DOCSLIB.ORG

Party Leadership Fights in the House of Representatives : the Causes of Conflict, 1895-1955

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Party Leadership Fights in the House of Representatives : the Causes of Conflict, 1895-1955 University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1976 Party leadership fights in the House of Representatives : the causes of conflict, 1895-1955. Maureen Roberts Romans University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Romans, Maureen Roberts, "Party leadership fights in the House of Representatives : the causes of conflict, 1895-1955." (1976). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 1882. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/1882 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PARTY LEADERSHIP FIGHTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: THE CAUSES OF CONFLICT 1895 - 1955 A Dissertation Presented By MAUREEN ROBERTS ROMANS Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY April 1976 Political Science ii (c) Maureen Roberts Romans 1976 All Rights Reserved iii PARTY LEADERSHIP FIGHTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: THE CAUSES OF CONFLICT 1895 - 1955 A Dissertation Presented By MAUREEN ROBERTS ROMANS Approved as to style and content by: Glen Gordon, Chairman of Conmittee 'Barbara A. Hinckley, Member Geor^ Sulzngaf', Member joren Beth, Department Head Political Science Iv ABSTRACT Party Leadership Fights in the House of Representatives: The Causes of Conflict, 1895 to 1955 (April 1976) Maureen R. Romans, B.A. , Northwestern University M.A., University of Massachusetts, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts Directed by: Professor Glen Gordon Robert L. Peabody in his article "Party Leadership Change in the United States House of Representatives" hypothesizes that the Republi- cans in the House of Representatives were more prone to conflict be- tween 1955 and 1966 than the Democrats because they were 1) the minor- ity party, 2) had suffered a series of election defeats culminating in the 1958 and 1964 losses, 3) were a junior party, 4) were highly co- hesive in terms of region and ideology and therefore could afford the luxury of a leadership fight without sacrificing their unity on roll call votes, and 5) their leaders were not as skilled as Sam Rayburn and John McCorniack in keeping in touch with the rank-and-file. Other observers, however, have offered different hypotheses and variables to explain leadership change and conflict in Congress. Barbara A. Hinckley suggests that extensive membership turnover and changes in the regional and ideological composition of a party bring pressure for leadership change. Randall B. Ripley hypothesizes that party is a more important variable than majority or minority status because the Republicans have been rocked by more revolts than the Democrats since the 1910 power struggle over Speaker Joe Cannon. Charles 0. Jones thinks that the size of the Congressional party and the nuni^er of freshmen are important variables, and finally former Speaker Joe Martin argues that Presidential intervention can encourage leader- ship fights. This dissertation tests these hypotheses by examining intra- party leadership conflict in the House of Representatives from 1895 to 1955. Because the historical information about the contests is widely scattered and even believed lost by some political scientists, the fights have been recounted in detail and heavily footnoted for others doing research on past Congresses. The rest of the disserta- tion systematically analyzes the composition of each Congressional party in terms of 1) majority-minority status, 2) size, 3) election results, membership 4) turnover, 5) the number of freshmen, 6) the proportion of members with at least ten years seniority, 7) regional factions, and 8) where possible ideological factions. An important point is that all Congressional parties from 1895 to 1955 have been reconstructed regardless of whether a fight occurred in order to see if stable parties had different characteristics from combative parties The skill of the leaders and Presidential intervention have been con- sidered i.esidual variables that were used to explain deviant cases, but the accounts of the fights do discuss the President, lobbyists, and the personality of the competitors when relevant. Briefly, the