By Kevin C. Murphy, Copyright 2013. All Rights Reserved.
New Deal Coming
Progressives and the Origins of the New Deal
II. The General Welfare
This was a very different vision of the federal government's role than what Harding or even Herbert Hoover, with his network of voluntary associations, had in mind. And, in fact, women reformers had already established a beachhead in the federal government to make real some of these reforms with the Children's Bureau, which had been created in 1912. Through the hard work of Wilson-era Bureau chief Julia Lathrop and others, the number of states with child hygiene or child welfare divisions leapt from eight in 1917 to thirty-five in 1920. By 1921, when former settlement house worker and head of the Bureau's child labor department Grace Abbott took the reins, the Children's Bureau was an established force in the federal government, ready to effect even more change at the national and state level on behalf of American's youngest citizens. As historian Robyn Muncy notes, "the use of federal power to build up public social services at the expense of private agencies clearly distinguished the goals of the Children's Bureau from those at the Commerce Department. At precisely the time that Hoover and his men were using federal influence to empower private trade associations, women in the Children's Bureau were swinging their resources into public institutions…Nowhere were the competing views of the state more obvious or more apparently gender-related."2
With the passage of the Shepherd-Towner Act in November 1921 -- which provided $1.5 million in 1922 and $1.25 million a year thereafter in federal grant money to support state-level child and maternal health programs -- Grace Abbott and the Bureau had not only the mandate but the resources to build an infrastructure of support for child and maternal health programs across the country. "Once states opted into the Sheppard-Towner system of matching subsidies," historian Theda Skocpol has noted -- and by 1923 forty states had -- "the 1921 act had the effect of reinforcing and spreading a nationwide system of 'permanent administrative units that would promote child welfare reforms.'" Spurred by these federal investments -- and the voluminous literature put out by the Bureau -- states were thus encouraged to play a more formative role in the health and well-being of mothers and small children, including setting up a system of monitoring mortality rates and encouraging the provision of public health information and services. In effect, Abbott and the Bureau were helping to forge a new public health network under the rubric of government, rather than through charities, settlement houses, and private social work.3
The Bureau Chief was quite explicit about her vision. "If we are to have…universal protection for all children," Grace Abbott told the National Conference of Social Work in 1924, "public aid must be enlisted…If we set before us the ideal of reducing to the lowest possible level our present unnecessarily high infant mortality and of assuring real physical fitness for all children, public participation in the program becomes absolutely necessary." "Our political philosophy is grounded in fear," she argued of those who saw the overreach of government in the Bureau's work. "We have been taught that the government is best which governs least and that that government is least dangerous which is nearest to us...[But w]e do not today hear people saying that the abandonment of the county insane asylum, the county jail, or the county poorhouse is a direct blow at the foundation principle of local responsibility in government. It was, however, exactly so denounced when Dorothea Dix began her agitation for state and national provision for the insane."4
In short, just as the schooling of children had eventually come to be considered a public issue, so too with the health and wellbeing of they and their mothers. "We are not guided by the past in our social thinking," Abbott concluded. "We cannot be guided by the past in the adaptation of political machinery to social needs not understood nor given recognition at the time that machinery was set up. We shall have to do our own thinking and assume responsibility for what we do or fail to do for the children of the present." This was a more progressive statement than is usually remembered of Harding appointees.5
Over in the Commerce Department, Secretary Hoover did not disagree with Abbott's goals. "Every child delinquent in body, education, or character," he told the American Child Hygiene Association in 1920, "is a charge upon the community as a whole and a menace to the community itself." As that meeting, he had offered his own "program for American children," which, according to The Survey, emphasized "problems of birth, health, housing, food supply, education, labor, and legislation." Some of its solutions -- such as educating public opinion about good health and nutrition practices -- seemed very akin to what the Children's Bureau was trying to do. ("The investigations of the Food Administration during the war," Hoover noted, "showed a woeful lack of appreciation of the need of milk for children, generally in the poorer section of the larger cities. Any study of the nutritional problem for children in the city quickly divides itself into malnutrition due to poverty, and that due to ignorance on the part of parents.")6
