new deal for veterans

8/13/2019 New Deal for Veterans

1/25

The New Deal for Veterans: The Economy Act, the Veterans of

Foreign Wars, and the Origins of New Deal Dissent

Stephen R. Ortiz

The Journal of Military History, Volume 70, Number 2, April 2006, pp.

415-438 (Article)

Published by Society for Military History

DOI: 10.1353/jmh.2006.0119

For additional information about this article

Access provided by Humber College (23 Oct 2013 18:01 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jmh/summary/v070/70.2ortiz.html
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jmh/summary/v070/70.2ortiz.htmlhttp://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jmh/summary/v070/70.2ortiz.html


2/25

415

MILITARY veterans can pose significant problems for democraticsocieties. Although governments and civilians typically venerateex-soldiers for their wartime contributions, veterans postwar demands

for pensions and special benefits can make for an awkward relationship.

* I would like to thank Jeff Adler, Bob Zieger, Jennifer Keene, and Kurt Piehler fortheir helpful criticism and words of encouragement during the writing of this piece. Iam also grateful to Bruce Vandervort and theJournals anonymous reviewers for pro-viding very useful suggestions that enhanced this essay considerably. Last, specialthanks to the staff and Institute of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library andto Richard Kolb at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri.

The Journal of Military History 70 (April 2006): 41538 Society for Military History

Stephen R. Ortiz is an Assistant Professor of History at East Stroudsburg Uni-versity of Pennsylvania. He received his Ph.D. at the University of Florida and is

currently revising his dissertation, Soldier-Citizens: The Veterans of Foreign

Wars and Veteran Political Activism from the Bonus March to the GI Bill, for

publication. Readers may contact Ortiz at .

The New Deal for Veterans:

The Economy Act, the Veterans of

Foreign Wars, and the Origins ofNew Deal Dissent

Stephen R. Ortiz*

Abstract

This article examines the impact of military veterans on the New

Deal era. In 1934 the passage of the Economy Act, which severely

cut veteran benefits, triggered a wave of political mobilization that

laid the foundations for organized New Deal dissent. The response

of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) to the Economy Act situated

the organization in the vanguard of New Deal Dissidents, includ-

ing Huey P. Long, Father Charles E. Coughlin, and their supporters.In this coalition, military veterans expressed early and crucial

voices of protest. And the politics of veterans pensions and bene-

fits, in turn, profoundly shaped the New Deal era.


3/25

THE JOURNAL OF416

Indeed, by defining pensions and benefits as earned compensation ratherthan governmental largesse, veterans and their organizations have comeinto frequent conflict with their governments over the nature of military

service and the requisites of citizenship.1

And, these intenselypoliticalconflicts can have a wide-ranging historical impact. In the United States,the political battles over veterans special claims on the state havegreatly influenced the contours of both American partisan politics andstate formation. Revolutionary War pensions, battles over the bloodyshirt and Civil War pensions, the Bonus March of World War I veterans,and the passage of the G.I. Bill have located veterans at the heart ofpostrevolutionary political culture,2 Gilded Age partisan politics,3 Pro-gressive Era institutional development,4 the upheaval of the Great

Depression,5

and the postWorld War II state,6

respectively.

1. On this issue, see Eliot A. Cohen, Citizens and Soldiers: The Dilemmas ofMilitary Service (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1985); and Samuel P. Hunt-ington, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957).

2. For postrevolutionary veterans, see John P. Resch,Suffering Soldiers: Revo-lutionary War Veterans, Moral Sentiment, and Political Culture in the Early Repub-

lic (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999); and Leonard L. Richards,Shayss Rebellion: The American Revolutions Final Battle (Philadelphia: University

of Pennsylvania Press, 2002).3. On Civil War pensions and politics, see Stuart McConnell, Glorious Content-ment: The Grand Army of the Republic, 18651900 (Chapel Hill: University of NorthCarolina Press, 1992); and Mark W. Summers,Party Games: Getting, Keeping, andUsing Power in Gilded Age Politics (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,2004).

4. On Civil War veteran welfare and state-building during the Gilded Age andProgressive Era, see Patrick J. Kelly, Creating a National Home: Building the Veter-

ans Welfare State, 18601900 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997);Theda Skocpol,Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Pol-

icy (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1992); Ann Shola Orloff, The Politics of Pen-

sions: A Comparative Analysis of Britain, Canada, and the United States,18801940 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993); and K. Walter Hickel,War, Region, and Social Welfare: Federal Aid to Servicemens Dependents in theSouth, 19171921, Journal of American History 87 (March 2001): 136291, andEntitling Citizens: World War I, Progressivism, and the Origins of the American Wel-fare State, 19171928 (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1999).