findings show that in the Democratic party extensive membership turnover and changes in the regional and ideological vi alignments that bolstered the faction underrepresented in the leader- ship were most conducive to conflict. In the Republican party before 1933 ideological cleavages produced conflict. Afterward, rapid mem- bership turnover seemed most important in predicting a leadership clash. Two conditions that were not determinants of leadership con- flict between 1895 and 1955 were party and majority-minority status. vil ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to Dr. Glen Gordon, the chairman of my committee, who has spent an inordinate amount of time untangling the bureaucratic problems that have befallen this dissertation in addition to reading and criticizing a very long manuscript. My very special thanks go to Dr. Barbara Hinckley of the University of Wisconsin, who has enthusiastically assisted this project at every stage from its inception in a reading course I took with her at the University of Massachusetts in 1968-1969 through the final draft. I would never have undertaken this dissertation without her unfailing encouragement and thoughtful advise. I also wish to thank Dr. George Sulzner for taking on the chores of third reader at a very late date. I would also like to thank Mrs. Madeline Gross for the long hours she spent typing this dissertation and for the patience she displayed in working with such a dif f icult-to-handle manuscript. My greatest debt is to my family--to my husband, Neil Romans, to my parents, Gloria and Charles Roberts, and to my son, David, who have supported and encouraged me in every possible way through a long and sometimes trying four years of research and writing. Finally, my thanks go to my cousin and lawyer Roger Hauser, who freely and gener- ously aided me in cutting through the red tape that ensnarled this project during its last months. viil TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION ^ II. DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP CONTESTS, 1895 to 1931 ... 20 III. CONFLICT IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, 1895 to 1955 . 99 IV. LEADERSHIP CHANGE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY 1931 to 1955 192 V. CONFLICT IN THE REPUBLICAN HIERARCHY, 1931 to 1955 247 VI. CONCLUSION 293 BIBLIOGRAPHY 323 Ix LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER II PAGE TABLE 1. Democratic Leadership Selection, 1895-1911 38 2. Democratic Contests and Size of Party, 1895-1911 .... 41 3. Democratic Election Results, 1895-1909 42 4. Democratic Contests and Membership Change, 1895-1911 . 44 5. Democratic Contests and Seniority, 1895-1911 46 6. Democratic Contests and Regional Factions, 1895-1911 . 47 7. Democratic Leadership Selection, 1911-1919 61 8. Democratic Election Results, 1911-1919 64 9. Membership Change in the Democratic Party, 1911-1919 . 65 10. Comparison of Freshmen Members in Democratic Party 1895-1911 66 11. Seniority in the Democratic Party, 1911-1919 67 12. Regionalism within the Democratic Party, 1911-1919 ... 68 Senior 13. Democrats Classified by Region, 1911-1919 .... 69 14. Democratic Leadership Selection, 1919-1931 83 15. Democratic Contests and Size of Party, 1919-1931 .... 86 16. Democratic Contests and Election Results, 1919-1931 . 87 17. Democratic Contests and Membership Change, 1919-1931 . 88 18. Democratic Contests and Seniority, 1919-1931 89 19. Democratic Contests and Regionalism, 1919-1931 91 j X LIST OF TABLES (continued) CHAPTER III PAGE TABLE 1. Republican Leadership Selection, 1895-1911 123 2. Republican Contests and Party Size, 1895-1911 . 125 3. Republican Election Results, 1895-1911 127 4. Republican Contests and Membership Change, 1895-1911 . 128 5. Republican Contests and Seniority, 1895-1911 129 6. Republican Contests and Regional Factions, 1895-1911 . 132 7. Republican Contests and the Growth of the Progressives 1901-1911 7 . .'134 8. Republican Leadership Selection, 1911-1919 145 Republican 9. Contests and Party Size, 1911-1919 .... 149 10. Republican Election Results, 1911-1919 150 11. Republican Contests and Membership Change, 1911-1919 . 151 12. Republican Contests and Seniority, 1911-1919 151 13. Republican Contests and Regional Factions, 1911-1919 . 153 14. Republican Contests and Ideological Factions, 1911-1919 153 15. Republican Leadership Selection, 1919-1931 173 16. Republican Contests and Party Size, 1919-1931 .... 