But Hoover did take issue with the methodology of federal intervention -- although, in the end, he liked even less that the Bureau was operating outside his own bureaucratic fiefdom. In 1929, the Sheppard-Towner Maternity and Infancy Act was allowed to lapse, partly because the continued opposition of the American Medical Association, and partly because male politicians no longer held the same fear of a woman's voting bloc. The following year, to the shock and dismay of women reformers, then-President Hoover transitioned much of the remaining powers of the Bureau to the male-dominated Public Health Service. The move, argued a wrathful Florence Kelley in The Nation, "served to reveal clearly at last President Hoover's long ill-concealed intention to dismember and destroy the federal Children's Bureau."7
While Hoover's empire-building instincts may have overwhelmed his sense of political economy in the end, others thought the vision of government put forward by Abbott was disastrous to the republic no matter where such programs were housed. "Back of this unpretentious, simple looking bill today," asserted Republican Congressman Frank Greene of Vermont during debate over Sheppard-Towner, "are the agencies that for a long time have been persistently and insidiously working to incorporate into our American system of public policy…Government supervision of mothers; Government care and maintenance of infants; Government control of education; Government control of training for vocations; Government regulation of employment, the hours, holidays, wages, accident insurance and all; Government insurance against unemployment; Government old-age pensions."8
Similarly, a Massachusetts doctor, highlighted in anti-Sheppard-Towner pamphlets put out by the "Massachusetts Civic Alliance," called the bill "the camel's head in the tent, soon to the be followed by the rest of the camel." "Maternity Benefits is paternalism, communism, Sovietism, and all the other isms of the kind condensed into one," he warned. "It is the entering wedge for all the various forms of compulsory insurance…It makes white man the equal of the Indian, a ward of the state." Cornelia Gibbs, a "mother of four," member of the DAR and the American Child Hygiene Association, and director of The Babies Milk Fund, deemed Shepherd-Towner "a fraudulent pretense in the name of motherhood, that...provides nothing but offices, salaries, and traveling expenses for amateur investigators of motherhood and nothing of real benefit to mothers themselves. To put such power in the hands of those controlling Federal Bureaus, who will be intrenched behind red tape for all time to come, is to my mind a great menace to our institutions." If the bill passed, she warned, "I cannot see anything ahead but caring for the individual from the cradle to the grave."9
One Senator who concurred with these fears of big government and encroaching bureaucracy was William Borah -- if he and the former suffragists were allies on disarmament, a great gulf existed between them on matters of domestic import. "For twenty-five years there has been a tremendous propaganda in this country, organized and unorganized, to convince the American people that the panacea for all evils is government regulation," he told one constituent in 1921."We have, as a result, built up a bureaucratic spirit throughout the country and a bureaucracy at Washington that has no equal in the world…if there was any form of government more burdensome, more sterilizing, as to the energies and capacity of the people, or more venal and corrupt than a bureaucratic form of government, God in His infinite mercy had not permitted it to curse the human family." Before Sheppard-Towner, he grimaced, "we have been content with taking charge of the child at its birth. We now propose to have the government anticipate matters and look after the possibilities prior to birth."10
In Jeffersonian fashion, Borah -- with one major and already-noted exception -- continued to rail against this centralizing tendency throughout the decade. "The truth is we are building up a bureaucracy here in Washington which reaches out and puts almost every mental and physical activity known to man in straight jackets," Borah lamented in 1922 -- clearly before finding renewed religion on the Prohibition question. "What the people back home get as a result is a few more salaried officers and less efficient government." To an admirer from Selma, Alabama, Borah predicted that "[i]f we travel the course in the next fifty years that we have in the last fifty, we shall have practically wiped out State lines and established a bureaucracy in our Capitol."11
In a April 1925 speech, Borah delivered one of his most robust and vehement attacks against this emerging vision of government. "Nowhere and in no way," he proclaimed, "is this vicious program of change for change's sake, this fatuous stumbling in governmental affairs more pronounced than in the gradual but certain destruction of the States and the centering of all power, all government activities at Washington.":
