The American Liberty League, 1934-1940 Author(s): Frederick Rudolph Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 56, No. 1 (Oct., 1950), pp. 19-33 Published by: American Historical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1840619 Accessed: 06/07/2010 21:45 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aha. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Historical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review. http://www.jstor.org The AmericanLiberty League, 1934-1940 FREDERICK RUDOLPH IN March,1934, the New Deal was a yearold. The economiccollapse which had provokedit and the confusedbut determinedactivities of the New Deal had become,by then,profoundly disturbing to men whosegods wereAdam Smith and HerbertSpencer. For them both the depressionand Franklin Roosevelt'ssolutions contained unwholesome quantities of uncertaintyand change. Correspondence,reflecting despair and anger, flowed from one citadelof economicpower to another,most of it destinedto remainin the privatefiles for which it was intended.Some of it, however,found its way into the chambersof Congressand eventuallyinto the public press.There the anguish of what has come to be called the AmericanWay was from time to time documentedand recorded.Of such a characterwas the ex- change of lettersbetween the Du Pont Building in Wilmingtonand the Empire State Building in New York in March, 1934, betweenR. R. M. Carpenter,a retiredDu Pont vice-president,and JohnJ. Raskob, a retired chairmanof the Democraticparty but a stillactive vice-president of the Du Pontorganization. "Five negroeson myplace in South Carolinarefused work this spring. sayingthey had easy jobs withthe government,"Carpenter wrote. "A cook on mryhouseboat at Fort Myersquit becausethe government was payinghim a dollar an hour as a painter."What Mr. Carpenterasked of Mr. Raskob was thathe, who mighthave the ear of thePresident for the asking,inquire of Mr. Rooseveltwhether he knew wherethe countrywas going; his own experiences,at his place in South Carolina and on his houseboatin Florida, had convincedhim thatthe directionswere altogethercontrary to American promise.Mr. Raskob was inclinedto agree,but, he said, he was now out of politicsand, besides,he had a betteridea. "You haven'tmuch to do," he wroteCarpenter, "and I know of no one thatcould bettertake the lead in tryingto inducethe Du Pont and GeneralMotors groups, followed by other big industries,to definitelyorganize to protectsociety from the sufferings whichit is bound to endureif we allow communisticelements to lead the people to believethat all businessmenare crooks."Raskob went on to sug- gest thatthere was a need for"some verydefinite organization that would come out openlywith some plan foreducating the peopleto the value of en- couragingpeople to work; encouragingpeople to get rich." He feltthat I9 20 FrederickRudolph R. R. M. Carpenter,and his friendsPierre and Ireneedu Pont,were es- peciallyequipped to takeon thattask, for they were "in a positionto talk directlywith a groupthat controls a largershare of industry. thanany othergroup in theUnited States."1 Of suchbeginnings was theAmerican Liberty League. On AugustI5, 1934, an organizationsuch as Raskobhad contemplatedwas charteredin Washington,D.C., dedicatedto "teachthe necessity of respect for the rights ofpersons and property ... and ... theduty of government toencourage and protectindividual and groupinitiative and enterprise,to foster the right to work,earn, save and acquireproperty, and to preservethe ownership and lawfuluse of propertywhen acquired."2 And fromits birth until its death, its mostfaithful financial backers were the Du Pontand GeneralMotors groupsupon whom Raskob had counted.3 The LibertyLeague was as indigenouslyAmerican as the New Deal whichit was determined todestroy. Its unsuccessful efforts tounseat Franklin Roosevelt,its philosophy and program, the techniques which it usedin order to surviveas longas it did-theseare notthe materials of an un-American movement.They are the compound of a setof emphases which, although they foundlittle support in theNew Deal, areas mucha partof the structure of Americanvalues as are thosewhich have been carried along in succeeding Democraticadministrations since 