177 17. Republican Election Results, 1919-1931 178 18. Republican Contests and Membership Change, 1919-1931 . 179 19. Republican Contests and Seniority, 1919-1931 180 20. Republican Contests and Regional Factions, 1919-1931 . 181 21. Republican Contests and the Progressives, 1919-1931 . 182 22. Factionalism and Leadership Conflict in the Republican Party, 1895-1931 189 xi LIST OF TABLES (continued) CMPTER IV PAGE TABLE Democratic 1. Leadership Selection, 1931-1941 208 Party 2. Size and Democratic Conflict, 1931-1941 214 3. Democratic Election Returns, 1931-1941 215 4. Democratic Conflict and Membership Change, 1931-1941 . 216 5. Membership Change in the Democratic Party, 1919-1941 . 217 6. Democratic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Role of the House Majority Leader
    = -*=41*=4+=9-*= 4:8*=&/47.9>=*&)*7a= 3=;*7;.*<= &19*7= _= 1*8?*0= *3.47=5*(.&1.89=.3=2*7.(&3=&9.43&1=4;*732*39= &3:&7>=3`=,**3= 43,7*88.43&1= *8*&7(-=*7;.(*= 18/1**= <<<_(78_,4;= -*00/= =*5479=+47=43,7*88 Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress About TheCapitol.Net We help you understand Washington and Congress.™ For more than 40 years, TheCapitol.Net and its predecessor, Congressional Quarterly Executive Conferences, have been training professionals from government, military, business, and NGOs on the dynamics and operations of the legislative and executive branches and how to work with them. Our training and publications include congressional operations, legislative and budget process, communication and advocacy, media and public relations, research, testifying before Congress, legislative drafting, critical thinking and writing, and more. TheCapitol.Net encompasses a dynamic team of more than 150 faculty members and authors, all of whom are independent subject matter experts and veterans in their fields. Faculty and authors include senior government executives, former members of Congress, Hill and agency staff, editors and journalists, lobbyists, lawyers, nonprofit executives, and scholars. We have worked with hundreds of clients across the country to develop and produce a wide variety of custom, on-site training programs. All courses, seminars, and workshops can be tailored to align with your organization’s educational objectives and presented on-site at your location. TheCapitol.Net is on the GSA Schedule, 874-4, for custom on-site training: GSA Contract GS02F0192X. TheCapitol.Net has more than 2,500 clients representing congressional offices, federal and state agencies, military branches, corporations, associations, news media, and NGOs nationwide.
    [Show full text]
  • ~, Tt'tll\ E . a .. L Worilbl)Oc
    "THE JOURNAL.OF ~, tt'tll\e ... A.. L WORilbl)oc ~.l)u AND Ok1 ERATORSJ.ljiru OFFICIAL PUBLICATION _.. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ElECTRICAL WORKER$--.- _ ~ -~- -' (:\ /~ //1 \"- II .0;,)[1 I October, 1920 !11AXADYI AFFILIATED WITH THE . AMERICAN 'FEDERATION OF LABOR IN ALL ITS D E PA R T M E.N T S II atLL II DEVOTED TO THE CAUSE OF ORGANIZED LABOR \ II 302~ "OUR FIXTURES ARE LIGHTING HOMES FROM COAST TO COAST" We have a dealer's proposition that will interest you. Our prices are low and quality of the best. Catalogue No. 18 free .ERIE FIXTURE SUPPLY CO. 359 West 18th St.. Erie. Pa. Blake Insulated Staples BLAKE 6 "3 . 4 Si;oel l Signal & Mfg. Co. n:t,· BOSTON :.: MASS. Pat. Nov. 1900 BLAKE TUBE FLUX Pat. July 1906 Tf T Convenient to carry and to use. Will not collect dust and dirt nor K'et on tools in kit. You can get the solder­ ina' Dux: just where YOD want it and in just tho desired Quantity. Named shoes are frequently made in non-union factories DO NOT BUY ANY SHOE No matter what its name, uniess it bears a plain and readable iinpression of the UNION STAMP All shoes without the UNION STAMP are always Non-Union Do not accept any excuse for absence of the UNION STAMP BOOT AND SHOE WORKERS' UNION II 246 Summer Street, Boston. Mass- I UCollis Lovely, General Pres. Charles L. Baine, General Sec.-Treall. , When 'writing mention The Journal of Electrical Workers and Operators. The Journal of Electrical Workers and Operators OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE International Brotherhood of Electrical Workera Affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and all Its DOepartments.