5. On the Bonus March, see Roger Daniels, The Bonus March: An Episode of theGreat Depression (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1971); Donald J. Lisio, The

President and Protest: Hoover, Conspiracy, and the Bonus Riot (Columbia: Univer-sity of Missouri Press, 1974); Jennifer D. Keene, Doughboys, the Great War, and the

Remaking of America (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001); LucyG. Barber,Marching on Washington: The Forging of an American Political Tradition(Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2002); and Paul Dickson and ThomasB. Allen, The Bonus Army: An American Epic (New York: Walker and Co., 2005).

6. On the G.I. Bill, see Davis R. B. Ross,Preparing for Ulysses: Politics and Vet-erans during World War II (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969); Michael J.

STEPHEN R. ORTIZ


4/25

MILITARY HISTORY 417

Surprisingly, however, scholars have devoted little attention to thepolitics of veteran pensions during the presidential administrations ofFranklin D. Roosevelt (193345).7 His unprecedented time in office was

immediately preceded by the Bonus March, the 1932 occupation of thenations capital by 40,000 World War I veterans demanding cash pay-ment on certificates known as the Bonus. For this reason, New Dealscholars tend to contrast FDRs treatment of veterans with his predeces-sors rough handling of the Bonus Marchers, thereby portraying an ami-cable relationship consummated in 1944 by the passage of the G.I. Bill,legislation that gave returning World War II veterans social and eco-nomic entitlements of unparalleled proportions.8 Work on the BonusMarch takes note of FDRs opposition to the soldiers bonus, but the

congressional override of his Bonus Bill veto in 1936 stands out only asan awkward political moment on the road to the G.I. Bill dnouement.9

Yet, it was FDRs relief and recovery programthe New Deal itselfthatbrought the volatile issues of veteran pensions and benefits to the fore-front of the eras politics. In 1933, when Great War veterans cast a darkshadow over European politics by playing instrumental roles in the riseof the fascist regimes of Italy and Germany, these issues assumed an airof palpable menace.10

On 9 March 1933, as the Roosevelt administration initiated the New

Deal in a flurry of legislative activity known as the Hundred Days, vet-eran politics exploded into view once again. The Bill To Maintain theCredit of the United States Government, passed on 20 March, becamethe second piece of legislation pushed through the 73d Congress. More

Bennett, When Dreams Came True: The GI Bill and the Making of Modern America(Washington: Brasseys, 1996); and Mark D. van Ells, To Hear Only Thunder Again:

Americas World War II Veterans Come Home (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books,2001).

7. For the best treatment, see William P. Dillingham,Federal Aid to Veterans,

19171941 (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1952); William Pencak,For Godand Country: The American Legion, 19191941 (Boston: Northeastern UniversityPress, 1989); and Thomas A. Rumer, The American Legion: An Official History,19191989 (New York: M. Evans and Co., 1990).

8. A select list of New Deal political narratives includes Arthur M. Schlesinger,The Age of Roosevelt, 3 vols. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 195760); William E.Leuchtenburg, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 19321940 (New York:Harper and Row, 1963); Kenneth S. Davis, FDR: The New Deal Years, 19331937(New York: Random House, 1979); and David M. Kennedy,Freedom From Fear: The

American People in Depression and War, 19291945 (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1999).

9. See note 5 for work on the Bonus March.10. For two comparative studies of Great War veterans, see Stephen R. Ward,

ed., The War Generation: Veterans of the First World War (Port Washington, N.Y.:Kennikat Press, 1975); and Deborah Cohen, The War Come Home: Disabled Veterans

in Britain and Germany, 19141939 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000).

The New Deal for Veterans


5/25

THE JOURNAL OF418

popularly known as the Economy Act, this bill drastically cut federalexpenditures through a 400-million-dollar reduction in veteran pensionsand benefits.11 The retrenchment of the Economy Act triggered a rapid

political mobilization by military veterans against New Deal policy.Although obscured by the long shadows of the Bonus March, this politicaluprising by veterans laid the foundations for organized New Deal dissent.

