in the Root also saw that the amend- William Howard Taft and the above exchange made it easy for ment undermined federalism. It Constitutionalist Presidency Roosevelt and too many others to both assumed and advanced the Taft and many others were con- dismiss him as merely a hidebound Progressive destruction of states’ vinced that Roosevelt’s conception of , but Taft knew and showed in governing capacity and responsibil- the presidency reflected little respect his words and actions that a consti- ity. The presumed incompetence for constitutional limits. As described tutionally limited executive need and corruption of the states was to in his subsequent autobiography, not be a weak executive. In fact, as be fixed by direct democracy trans- Roosevelt’s “stewardship” theory President, Taft exercised execu- lated into federal authority. “If the of the office held that the President tive power robustly while retain- State government is abandoned, if legally could do “whatever the needs ing a more constitutionally sound we recognize the fact that we can- of the people demand, unless the vision of the presidency than that not have honest legislatures,” Root Constitution or the laws explicitly of the Progressives. Careful inves- warned, “the tide that now sets forbid him to do it.”12 Roosevelt allied tigation has shown that he acted toward the Federal Government will his theory with Andrew Jackson’s and from a broad view of the “take care” swell in volume and power.”10 Once Lincoln’s strong, statesmanlike con- clause in Article II, on the basis of further weakened, state govern- ception of the Presidency while asso- which he employed ample executive ments would be less able to address ciating Taft with ’s discretion in the interpretation of the complexities of modern legisla- inaction on the eve of the Civil War. statutes, rule-making in adminis- tion, and the federal government The so-called Buchanan–Taft model trative agencies, and enforcement of would be seen as the only solu- of the presidency was weak, timidly treaty obligations absent congres- tion to all problems. Thus, in a way legalistic, and too deferential to party sional approval. As President, he also that was not readily apparent on and Congress. made executive agreements with the surface, Root showed how the Taft took up this challenge, foreign governments and instigated Seventeenth Amendment would end responding that Roosevelt’s theory a national budgeting system in the

10. Ibid., p. 267. 11. Ibid., p. 271. 12. Theodore Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt: An Autobiography (New York: Macmillan, 1913), p. 504. On TR’s Progressivism, see Jean Yarbrough, “Theodore Roosevelt: Progressive Crusader,” Heritage Foundation Makers of American Political Thought No. 3, September 24, 2012, http://www.heritage.org/research/ reports/2012/09/theodore-roosevelt-progressive-crusader. 13. William Howard Taft, Our Chief Magistrate and His Powers (New York: Press, 1916), pp. 144, 146, 147. 14. Ibid., pp. 139–140.

7 makers of american political thought | NO. 05 February 15, 2013

executive branch against the wish of regularly entrusted to that offi- Taft was one of the last Presidents Congress.15 cer by statute has not been on in the 20th century to have a sound- Probably the most influential the whole intelligently or wisely ly constitutionalist conception of example of Taft’s view of executive exercised. Otherwise he does not the office. His successors typically power came when, as Chief Justice discharge his own constitutional proceeded on the Roosevelt–Wilson of the United States, he wrote the duty of seeing that the laws be model, construing their authority as detailed and scholarly opinion in faithfully executed.18 emanating from public opinion and Myers v. U.S. (1926).16 This opinion their ability to shape it rather than remains one of the strongest articu- Put another way, Taft’s position from the Constitution. lations of the “unitary executive” in was that Congress could not legiti- American history. Myers held that mately create officers who executed Henry Cabot Lodge the President alone (without the con- and enforced the law, denominate and the League of Nations sent of the Senate) could remove at them apolitical regulatory “experts,” Just as Roosevelt’s attack on the will officials in the executive branch, and then immunize them from constitutional system in 1912 was too a position that Taft had long support- removal by the President. To do much for Lodge, the Senator from ed in prior writing. so would be to destroy the funda- Massachusetts also saw Woodrow This view had momentous mental principles of separation of Wilson’s idealistic internationalism implications for the growth of the powers and accountability in public as a grave threat to American prin- Progressive theory of the regulatory- officials. ciples and interests. Yet Lodge was administrative state, as Taft was What stands out in Taft’s con- no isolationist and certainly never a well aware.17 In a crucial part of the stitutionalist understanding of pacifist, neither political nor person- Myers opinion, he acknowledged the Presidency, then, is not the al: On the eve of , at age that modern regulatory agencies Rooseveltian canard of weakness 67, he put a fist to the jaw of an irate had been designed to act at some or immobility. Rather, it is fidelity pacifist constituent who called him a distance from the immediate con- to just what was being undermined coward because he would not oppose trol of the executive branch and that by Roosevelt (and then by President the war. the President might not legitimately Woodrow Wilson): a principled Lodge had supported the interna- intervene in a particular case before awareness that the office of President tionalist foreign policy of Presidents a regulatory agency. But he left no has limits, as does every other office McKinley and Roosevelt, urged doubt about where ultimate respon- under the Constitution. What Taft Wilson to support the Allies, and sibility lay, even if it were exercised rejected was Roosevelt’s anticonstitu- voted for the congressional declara- only after an action by an officer in a tional view that, in Taft’s words, “the tion of war in 1917. He also supported regulatory agency: Executive is charged with the respon- American participation in some type sibility for the welfare of all the people of post-war international institution. [E]ven in such a case [the in a general way, that he is to play the But Lodge put American sovereignty President] may consider the part of a Universal Providence and and interests first, and that was why decision after its rendition as a set all things right, and that anything he could not abide Wilson’s League reason for removing the officer, that in his judgement will help the of Nations. It would have been able on the ground that the discretion people he ought to do.”19 to call Americans to arms, absent a

15. On these points, consult L. Peter Schultz, “William Howard Taft: A Constitutionalist’s View of the Presidency,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 9 (1979), pp. 402–414; Michael Korzi, “Our Chief Magistrate and His Powers: A Reconsideration of William Howard Taft’s ‘Whig’ Theory of Presidential Leadership,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 33 (2003), pp. 305–324. 16. Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). Modern regulatory government was aided significantly by the substantial narrowing of Myers in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 302 (1935). 17. On the origins of the administrative state, see Ronald J. Pestritto, “The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government,” Heritage Foundation First Principles Report No. 16, November 20, 2007, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/11/the-birth-of-the- administrative-state-where-it-came-from-and-what-it-means-for-limited-government. 18. Myers, p. 135. 19. Taft, Our Chief Magistrate, p. 144.

