Opposition to the First New Deal (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes

Opposition to the First New Deal

The New Deal faced substantial criticism from multiple political directions. From the right, opponents argued Roosevelt's policies were excessively interventionist; from the left, critics claimed they were insufficiently transformative. This opposition stemmed from conflicting perspectives about the appropriate role of the Federal Government in the economy and society.

Right-wing opposition

Business and the wealthy

During the worst phase of the economic crisis, many wealthy Americans had regarded Roosevelt as capitalism's saviour. However, once the immediate danger passed, these supporters turned against him. Their opposition centred on two grievances: tax increases which they argued placed excessive burdens upon them, and what they viewed as unwarranted government interference in economic affairs.

The Republican Party, still rebuilding after its failures in the early 1930s, struggled to field a credible presidential candidate for the 1936 election. This weakness meant right-wing opposition lacked effective political leadership.

Liberty League

The Liberty League was formed in April 1934 by conservative Democrats and Republicans to advocate for private property rights and unregulated private enterprise. The organisation mounted persistent attacks on Roosevelt throughout the New Deal years, establishing itself as the foundation of right-wing resistance to his policies.

By July 1936, the League had expanded to 125,000 members. Following Roosevelt's landslide victory in the 1936 presidential election, however, the organisation's influence declined considerably, though it remained symbolically important to conservative opposition.

Left-wing opposition

Roosevelt regarded threats from the left as more dangerous than right-wing criticism. He feared left-wing groups might unite to form a third party that could challenge him in the 1936 presidential election. These threats ranged from advocates of radical economic redistribution schemes to popular leaders commanding mass followings.

End Poverty in California (EPIC)

Novelist Upton Sinclair proposed a scheme whereby unemployed workers would be employed in state-run co-operatives. Workers would receive payment in special currency that could only be spent in other co-operatives. For a time, Sinclair's ideas attracted credibility and recruited supporters for more radical alternative movements.

Huey Long and 'Share Our Wealth'

Senator Huey Long from Louisiana emerged onto the national stage in February 1934 with his 'Share Our Wealth' programme. He advocated that all private fortunes exceeding $3 million should be confiscated, with the proceeds distributed to provide every family with sufficient money to purchase a house, car and radio. Additional provisions included old-age pensions, minimum wages ensuring families received $2,000-$3,000 annually, and free college education for all suitable candidates.

Long's proposals proved exceptionally popular. 'Share Our Wealth' clubs proliferated to 27,431 organisations with 4.6 million members across the states. This mass support alarmed Roosevelt, particularly when the possibility arose that Long might join forces with other radical leaders to form a third party opposing him in 1936.

Key figure: Huey Long

Huey Long served as governor of Louisiana and later senator. As governor, he ordered extensive public works programmes. Between 1928 and 1933, over 3,000 miles of paved highways were constructed, alongside new public buildings and an airport at New Orleans. He also launched ambitious adult literacy schemes.

Long began discussing forming a third party to oppose Roosevelt in the 1936 presidential election. In 1935, Postmaster General James A. Farley conducted a confidential poll to assess Long's popularity. The results shocked administration officials: up to four million people might vote for Long in 1936, potentially giving him the balance of power in the election. Louisiana Senator Long was, in fact, assassinated in September 1935.

Old Age Revolving Pensions Incorporated

Retired doctor Francis Townsend advocated old-age pensions with a distinct approach. He proposed that everyone over 60 years of age not in paid employment should receive $200 per month, on the condition that every cent was spent immediately and none saved. The rationale was that this would stimulate consumption and thereby production, pulling the USA out of the Depression. Additionally, encouraging people to retire at 60 would create more employment opportunities for younger workers.

Townsend Clubs soon grew to 500,000 members, and Congress faced substantial lobbying to implement the plan. The scheme was, however, entirely impractical. Payments to recipients would have amounted to 50 per cent of national income, and an army of bureaucrats would have been necessary to verify pensioners were spending all their $200 monthly. Nevertheless, the level of support demonstrated that the movement required serious consideration.

Father Charles Coughlin

Father Charles Coughlin was a priest whose radio programme, The Golden Hour of the Little Flower, commanded enormous influence during the first half of the 1930s. His broadcasts regularly reached audiences of 30-40 million, and listeners contributed more than $5 million per year to his parish in Detroit.