One organization, in particular, served as a crucial meeting groundfor veterans critical of the New Deal: the Veterans of Foreign Wars(VFW). Initially, the VFW offered FDR enthusiastic support. After pas-sage of the Economy Act, however, the VFW denounced the Rooseveltadministration for reconfiguring the federal governments responsibili-ties for military veterans. In doing so, VFW officials and members chas-

tised FDR for not acting more decidedly in the favor of ordinary citizensand decried the continuing influence of Big Business and Wall Streeton the political economy. Indeed, the VFWs fierce response to the Econ-omy Act situated the organization in the vanguard of New Deal Dissi-dents, a group which would include Huey P. Long, Father Charles E.Coughlin, and their reported millions of supporters.12 By 1935, the forcesof the VFW and the New Deal Dissidents decisively converged in thestruggle to pass the Bonus Bill, a coalition that raised the specter of anew party consisting of Long and Coughlin supporters, buttressed by the

veteran vote. Thus, with the Economy Act as the catalyst, the VFWbecame one of the original voices of protest against the New Deal.13

11. The Economy Act remains one of the most under-examined pieces of NewDeal legislation. For the best discussion of the centrality of fiscal conservatism to FDRand the first stages of the New Deal, see Frank Freidel, Franklin D. Roosevelt:

Launching the New Deal (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1973), 23754, 44853;James E. Sargent,Roosevelt and the Hundred Days: Struggles for the Early New Deal(New York: Garland Publishing, 1981); and Julian Zelizer, The Forgotten Legacy ofthe New Deal: Fiscal Conservatism and the Roosevelt Administration, 19331938,

Presidential Studies Quarterly 30, no. 2 (2000): 33158.12. I employ this phrase borrowing heavily from the discussion of dissident ide-

ology in Alan Brinkley, Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and the GreatDepression (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982), especially 14368. Other terms such asprogressives, insurgents, native radicals, and populists lack the specificity, both histor-ical and historiographical, of New Deal Dissidents. For more on New Deal Dissidents,see also Schlesinger, The Age of Roosevelt, vol. 3; David H. Bennett,Demagogues in the

Depression: American Radicals and the Union Party, 19321936 (New Brunswick,N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1969); and David Horowitz, Beyond Left and Right:

Insurgency and the Establishment (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997).13. For the literature on the VFW, see Mary Katherine Goldsmith, The Veter-

ans of Foreign Wars of the United States: The History of a Veterans Organization, ItsFunction in Assisting Veterans, Influencing National Legislation, and Interpreting andPromoting Americanism, 18991948 (M.A. thesis, University of Kansas City, 1963);Herbert Molloy Mason, Jr., VFW: Our First Century, 18991999 (Lenexa, Kans.:

Addax Publishing Group, 1999); and Stephen R. Ortiz, Soldier-Citizens: The Veter-

STEPHEN R. ORTIZ


6/25


A drive for reductions in federal expenditures began in the waningmonths of the Herbert C. Hoover administration (192933). In Novem-

ber 1932, Hoover proposed budget cuts of 500 to 700 million dollars toremedy the burgeoning federal budget deficits caused by the GreatDepression.14 The Joint Congressional Committee on Veteran Affairs metthroughout the winter of 193233 to investigate the feasibility of theplan of the National Economy League (NEL) to cut veteran benefits bynearly 50 percent, over 400 million dollars. Led by Archibald Roosevelt,Calvin Coolidge, and Admiral Richard E. Byrd, the NEL dedicated itsefforts toward the continued pursuit of fiscal conservatism, a pursuit thatincluded opposition to the World War I soldiers bonus and to the sup-

posedly wasteful extravagance of veteran benefits. Unsurprisingly, theHoover administration, Congress, and the NEL encountered stiff resis-tance from veterans organizations bent on halting any legislation detri-mental to veterans compensation.15

