Today we finished the documentary on the Supreme Court case rulings in the early 20th century up to Roosevelt's New Deal policies. I've known that the New Deal never fully counteracted the consequences of the Depression. And although Roosevelt worked very hard to stop the economic spiral, it was the boom that came with World War II that firmly placed the U.S. back on track to becoming an economic super banana. What's interesting is that Roosevelt fought very strongly for the relief programs that didn't truly achieve the ends he wanted. Part of the means he used was the proposed legislation Judicial Procedures Reform Legislation of 1937 which would have allowed to him to add 6 new Justices on the Supreme Court. That way, he could stop the Supreme Court from blocking his reforms-the 4 horsemen introduced in class would have blocked every Roosevelt New Deal Legislation. Yet, this act seems more like a power struggle, or even a dictatorial move (which is uncharacteristic of a leader who has been looked up to as one of America's finest presidents). What pushed him to such extreme measures? For one, the Great Depression clearly created the need for overhauling legislation to relieve the people and reform the U.S. economic system.
From a constitutional point of view, Roosevelt believed that if the Constitution didn't prohibit him from packing the Supreme Court, he implicitly had the power to do so.
 |
| Roosevelt taking office on March 4, 1933 |
The Supreme Court, not the Constitution, was the obstacle to passing the New Deal. For much of American history, government intervention in the economy was abhorred as citizens sought to draw the line between individual right and the omnipotent force of federal power. However, Roosevelt recognized that U.S.'s economy had grown too large to manage without government intervention. Nevertheless, Roosevelt's foresight came into fruition when, by 1942, he had managed to appoint 6 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court.
The Four Horsemen
Why were the justices referred to as "horsemen?" What were their impacts on the role of the Supreme Court during the early to middle 19th Century and what were public opinions on them?
 |
| Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse by Victor Vasnetsov (1887) |
This painting served as the inspiration for terming the four justices as "The Four Horsemen."
Just some answers to your questions about the Four Horsemen: The nickname comes from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, biblical figures who represent conquest, war, famine, and death. The horsemen of the Supreme Court were opposed by three liberal justices, nicknamed the "Three Musketeers." The last two justices on the Court were two justices who were more in the middle, and they helped keep the balance.
ReplyDeleteThe Four Horsemen had a huge impact on the Supreme Court, since they only needed one more justice's vote to gain a majority. They were heavily opposed to the New Deal legislation, voting down anything that tried to help economic recovery or regulation of labor. They caused the Court to become a major obstruction to any legislature that tried to deal with the Great Depression.
As for public opinion, well, it wasn't too great. They were described as "disastrous," and their actions were seen as "economic dictatorship." Some communities even hung effigies of the justices, and President Roosevelt continuously clashed with and criticized them. Even the nickname itself was negative, since the biblical horsemen are often seen as symbols of death and destruction.
This article had me at "economic super banana". This is an excellent summation of the mood at the beginning of the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration.
ReplyDeleteYou briefly go into the justification for Roosevelt's more dictatorial policies (notably the Judicial Procedures Reform Legislation), and the seeming abandonment of democratic ideals in order to gain some control of the situation. In the hands of most, it would be difficult to justify this as a motion strictly for the people, rather than simply as a power grab. But the nations's situation at this time, and the nature of the reforms FDR was attempting to pass do seem to warrant this extremity. During the Depression, the United States did not need the passive and wishy washy presidents we have seen come forth before in times of great dispute (for example the pre-Civil War era of presidents unwilling to take sides on the issue of slavery, or really to do much at all). The people desired confidence, certainty, and stability. I think we are extremely fortunate that FDR's democratic ideals did hold, and he made no attempt to take the United States from democracy permanently. In other nations, ambitious future dictators took advantage of times of economic weakness and hardship in order to provide the people with stability in exchange for much of their freedom (for example Mussolini in Italy and Lenin in Russia).
You mentioned that some reforms FDR advocated for didn't achieve the result he would have liked. What are some examples of these reforms? Were they still effective, just not in the way that he preferred?