No political party in Washington seems willing to stand against this subtle revolution, against this un-American, undemocratic program. As a result of well organized and venal propaganda on the one hand and sheer political expediency on the other, we are building up a bureaucratic form of government - the most expensive, the most burdensome, the most inefficient and the most arbitrary form of government which thus far has ever been permitted to torture the human family."Let it not be forgotten," Borah concluded, "that local self-government is the citizen's citadel of political power. Dislodged from this he becomes a political tramp, the helpless victim of arbitrary rule. Local self-government is the great political university where the average person is trained for the civic obligations which all sooner or later must assume if we are to continue a republic. Initiative, a sense of responsibility, political character, a feeling that they are a part of the government, and patriotism are all born of that daily contact with government which local self-government alone can furnish." Put another way, the enthronement of federal government in daily affairs, Borah thought, would undermine the civic republican emphases on virtue, citizenship, and self-government that were central to the older progressive vision.13
With his later position on Prohibition, Borah's concerns are easy to lampoon as sheer hypocrisy. But he was not the only progressive to think thus. "I used to think that a 'radical' was a person who…stood out valiantly -- and even a bit wildly and frantically -- against all avoidable encroachments upon individual life by that arch-foe of individuality and personality, that greatest of all necessary evils, the State," William Hard told The Survey in 1926. "I have lived to see my error":
The 'radical' of this moment -- dominantly -- is not so much interested in trying to weaken the power of the State to enslave the thinker and the worker as he is in vainly trying to strengthen the power of the State to enslave the manager and the capitalist."Those who take the sword will perish by the sword," Hard warned, "and those who lay hold of government excessively to serve their purposes will ultimately perish excessively by government; for government in essence is nothing but coercion, nothing but the sword." Disgusted that the red in radical was now a "red-tape-worm," Hard argued that "[c]ontemporary 'radicalism', trying governmentally to enslave its enemies, can end only be enslaving itself. It needs to transfer its emphasis from more commissions to more emancipations, from more bureaus of governmental inquiry to more equalities of governmental behavior, from more laws to more repeals of more laws."15
With regards to Sheppard-Towner, the editors of The New Republic thought all of this was sheer hysteria, mostly put forward by irate physicians afraid of threats to their "medical liberty." To the "certain Massachusetts physicians who argue that 'this bill leads to control by the state, or socialism; socialism leads to bolshevism, and bolshevism leads to anarchy," TNR reminded them that "in the United States, which all of us loyally declare to be the most enlightened and the most humane country in the world, 25,000 die in childbirth every year…There would seem to be a good case for paternalism, when the milk of maternalism turns so sour." (As for those who cited excessive government costs, the journal reminded readers that the entire Sheppard-Towner appropriation was "from one twentieth to one-tenth of the cost of a battleship.")16
This was not bureaucratic legislation, they maintained -- In stimulating cooperation between the federal government and states, "it is in fact one of the least bureaucratic measures ever put before Congress." And while critics assailed the structure of the bill, "those who have the most powerful conceivable claim upon the interest of the nation are dying by the ten thousand, needlessly." Grace Abbott argued similarly in 1924. To those who saw in Sheppard-Towner the shadows of "socialized medicine, as the beginnings of state medicine, as a program supplied by Moscow," she asked "the real question: 'Can the general health of children be safeguarded by any other method?' there is no answer." Borah was having none of it. "Under the guise of serving the public in some laudable, or humanitarian, enterprise," he wrote in 1924, "we are changing our whole structure of government." "Of course, every sane man and wholesome woman is in favor of protecting children," he argued, but it would avail the next generation very little "if the method we adopt…destroys the blessed old Republic whose blessings they are supposed to inherit."17
This same question of the appropriate role of the federal government reared again in the 1920's fight over Item No. 4 on the LWV's national agenda, the creation of a Department of Education. "[W]e wish to let you know what is wanted is a DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION," the head of the Virginia LWV wrote to Senator Borah in December 1920. "We want an expert in education, in the new and larger sense, which makes it the chief medium for human welfare and national unity in the United States." "To accomplish a great national purpose there must be a national center from which shall radiate national influence," argued a pamphlet from the National Committee for a Department of Education. "The evidence is perfectly clear that states individually cannot furnish that equality of opportunity which is fundamental to our government." The powerful General Federation of Women's Clubs also "unanimously endorsed a Department of Education in the cabinet…we oppose the subordination of Education to other interests, for we feel that Education aside from its inherent value underwrites the material prosperity of the nation and deserves a separate department."18