1932. The LibertyLeague representeda vigorousand well-stateddefense of nineteenthcentury individualism and liberalism,a more explicit and determinedelaboration of thatposition than willbe foundelsewhere in Americanhistory. It wasorganized at a timewhen byand large the philosophy of rugged individualism had stopped performing in Americansociety, but thatis not to saythat it had lostall function-it stillretained, for example, a stronghold upon the imaginationsof men whoseexperiences supported its promises. Although the New Deal and the historyof Americanpolitical preferences since I932 hardlyargues for the survivalof theposition which the Liberty League maintained, there was too muchof a thoroughlyAmerican character in themovement to permitthe 1 New York Times,Dec. 2I, I934. The correspondencewas disclosedduring the Nye muni- tionshearings in the Senate.When JouettShouse, president of the League, informedthe press of the formationof the organization,he disclosedthat Raskob was one of its primemovers. Ibid.,Aug. 23, I934. 2 AmericanLiberty League, AmericanLiberty League: A Statementof Its Principlesand Purposes(Washington, I934). '3 The League made periodicreports to Congresson the stateof its financesand the source of its income.These may be foundreported in the New York Times forJan. II, I935; Jan.26, I936; Mar. I7, I936; Apr. 9, I936; JuneI2, I936; Sept. I2, I936; Oct. 22, I936; Jan.8, I937; Mar. I2, I937; JuneI2, 3937; Sept. II, I937; Mar. II, I938. A studyof the reportsindicates thatthe League spentover a milliondollars; that Shouse, in I936, was the highestpaid political organizerin the UnitedStates, at a salaryof $36,ooo and $i8,ooo forexpenses; and thatof the $483,000 collectedin I935, over one thirdwas contributedby membersof the Du Pont family. The American Liberty League, I934-40 2 1 conclusionthat it was an unimportant,flash-in-the-pan combination of un- dercoverpolitical party and overtpressure group. The AmericanLiberty League was much more than that.Indeed, it symbolizedessentially old and establishedtraditions and valuescoming face to facewith new social,political, and economicfacts. In such a case, new facts,however unalterable, do not immediatelysucceed in overcomingold values. At least until now, it has been the natureof civilizedsocieties that men have complicatedtheir lives by seekingto reconcilethe irreconcilable;such, in a way, was the aim of the AmericanLiberty League. It emphasizedthe values which,by its lights,de- servedencouragement and protectionfrom new factsat whichit balked,and from certainother values in the societywhich it chose to ignore or de- emphasize. At a time when the Republicanparty was bankruptof leadershipand purpose,the AmericanLiberty League becamethe spokesmanfor a business civilization,and a defenderof that civilizationfrom the attacksof the ad- ministrationin Washingtonand of lessergroups from the rightand the left, thefollowers of FatherCoughlin, the Townsendites, the Socialists, the Share- the-Wealthmovement of Huey Long. "Businesswhich bears the responsi- bilityfor the paychecksof privateemployment has littlevoice in govern- ment,"it complainedin itsStatement of Principlesand Purposes,proceeding then to become in the mid-thirtiesthe mouthpieceof organizedAmerican conservatism.4At a time when economicdistress encouraged an increasing emphasisupon the forgottenman and the commonman, it came to the de- fense of the uncommonman who stood at the pinnacle-the uncommon man, whose freedomto followthe bentof his naturaltalents, unfettered by governmentregulation and control,had long been an ingrainedtenet of the Americanfaith. The rosterof itsofficers and of itschief financial contributors is a rosterof the uncommonmen of the time,the men whose ambitionsand abilitieshad been rewardedwith the success,the power,and the prestigeto whichAmericans of everybackground have been traditionallyconditioned to aspire: Irenee,Pierre, and Lammot du Pont, controllersof a vast industrial empire;Ernest T. Wier, steelman; Will L. Clayton,Texas cottonbroker; AlfredP. Sloan, presidentof GeneralMotors; Edward F. Hutton,chairman of GeneralFoods; J.Howard Pew, presidentof Sun Oil; William S. Knud- sen,also of GeneralMotors; Joseph E. Widener,Philadelphia transportation magnate;Sewell