The VFW, joined by the American Legion, quickly mobilized tocounter plans for reductions in veteran benefits. VFW legislative repre-sentatives lobbied Congress intensively, attended the joint committeesmeetings, and testified against the proposed reductions. In February1933, VFW National Legislative Vice Chairman L. S. Ray refuted the

anti-veteran testimony of the National Economy League, United StatesChamber of Commerce, and National Association of Manufacturersbefore the committee. The veteran organizations determined lobbyingappeared to work; no legislation resulted from the committees work.However,Foreign Service, the VFWs monthly publication, warned thatwhile the NEL plan stood defeated and discredited, the cause of the vet-eran is by no means out of danger. On the contrary, organized veteran-dom must continue to follow the VFW in combating the activities ofthose who would pounce upon the issue of economy as a means of wip-

ing out existing veteran legislation. VFW Commander-in-Chief AdmiralR. E. Coontz called the VFW legislative committee very successful infighting off legislation inimical to the VFW and said the committeewould keep it up until March 4, the date of Roosevelts inauguration.

ans of Foreign Wars and Veteran Political Activism from the Bonus March to the GIBill (Ph.D. diss., University of Florida, 2004).

14. New York Times, 20 November 1932; and Freidel,Launching the New Deal,51.

15. For reporting on the Joint Committee, see Washington Post, 7, 9, 2122December 1932, and 4, 5, 10, 12 January 1933;Foreign Service, February 1933, 45,1011, 25, and March 1933, 10; Pencak,For God and Country, 17075; and Rumer,The American Legion, 196201.



7/25

THE JOURNAL OF420

Coontz hoped that in the coming Congress every question regardingveterans will be considered with the care is due it [sic].16

Coontz and the VFW clearly believed the incoming administration

and Congress would handle the issue of veteran benefits differently.Indeed, the March issue ofForeign Service ran a glowing article on Roo-sevelt, entitled Franklin D.the Fighter. This positive treatmentdetailed FDRs actions as Assistant Secretary of the Navy during theWorld War and attempted to convince VFW members of FDRs frustratedintentions to enlist in the Navy. The article claimed that except for thescourge of influenza . . . he would now be eligible to membership in theVFW. Following this logic, the article urged VFW members regardlessof political differences to hail Franklin D. Roosevelt . . . as a comrade

a comrade in spirit truly! The article highlighted the following state-ment from FDR, laying out the differences between Roosevelt andHoover in sharp relief: I shall ceaselessly endeavor to bring governmentback to a more intimate understanding of and relation to human prob-lems.17

The optimism accompanying the beginning of Roosevelts presi-dency pervaded the VFW. In the first weeks of March 1933, VFW postspoured congratulatory telegrams and letters into the White House. Post2235, Neponset, Massachusetts, wrote Roosevelt with barely contained

zeal, Its zero hour. We are ready to go over the top with you and driveold man depression out of his trenches by X-mas. Raymond Price, thecommander of Post 518 in Camden, New Jersey, thanked Roosevelt, not-ing, It is gratifying to know we have at last a president that all the peo-ple can look to for leadership. The prayers of the American people havebeen answered. Comrade W. E. Dowling of Post 1941, Irvington, NewJersey, offered Roosevelt a less-giddy welcome and enunciated a com-mon veteran understanding of the 1932 election. Dowling wrote, TheWar Veterans who secured your election beg to have you beware of the

Republican treachery.18

The VFW soon realized that treachery had come to pass, but not ofthe Republican variety. Indeed, 20 March 1933 marks the beginning oforganized New Deal dissent. Less than two weeks after his inauguration,FDRs signing of the Economy Act forced the VFW to reevaluate its con-fidence in the Roosevelt administration. Unknown to the VFW, Roosevelt

16. Foreign Service, February 1933, 4; and Washington Post, 412 January1933. Coontz inForeign Service,March 1933, 31.

17.Foreign Service,

March 1933, 7, 26.18. VFW Post 2235, Neponset, Mass., to FDR, 3 March 1933; Raymond G. Price,Corp. Matthews-Purnell Post 518, Camden, N.J., to FDR, 10 March 1933; and Com-rade W. E. Dowling of Corp. John McGotty Post 1941, Irvington, N.J., to FDR, 18 Feb-ruary 1933, in Veterans of Foreign Wars, 19331936, Presidents Personal File (PPF)87, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library (FDRL), Hyde Park, New York.