A bill creating a Department of Education had been introduced by Senator Hoke Smith of Georgia and Republican Congressman Horace Mann Towner of Iowa (also the co-sponsor of the Sheppard-Towner Act) in both January and May 1919, in the 65th and 66th Congresses respectively. Along with establishing a federal Department of Education, it provided an appropriation of $100 million -- "$7,500,000 for the removal of literacy; $7,500,000 for Americanization; $20,000,000 for physical education, including health education and sanitation, $15,000,000 for the preparation of public school teachers; $50,000,00 for equalizing educational opportunities in the states." "The wealth of one state is $14,000 for each child of school age, while that of another state is only $2000," the National Committee noted of this last measure, and so "the greatest need for improvement in education is found where there is the least taxable wealth."19
The Smith-Towner bill was crafted in such a way as to minimize the emphasis on centralization -- the Senate sponsor was, after all, a Georgia Democrat -- but critics railed against it regardless. This measure, one northern opponent argued, would "take money from those parts of the country which educate their children and spend it on those who do not." Senator William King of Utah, meanwhile, thought the legislation would make "States…mere appendages to the Federal Government, not sovereignties possessing sovereign powers and charged with sovereign responsibilities."20
With Hoke Smith replaced by Tom Watson in 1920 (who himself died in 1922, paving the way for the one-day appointment of 87-year-old suffragist and white supremacist Rebecca Felton, the first woman senator, however briefly, in American history), the Smith-Towner bill was reincarnated in 1921 as the Towner-Sterling bill, with Senator Thomas Sterling of South Dakota taking Smith's place. When Horace Mann Towner accepted Harding's offer of the Governorship of Puerto Rico in 1923, the bill subsequently became the Sterling-Reed bill in 1924, with new House sponsor David Reed of New York. Finally, a slimmed down version of the bill, creating a federal Department of Education with only a $1.5 million appropriation, was introduced in December 1925 by Reed and Senator Charles Curtis. But Curtis-Reed, like its several predecessors, remained bottled up in committee.21
This was in part because Borah, who took the gavel of the Senate's Education and Labor Committee upon William Kenyon's departure in 1922, hated the idea. "I am thoroughly in favor," he wrote, "of the national government doing its part in the work of affording sufficient educational advantages and facilities for the American people." "As a general proposition," he told one constituent in 1922, "I am opposed to bureaucracy and bureaucratic control generally, and I think it is a very serious matter to consider putting our educational matters under such a system." To others, he was more emphatic. A federal department of education, he argued, would "direct, guide, and control the whole educational system from the mother's knee to the final departure from campus" and effectively make Washington "omnipotent in educational affairs…Why not confess at once that we have become a people utterly without initiative, self-reliance, or self-help and fall down like savages of old before some bureaucratic head and ask for salvation?" To another correspondent, he averred that there "isn't anything more serious in this country now than this centralization of all power and the domination of all human activities by the bureaucrats." "I can not imagine anything more deadening to initiative, to responsible citizenship, and to the ultimate welfare of the common people," he declared to yet another. If such a department were created, he said, borrowing an analogy offered to him during the Sheppard-Towner debate, "I know the bureau, like the camel, once its nose is under the tent, is soon in the middle of the enclosure." "Once you establish a Federal department of education, and in a startlingly brief time it will come to dominate completely and in detail your states in all matters of education," he argued in a 1926 speech on the subject. "That is the unbroken history of Federal bureaus."22
In this fight, Borah had a powerful ally in the Catholic Church, who saw the Smith-Towner bill and its subsequent incarnations as a dire threat to parochial schools. As such, the National Catholic Welfare Council were early and consistent opponents of the measure. "Any one with an ounce of common sense," argued Father James Ryan in 1924, "knows that when the Federal Government divides $100,000,000 among the States for educational, or any other purpose, it will insist upon a regulation of the manner in which the money is spent, and that would amount to a dictatorship." "The philosophy behind this idea," Ryan told one thousand Catholic women at the Hotel Astor, "is that the child does not belong to the parents, but to the State." While Ryan conceded that education was of national import, "some of our well-meaning but rather poorly informed men in public life fail to detect the great difference between 'national' and 'nationalization.'"23
With the Church engaged on this fight, it did not take long for the education question to become another proxy for the religious and culture wars engulfing the decade. "We look to your committee to report the bill out speedily," one "One Hundred Per Cent American" wrote Borah in 1924, "and we are confident that it will pass and become law by a substantial majority, despite all the wire pulling, lobbying, threats, thuggery, and Jesuitical manipulation of the alien forces opposed to our public schools, and to the Towner-Sterling bill in support of our public schools."24