    [Show full text]
  • USSYP 2013 Yearbook
    THE HEARST FOUNDATIONS DIRECTORS William Randolph Hearst III PRESIDENT James M. Asher Anissa B. Balson UNITED STATES SENATE YOUTH PROGRAM David J. Barrett Frank A. Bennack, Jr. John G. Conomikes Ronald J. Doerfl er Lisa H. Hagerman George R. Hearst III Gilbert C. Maurer Mark F. Miller Virginia H. Randt Steven R. Swartz Paul “Dino” Dinovitz EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR George B. Irish EASTERN DIRECTOR Rayne B. Guilford PROGRAM DIRECTOR FIFTY-FIRST ANNUAL WASHINGTON WEEK 2013 Lynn De Smet DEPUTY DIRECTOR Catherine Mahoney PROGRAM MANAGER Hayes Reisenfeld PROGRAM LIAISON UNITED STATES SENATE YOUTH PROGRAM FIFTY-FIRST ANNUAL WASHINGTON WEEK ! MARCH 9–16, 2013 SPONSORED BY THE UNITED STATES SENATE FUNDED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE THE HEARST FOUNDATIONS 90 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET ! SUITE 1212 ! SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105"4504 WWW.USSENATEYOUTH.ORG Photography by Jakub Mosur Secondary Photography by Erin Lubin Design by Catalone Design Co. USSYP_31_Yearbook_COV_052313_cc.indd 1 5/29/13 4:04 PM Forget conventionalisms; forget what the world thinks of you stepping out of your place; think your best thoughts, speak your best words, work your best works, looking to your own conscience for approval. SUSAN B. ANTHONY USSYP_31_Yearbook_COV_052313_cc.indd 2 5/24/13 3:33 PM 2013 UNITED STATES SENATE YOUTH PROGRAM SENATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE HONORARY CO-CHAIRS VICE PRESIDENT SENATOR SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN HARRY REID MITCH McCONNELL President of the Senate Majority Leader Republican Leader CO-CHAIRS SENATOR JEANNE SENATOR SHAHEEN RICHARD BURR of New Hampshire of North Carolina
    [Show full text]
  • Majority and Minority Leaders”, Available At
    Majority and Minority Party Membership Other Resources Adapted from: “Majority and Minority Leaders”, www.senate.gov Available at: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Majority_Minority_Leaders.htm Majority and Minority Leaders Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Majority and Minority Leaders Chapter 3: Majority and Minority Whips (Assistant Floor Leaders) Chapter 4: Complete List of Majority and Minority Leaders Chapter 5: Longest-Serving Party Leaders Introduction The positions of party floor leader are not included in the Constitution but developed gradually in the 20th century. The first floor leaders were formally designated in 1920 (Democrats) and 1925 (Republicans). The Senate Republican and Democratic floor leaders are elected by the members of their party in the Senate at the beginning of each Congress. Depending on which party is in power, one serves as majority leader and the other as minority leader. The leaders serve as spokespersons for their parties' positions on issues. The majority leader schedules the daily legislative program and fashions the unanimous consent agreements that govern the time for debate. The majority leader has the right to be called upon first if several senators are seeking recognition by the presiding officer, which enables him to offer motions or amendments before any other senator. Majority and Minority Leaders Elected at the beginning of each Congress by members of their respective party conferences to represent them on the Senate floor, the majority and minority leaders serve as spokesmen for their parties' positions on the issues. The majority leader has also come to speak for the Senate as an institution. Working with the committee chairs and ranking members, the majority leader schedules business on the floor by calling bills from the calendar and keeps members of his party advised about the daily legislative program.