8 makers of american political thought | NO. 05 February 15, 2013

congressional declaration of war, to domestic American policymaking formally inscribed in the text of the police the actions of member states (e.g., immigration, tariffs, or regula- Constitution, but also gave a crucial anywhere in the world. tion of labor). Another specified that speech in the Senate in August 1919 Wilson had erred initially by not the terms of the Monroe Doctrine that laid bare the basic political issue including any Senators or notable (1823), by which America had long at stake. Though not a grand orator Republicans in the peace negotia- asserted its primacy in the Western by inclination, here he rose to the tions at Versailles. Yet upon return- hemisphere, would be interpreted occasion: ing, he haughtily insisted that the only by the United States and were Senate quickly ratify the treaty “hereby declared to be wholly outside You may call me selfish, if you even though he had done little to the jurisdiction” of the League.21 will, conservative or reaction- explain the intricacies of the massive By far the most objectionable ary, or use any other harsh document. provision of the League was Article adjective you see fit to apply, but 10, in which its signatories pledged an American I was born, and Lodge’s leadership ensured “to respect and preserve as against an American I have remained that the tide of opinion turned external aggression the territorial all my life…. I have never had integrity and existing political inde- but one allegiance—I cannot against the League of Nations pendence of all members.”22 Lodge divide it now…. National I must and that America did not join it. thought that approval of such a remain, and in that way like all doctrine spelled the end of America’s other Americans can render the As chairman of the Senate control of its own foreign policy, and amplest service to the world. Foreign Relations Committee, Lodge his reservation on this point was The United States is the world’s responded by having the treaty read blunt: best hope, but if you fetter her aloud for days on end. He regarded it in the interests and quarrels as carelessly worded and dangerously [T]he United States assumes no of other nations, if you tangle imprecise. To this point he added obligation to preserve the territo- her in the intrigues of Europe, some of his well-known disdain for rial integrity or political inde- you will destroy her power for Wilson, saying of the League that “as pendence of any other country good and endanger her very an English production it does not or to interfere in controversies existence.24 rate high. It might get by at Princeton between nations…or to employ [Wilson’s alma mater] but certainly the military or naval forces of the The Senate gallery resounded not at Harvard.”20 United States under any article with applause from the public, Lodge gave speeches criticiz- of the treaty for any purpose, including the usually jaded press ing the League and orchestrated unless in any particular case corps. Also cheering was a contin- his Senate allies on key votes. As the Congress, which, under the gent of Marines just returned from the national debate developed, he Constitution, as the sole power Château-Thierry, who presumably proposed a series of “reservations” to declare war or authorize the knew better than most the ultimate to the terms of the League. All were employment of the military or stakes of such a discussion. designed to protect American sov- naval forces of the United States, Lodge’s leadership ensured that ereignty and freedom of action in shall by act or joint resolution so the tide of opinion turned against the international affairs. One reserva- provide.23 League of Nations and that America tion aimed to insure that none of did not join it. Whatever one’s view the provisions of the League would Lodge not only defended the of Wilsonian idealism and interna- be construed to affect any issue of principles of the Founding as tionalism in American foreign policy,

20. Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Anecdotes (New York: Penguin, 1982), p. 221. 21. Congressional Record, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., November 6, 1919, p. 8023. 22. The Covenant of the League of Nations, available at the Avalon Project, , http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp. 23. Congressional Record, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., November 6, 1919, pp. 8022–8023. 24. Congressional Record, 66th Congress, 1st Session, August 12, 1919, p. 3784.

9 makers of american political thought | NO. 05 February 15, 2013

their full ascendance would not come we can now clearly see in hindsight) of the formal structure of the con- until later in the 20th century. was distinctly hostile to that consti- stitutional system, often compelling tutionalism. In the face of this newly Progressives to take their victories Conclusion developing challenge, they defended in spite of those structures. Now that Like the Progressives themselves, constitutionalism by rearticulat- Progressivism is subject to the most Root, Taft, and Lodge recognized ing the American Founders’ case serious reevaluation it has faced in that industrialization, urbaniza- for limited republican government, a century, the possibility of reclaim- tion, immigration, international federalism, the separation of pow- ing the Founders’ constitutionalism conflict, and the other challenges ers, and the rule of law amid the owes much to the efforts of Elihu that the United States faced necessi- Progressive calls for direct democ- Root, William Howard Taft, and tated policy innovations. Unlike the racy and a centralized regulatory Henry Cabot Lodge. Progressives, they insisted that such state. —Johnathan O’Neill is Associate challenges could be met within the On specific measures, the crit- Professor of History at Georgia basic structure of the constitutional ics of Progressivism lost more Southern University and the author of system they had inherited. often than they won, and in many Heritage Foundation First Principles Their statesmanship lay in con- respects, we live in the world the Series Report No. 39, “The First serving American constitutional- Progressives made. But the leader- Conservatives: The Constitutional ism. They did so as best they could ship of Root, Taft, and Lodge helped Challenge to Progressivism.” in an era that, they recognized (and keep to a minimum the alterations

10