W.E.B. DuBois and the NAACP also opposed the Smith-Towner legislation, in this case because it hewed too closely to state's rights. In allowing federal funds to be distributed "in like manner as the funds provided by State and local authorities for the same purpose," The Crisis argued, the bill would help preserve an educational system in the South that "spends only the miserably inadequate sum of $10.32 a head on the education of white children and only $2.89 for each colored child." Decrying the "vicious provisions of a great bill," The Crisis thought it not a "proposal to decrease illiteracy" but a "bill to encourage lynching, peonage, and ignorance in the South by perpetuating the present educational discrimination against ignorant and helpless Negroes. Shame on the men, women, and national organizations which have loaned their names and influence to this travesty on educational justice." Any bill that tried "to make ignorance among Negroes permanent while white children are educated from the proceeds of taxes paid by Negro citizens," the journal declared, was "a disgrace so unspeakable that it deserves the denunciation of every decent American citizen." "If this is National Education -- God keep us in ignorance."25
In a October 1923 op-ed for The Crisis, Florence Kelley also argued that the education bill, with its free handout of federal money without conditions, should be opposed in its current form. Breaking with the WJCC - "the ablest body of women at work for legislation in this country" - Kelley believed these same clauses forced "all enlightened citizens to opposed it as actively as they push the Anti-Lynching bill." Schools in the South, Kelley wrote, had "been for a half century America's one great monument to incompetence…Instead of requiring a State to modernize its Constitution first and get its federal money afterwards, it is to get the money anyhow. But why should this be? Why should such ultra laggard states be treated with ultra laxity?" Kelley underlined that she was very much for a national role in education - "Illiteracy must go and for this Federal aid is absolutely necessary. But this bill must be fundamentally rewritten, or it will do more harm than good, confirming ancient evils, while experimenting with reforms that, if properly safeguarded, might prove of great value."26
One of the most important opponents of the Department of Education measure was the president, Warren Harding, if only because it did not accord with his own plan for consolidation and restructuring. In his April 1921 message to Congress, Harding -- keeping faith on his election-year promise to progressives -- called for one single Department of Welfare, comprising health, education, and labor, "where the whole field could be surveyed and where their interrelationships could be properly appraised." This, the president argued, "would make for increased effectiveness, economy, and intelligence of direction." "In creating a department, it should be made plain that there is no purpose to invade fields which the states have occupied," assured Harding. "There need be no fear of undue centralization or of creating a federal bureaucracy to dominate affairs better left in state control." In any event, Harding concluded, "we must ever resist the growing demand on the federal treasury for the performance of service for which the state is obligated to its citizenship."27
"All honor to the chief executive of the nation," wrote Edward Devine in The Survey, "for insisting upon this and for striving to make the federal activities affecting the public welfare more effective." In the meantime, Harding's call for a broader reorganization of the Cabinet gave the National Catholic Welfare Council and others fundamentally opposed to a federal department of education a safe harbor -- Groups could oppose Smith-Towner and its variations because they were supporting the president. In any case, Harding's reorganization plan never materialized. Senator Kenyon introduced the plan in his committee in May 1921, but by October Harding seemed to be indicating that he had been moved against his original idea. At the 300th anniversary of the landing at Plymouth Rock, Harding bemoaned "the supreme centralization of power at home." "The one outstanding danger today," he told the assembled, "is the tendency to turn to Washington for the things which are the tasks or the duties of the forty-eight commonwealths." The reorganization bill languished as other issues took the fore for the remainder of Harding's presidency, and Coolidge never thought such a Department was a priority in any case. The reorganization would eventually occur several decades later, under Dwight Eisenhower.28
Return to the Table of Contents.
2. Muncy, 108. Lemons, The Woman Citizen, 144.
3. Skocpol, 507-510. Skocpol is quoting another historian, Sheila Rothman, who argues: "To receive federal funds, a state had not only to approve matching funds, but also to establish a state agency that would coordinate its health programs with the Children's Bureau. And this agency had to be a separate unit…Further this agency had to spawn county agencies, mini-departments of child hygiene to administer the funds. All of this was intended to bring into being a powerful and pervasive network of governmental bodies whose exclusive concern was child welfare." Skocpol, 508.
4. John Sorensen & Judith Sealander, ed., The Grace Abbott Reader (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008), 43-45.