    [Show full text]
  • Mason Williams
    City of Ambition: Franklin Roosevelt, Fiorello La Guardia, and the Making of New Deal New York Mason Williams Submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2012 © 2012 Mason Williams All Rights Reserved Abstract City of Ambition: Franklin Roosevelt, Fiorello La Guardia, and the Making of New Deal New York Mason Williams This dissertation offers a new account of New York City’s politics and government in the 1930s and 1940s. Focusing on the development of the functions and capacities of the municipal state, it examines three sets of interrelated political changes: the triumph of “municipal reform” over the institutions and practices of the Tammany Hall political machine and its outer-borough counterparts; the incorporation of hundreds of thousands of new voters into the electorate and into urban political life more broadly; and the development of an ambitious and capacious public sector—what Joshua Freeman has recently described as a “social democratic polity.” It places these developments within the context of the national New Deal, showing how national officials, responding to the limitations of the American central state, utilized the planning and operational capacities of local governments to meet their own imperatives; and how national initiatives fed back into subnational politics, redrawing the bounds of what was possible in local government as well as altering the strength and orientation of local political organizations. The dissertation thus seeks not only to provide a more robust account of this crucial passage in the political history of America’s largest city, but also to shed new light on the history of the national New Deal—in particular, its relation to the urban social reform movements of the Progressive Era, the long-term effects of short-lived programs such as work relief and price control, and the roles of federalism and localism in New Deal statecraft.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis-1972D-C289o.Pdf (5.212Mb)
    OKLAHOMA'S UNITED STATES HOUSE DELEGATION AND PROGRESSIVISM, 1901-1917 By GEORGE O. CARNE~ // . Bachelor of Arts Central Missouri State College Warrensburg, Missouri 1964 Master of Arts Central Missouri State College Warrensburg, Missouri 1965 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May, 1972 OKLAHOMA STATE UNiVERSITY LIBRARY MAY 30 1973 ::.a-:r...... ... ~·· .. , .• ··~.• .. ,..,,.·· ,,.,., OKLAHOMA'S UNITED STATES HOUSE DELEGATION AND PROGRESSIVIS~, 1901-1917 Thesis Approved: Oean of the Graduate College PREFACE This dissertation is a study for a single state, Oklahoma, and is designed to test the prevailing Mowry-Chandler-Hofstadter thesis concerning progressivism. The "progressive profile" as developed in the Mowry-Chandler-Hofstadter thesis characterizes the progressive as one who possessed distinctive social, economic, and political qualities that distinguished him from the non-progressive. In 1965 in a political history seminar at Central Missouri State College, Warrensburg, Missouri, I tested the above model by using a single United States House representative from the state of Missouri. When I came to the Oklahoma State University in 1967, I decided to expand my test of this model by examining the thirteen representatives from Oklahoma during the years 1901 through 1917. In testing the thesis for Oklahoma, I investigated the social, economic, and political characteristics of the members whom Oklahoma sent to the United States House of Representatives during those years, and scrutinized the role they played in the formulation of domestic policy. In addition, a geographical analysis of the various Congressional districts suggested the effects the characteristics of the constituents might have on the representatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Speakers of the House: Elections, 1913-2021
    Speakers of the House: Elections, 1913-2021 Updated January 25, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL30857 Speakers of the House: Elections, 1913-2021 Summary Each new House elects a Speaker by roll call vote when it first convenes. Customarily, the conference of each major party nominates a candidate whose name is placed in nomination. A Member normally votes for the candidate of his or her own party conference but may vote for any individual, whether nominated or not. To be elected, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of all the votes cast for individuals. This number may be less than a majority (now 218) of the full membership of the House because of vacancies, absentees, or Members answering “present.” This report provides data on elections of the Speaker in each Congress since 1913, when the House first reached its present size of 435 Members. During that period (63rd through 117th Congresses), a Speaker was elected six times with the votes of less than a majority of the full membership. If a Speaker dies or resigns during a Congress, the House immediately elects a new one. Five such elections occurred since 1913. In the earlier two cases, the House elected the new Speaker by resolution; in the more recent three, the body used the same procedure as at the outset of a Congress. If no candidate receives the requisite majority, the roll call is repeated until a Speaker is elected. Since 1913, this procedure has been necessary only in 1923, when nine ballots were required before a Speaker was elected.