In 1934, Coughlin established the National Union for Social Justice, advocating monetary reform and wealth redistribution. Roosevelt feared Coughlin's influence, particularly when a possible alliance with Huey Long was suggested. Following Long's assassination, however, Coughlin increasingly embraced anti-Semitism, blaming Jews for both the New Deal and Wall Street control. This lost him substantial support.

Opposition from the Supreme Court

Constitutional conflict

Given Roosevelt's flexible interpretation of the Constitution's provisions, conflict with the Supreme Court, the Constitution's guardian, was perhaps inevitable. Although the Court had not directly attacked it during the election campaign, Roosevelt believed it required reform. During the crisis years, the Court had supported New Deal legislation, but as Roosevelt's first term progressed, it increasingly declared measures unconstitutional.

The 'sick chicken' case, 1935

This case possibly represented the Court's most consequential decision and motivated Roosevelt into action. The case involved the Schechter Brothers, a New York-based firm of butchers who were prosecuted by the NIRA (National Industrial Recovery Administration) for breaching its codes of practice by selling chickens unfit for human consumption.

The Schechter Brothers appealed the verdict to the Supreme Court. The Court determined that their prosecution should be a matter for New York courts, not the Federal Government, and the poultry code was declared illegal. Most importantly, this decision meant that federal government had no authority to intervene in internal state issues.

The Court recognised that the Federal Government possessed powers to intervene in inter-state commerce, yet found it lacked authority to interfere in the internal commerce of individual states. Given that the codes were central to NIRA, the agency could not survive without them. More broadly, the ruling appeared to suggest that the government possessed no powers to oversee nationwide economic affairs except insofar as they affected inter-state commerce.

Black Monday, 27 May 1935

On one day, subsequently termed 'Black Monday', 27 May 1935, the Supreme Court attacked the New Deal through multiple decisions. For example, it found the Farm Mortgage Act unconstitutional, arguing that the approval of a trade commissioner, which Roosevelt sought, was the responsibility not of the president but of Congress. Most damagingly, it found the NRA unconstitutional through the 'sick chicken' case.

The Federal Government could not prosecute individual firms for breaching NRA codes if all the codes themselves were unconstitutional. This was because they were developed by federal government yet affected individual firms in individual states. The argument held that the executive had acted unconstitutionally by granting itself powers to implement codes that had no legal foundation. This was because it had no authority to intervene in matters that were the preserve of individual states.

Judiciary Reform Bill

Roosevelt believed the justices on the Supreme Court were disconnected from contemporary realities. Of the nine judges, none were his appointments. He increasingly viewed the Supreme Court issue as one of unelected officials obstructing the work of a democratically elected government, whilst members of the Supreme Court regarded themselves as exercising their legal authority to prevent the spread of authoritarian rule. The scene was prepared for confrontation.

On 3 February 1936, Roosevelt presented the Judiciary Reform Bill to Congress. This proposed that the president could appoint a new justice whenever an existing judge, reaching the age of 70, failed to retire within six months. He could also appoint up to six new justices, increasing the possible total to fifteen. The measure had been drafted in secret, though ironically, the concept of forcibly retiring judges had first been proposed by one of the existing Supreme Court members in 1913.

Roosevelt had provoked intense controversy. Many Congressmen feared he might start retiring them at 70 next. He had also seriously miscalculated popular support and respect for the Court. In proposing this measure, Roosevelt was perceived as dictatorial. In July, the Senate rejected the Judiciary Reform Bill by 70 votes to 20.

Summary of opposition

Roosevelt faced considerable opposition from business and wealthy people who increasingly believed the New Deal had gone too far. Some critics refused even to say his name, referring to him as 'that cripple in the White House'. Roosevelt himself acknowledged that everyone was against him except the electorate.

The relationship with big business remained difficult throughout. Roosevelt understood the economy could not recover without business support, and business leaders may have feared the alternatives had the New Deal failed entirely. However, they resented the Revenue Acts which raised taxes and opposed what they viewed as ever-increasing government interference.

Republican opponents in Congress were joined by more conservative Democrats who also feared the New Deal had become excessively interventionist. Roosevelt called for a special congressional session in November 1937 to pass various measures such as an anti-lynching bill, which had been delayed due to debates on the Judicial Reform Bill. Not one measure was passed.

Remember!