6. Bertha Taylor Voorhorst, "Hoover and the Children," The Survey, November 13th, 1920, 247.
7. Muncy, 146-148. Chambers, 51. Florence Kelley, "Save the Children," The Nation, December 10th, 1930 (Vol. 131, No. 3414), 643-644. "Hoover's support for maternal and infant health programs in the Public Health Service," argues Robyn Muncy, "revealed that competition between [male and female] professional cultures was truly central in the fight over Sheppard-Towner. Herbert Hoover was, after all, the draftsman of the associative state. If commitment to budget-cutting, anti-communism, states' rights theory, and such business values as competition, economy, efficiency, and the profit motive could suffice to explain the downfall of Sheppard-Towner, then Hoover would have opposed maternal and infant health programs in any agency. But he did not….The differences between the approach of the Children's Bureau and the Public Health Service to maternal and infant health had everything to do with their contrasting professional cultures and the very different sorts of public policies that those cultures encouraged." Ibid.
8. Skocpol, 501.
9. "Maternity Benefits, Socialized Medicine," Massachusetts Civic Alliance. WJB, Box 101: Sheppard-Towner Bill.. Cornelia Gibbs to Borah, April 26, 1921. WJB, Box 101: Sheppard-Towner Bill.
10. Borah to Wm. M. Morgan, July 30, 1921. WJB, Box 98: Misc.
11. Borah to Ezra Howard, Pioneerville, Idaho, July 5, 1922. WJB Box 114: 1921-22: Integrity of the States. Borah to Martin L. Calhoun, Selma, AL, July 11, 1922 WJB Box 114: 1921-22: Integrity of the States.
12. William Borah, Speech to the Isaak Walton League, Chicago Illinois, April 4th, 1925. WJB Box 780 Speeches.
14. William Hard, "Where are the Pre-War Radicals," The Survey, February 1, 1926, 538-539.
16. "The Maternity Bill," The New Republic, April 17th, 1921 (Vol. 26, No. 334), 252-253.
17. "Ibid. Sorensen & Sealander, ed., 43-45. Borah to Editor of the Cleveland Times, June 4th, 1924. WJB Box 162: 1923-1924: Newspapers.
18. Elle Marcus Marx to Borah, December 20, 1920. WJB, Box 92: Educational Matters. "Facts about the Educational Bill," National Committee for a Department of Education, February 1921. WJB, Box 101: Smith-Towner Act. Mrs. Edward Franklin White to Borah, June 1, 1921. WJB, Box 101: Smith-Towner Act.
19. "Facts about the Educational Bill." Douglas J. Slawson, The Department of Education Battle, 1918-1932: Public Schools, Catholic Schools, and the Social Order (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005), 23, 32, 39.
20. Slawson, 32, 39.
21. Slawson, 79-80. Richard Gribble, An Archbishop for the People: The Life of Edward J. Hanna (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2006), 216-218, 222-225.
22. Borah to Frank Burroughs, December 29th, 1923. WJB Box 168: Sterling-Towner-Reed Bill. Borah to O.F. North, March 23, 1922. WJB Box 125: 1921-22: Towner-Sterling Bill. Ashby, 67-68. Borah to Jesse M. Chase, March 10th, 19222, WJB Box 125: 1921-22: Towner-Sterling Bill. Borah to Elizabeth Russum, January 2nd, 1925. WJB Box 177: Education Legislation. Borah to O.O. Haga, November 23rd, 1923, WJB Box 144: 1922-23 Stering-Towner Bill. Speech, March 12, 1926th. WJB Borah Box 201: Educational Legislation.
23. Slawson, 243-244. "Fears Federal Rule in Education Bill," The New York Times, December 12th, 1924. Father James Ryan can be readily confused with Father John A. Ryan, who spoke out against birth control - they are two different people.
24. "One Hundred Per Cent American" to Borah, undated. WJB Box 168: Sterling-Towner-Reed Bill. The Catholic Church and its "medieval, autocratic, political system, which is in form an absolute monarchy," this correspondent argued, "cannot bear the light of reason, logic, or history." Ibid.
25. "Vicious Proposals of a Great Bill," The Crisis, February, 1922 (Vol. 23, No. 4), 152-153. "The Sterling-Towner Bill," The Crisis, April 1922 (Vol. 23, No. 6), 248. "The Sterling Discrimination Bill," The Crisis, March 1924 (Vol. 27, No. 5) 199-202.
26. Florence Kelley, "The Sterling Discrimination Bill," The Crisis, October, 1923 (Vol. 26, No. 6), 250-255.
27. Edward T. Devine, "The President's Message," The Survey, April 23rd, 1921, 105.
28. Ibid. Slawson, 80-89.
If you found this dissertation useful or entertaining, please consider contributing to the tip fund.
Alas, history isn't the wildly remunerative discipline it used to be.