    [Show full text]
  • CRS Report for Congress Received Through the CRS Web
    Order Code RL30665 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web The Role of the House Majority Leader: An Overview Updated April 4, 2006 Walter J. Oleszek Senior Specialist in the Legislative Process Government and Finance Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress The Role of the House Majority Leader: An Overview Summary The majority leader in the contemporary House is second-in-command behind the Speaker of the majority party. Typically, the majority leader functions as the Speaker’s chief lieutenant or “field commander” for day-to-day management of the floor. Although the majority leader’s duties are not especially well-defined, they have evolved to the point where it is possible to spotlight two fundamental and often interlocking responsibilities that orient the majority leader’s work: institutional and party. From an institutional perspective, the majority leader has a number of duties. Scheduling floor business is a prime responsibility of the majority leader. Although scheduling the House’s business is a collective activity of the majority party, the majority leader has a large say in shaping the chamber’s overall agenda and in determining when, whether, how, or in what order legislation is taken up. In addition, the majority leader is active in constructing winning coalitions for the party’s legislative priorities; acting as a public spokesman — defending and explaining the party’s program and agenda; serving as an emissary to the White House, especially when the President is of the same party; and facilitating the orderly conduct of the House’s business. From a party perspective, three key activities undergird the majority leader’s principal goal of trying to ensure that the party remains in control of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Download History of the House Page Program
    HISTORY OF THE HOUSE PAGE PROGRAM CONTENTS Introduction 1 Page Origins 2 Page Responsibilities 7 Representatives as Role Models and Mentors 10 Page Traditions 12 Breaking Down Racial and Gender Barriers 17 Pages and Publicity 19 Schools, Dorms, and Reforms 21 Pages and the Communications Revolution 26 The End of the House Page Program 28 Notes 30 Pages wore lapel pins to identify themselves during work or to affiliate themselves with the Page program. Left, a National Fraternity of Pages pin owned by Glenn Rupp, a House Page in the 1930s, includes the date 1912, which may indicate the founding date of the organization. Middle, a Page pin from 1930 is more elaborately designed than the average uniform lapel pin and features an enamel shield with links attaching a pendant that indicates the date of service. Right, a pin from 100th Congress (1987– 1989) has a House seal in the center and is similar to those worn by Members on their own lapels. Page Pins, Collection of the U.S. House of Representatives i House Pages pose for a class photo on the East Front of the Capitol. Class Photo from The Congressional Eagle Yearbook, 2007, Collection of the U.S. House of Representatives For more than two centuries, young people served as Pages in the U.S. House of Representatives and enjoyed an unparalleled opportunity to observe and participate in the legislative process in “the People’s House.” Despite the frequent and colossal changes to America’s national fabric over that period, the expectations and experiences of House Pages, regardless of when they served, have been linked by certain commonalities—witnessing history, interacting with Representatives, and taking away lifelong inspiration to participate in civic life.
    [Show full text]
  • Plantation Progressive on the Federal Bench: Law, Politics, and the Life of Judge Henry D
    Alabama Law Scholarly Commons Working Papers Faculty Scholarship 3-10-2008 Plantation Progressive on the Federal Bench: Law, Politics, and the Life of Judge Henry D. Clayton Paul Pruitt University of Alabama - School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_working_papers Recommended Citation Paul Pruitt, Plantation Progressive on the Federal Bench: Law, Politics, and the Life of Judge Henry D. Clayton, (2008). Available at: https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_working_papers/624 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Alabama Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Working Papers by an authorized administrator of Alabama Law Scholarly Commons. THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA SCHOOL OF LAW Plantation Progressive on the Federal Bench: Law, Politics, and the Life of Judge Henry D. Clayton Paul M. Pruitt, Jr. Revised from Southern Studies, Volume XIV (Fall-Winter 2007), 85-139 This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1104005 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1104005 1 Plantation Progressive on the Federal Bench: Law, Politics, and the Life of Judge Henry D. Clayton* Note: This is a lightly revised version of an article previously published in Southern Studies, XIV (Fall-Winter 2007), 85-139. I. Preface From the fall of 1901 to the spring of 1914, Thomas Goode Jones was judge of Alabama’s Middle and Northern districts.1 A former governor, Jones had been a well- known figure in Alabama before receiving judicial appointment from President Theodore Roosevelt.
    [Show full text]
  • DISSERTATION Presented to the Graduate Council of the North
    4Z SAM RAYBURN: TRIALS OF A PARTY MAN DISSERTATION Presented to the Graduate Council of the North Texas State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By Edward 0. Daniel, B.A., M.A. Denton, Texas May, 1979 Daniel, Edward 0., Sam Rayburn: Trials of a Party Man. Doctor of Philosophy (History), May, 1979, 330 pp., bibliog- raphy, 163 titles. Sam Rayburn' s remarkable legislative career is exten- sively documented, but no one has endeavored to write a political biography in which his philosophy, his personal convictions, and the forces which motivated him are analyzed. The object of this dissertation is to fill that void by tracing the course of events which led Sam Rayburn to the Speakership of the United States House of Representatives. For twenty-seven long years of congressional service, Sam Rayburn patiently, but persistently, laid the groundwork for his elevation to the speakership. Most of his accomplish- ments, recorded in this paper, were a means to that end. His legislative achievements for the New Deal were monu- mental, particularly in the areas of securities regulation, progressive labor laws, and military preparedness. Rayburn rose to the speakership, however, not because he was a policy maker, but because he was a policy expeditor. He took his orders from those who had the power to enhance his own station in life. Prior to the presidential election of 1932, the center of Sam Rayburn's universe was an old friend and accomplished political maneuverer, John Nance Garner. It was through Garner that Rayburn first perceived the significance of the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" style of politics.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fusion of Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian Thought in the Republican Party of the 1920S
    © Copyright by Dan Ballentyne 2014 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This work is dedicated to my grandfather, Raymond E. Hough, who support and nurturing from an early age made this work possible. Also to my wife, Patricia, whose love and support got me to the finish line. ii REPUBLICANISM RECAST: THE FUSION OF HAMILTONIAN AND JEFFERSONIAN THOUGHT IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE 1920S BY Dan Ballentyne The current paradigm of dividing American political history into early and modern periods and organized based on "liberal" and "conservative" parties does not adequately explain the complexity of American politics and American political ideology. This structure has resulted of creating an artificial separation between the two periods and the reading backward of modern definitions of liberal and conservative back on the past. Doing so often results in obscuring means and ends as well as the true nature of political ideology in American history. Instead of two primary ideologies in American history, there are three: Hamiltonianism, Jeffersonianism, and Progressivism. The first two originated in the debates of the Early Republic and were the primary political division of the nineteenth century. Progressivism arose to deal with the new social problems resulting from industrialization and challenged the political and social order established resulting from the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian debate. By 1920, Progressivism had become a major force in American politics, most recently in the Democratic administration of Woodrow Wilson. In the light of this new political movement, that sought to use state power not to promote business, but to regulate it and provide social relief, conservative Hamiltonian Republicans increasingly began using Jeffersonian ideas and rhetoric in opposition to Progressive policy initiatives.
    [Show full text]