STEPHEN R. ORTIZ


8/25


and his appointee as Budget Director, Lewis Douglas, also had beenworking throughout the interregnum on legislation to balance the bud-get through sharp reductions in veteran benefits. Only the worsening

banking crisis derailed FDRs plans to offer the bill as the administra-tions first piece of legislation. Introduced on 9 March 1933, and steam-rolled through an acquiescent Congress, the Economy Act gave the ChiefExecutive discretionary powers over veteran benefits. By delegatingthose powers to Budget Director Douglas, a decorated World War veteranand strong proponent of fiscal austerity, FDR attempted simultaneouslyto remove veteran benefits from congressional oversight and to distancehimself from this politically sensitive issue.19

FDR, however, failed at both. Instead, the Roosevelt administration

provoked a confrontation with disgruntled veterans and a bipartisancoalition of congressional dissenters vowing to repeal the bill. The VFWmobilized immediately against the Economy Act. VFW national officersand posts throughout the nation vehemently protested passage of the billand the new regulations. VFW officials and members, once warm to theadministration, disparaged the New Deal in blistering attacks. Aghast atthe drastic cuts in disability pensions460 million dollars in cuts almostprecisely as proposed by the NELand new stringent guidelines forproving service-related disabilities, the VFW assaulted the plan in no

uncertain terms.The VFWs leadership began the offensive against the Economy Act.

Foreign Service editorialized, the so-called economy bill virtuallydestroys the basic structure of veteran legislation created during the pastfifteen years. In an editorial titled Blood Money, the VFW nationalleadership explained the veteran case against the Economy Act. TheVFW leadership argued that veterans would have gladly agreed to cuts inbenefits for the sake of economy if Congress had first considered wip-ing out useless bureaus and commissions, putting a stop to huge subsi-

dies, and striking at the root of the tremendous extravagance created bya bureaucratic government. But Congresss Economy Act consideredonly economies in veteran benefits, thus reflecting the agenda of BigBusiness. The editorial continued, The obvious fact that the EconomyBill reflects the very language that featured the propaganda of theNational Economy League indicates that this new legislation achievesthe objectives of those who found it profitable to sponsor and financethat organizationthose who control the wealth of the nation.20

19. On the fundamental fiscal conservatism of FDR, Douglass instructions towork on cuts in veteran benefits, and the importance of balancing the budget to theearly New Deal, see Freidel,Launching the New Deal, 23754; and Sargent,Roosevelt

and the Hundred Days, 6874.20. Foreign Service,April 1933, 4.



9/25

THE JOURNAL OF422

The VFWs critique of the Economy Act folded into a larger indict-

ment of the political and economic system. Cuts in benefits alone wouldhave touched off heated criticism, but the VFW argument against thereductions enumerated in the Economy Act employed veteran under-standings of the World War, the causes of the Depression, and the pre-vailing political economy. Veterans widely considered corporate avariceand greed, the concentration of wealth, and the corruption of the politi-cal system by Wall Street and Big Business to be the causes of boththe Great Warand the Depression. Thus, the VFW leadership concludedthe editorial, It is apparent that the veteran has been forced to bear the

burden of a depression that was actually caused by his enemiesthepredatory interests that have their hands in the public till. The moneythat will be withheld from the disabled veteran . . . can only be regardedas blood money.21

Editorial drawings by the VFWs artist and political cartoonist, Her-bert E. Lake, accompanied the vitriol on the editorial pages of ForeignService. Lake graphically depicted VFW sentiment regarding the Econ-omy Act. In the panel titled, Some Call This Economy (Fig. 1), Lakeportrayed the proponents of the Economy Act as executioners. The fir-

ing squad was lined with figures wearing top hat and tails labeledNational Economy League and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, whilethree veteransone each from the Civil War, the Spanish-American War,

21. Ibid.

Fig. 1. Some Call This Economy, Foreign Service,April 1933.

Reprinted by permission of the VFW.

STEPHEN R. ORTIZ


10/25


and the World Warcalmly but sternly faced their executioners. In TheFirst Casualty of Americas War on Depression (Fig. 2), Lake contin-ued to express the VFWs reaction to the Economy Act. In this drawing,a World War veteran lay prostrate and bleeding from a vicious bayonetthrust in the back. The rifle to which the bayonet is affixed was labeledeconomy. As the caption suggested, Roosevelts War on Depressionpresented dire and unexpected consequences for veterans. In short time,the expressions of distrust and dissatisfaction with the Roosevelt admin-

istration became more pronounced in the pages ofForeign Service.22The VFW national leadership began to assail the New Deal more gen-

erally, not just the rapacity of the Economy Act. By April 1933, VFW

22. Ibid., 56.

Fig. 2. The First Casualty in Americas War on Depression!,

Foreign Service,April 1933. Reprinted by permission of the VFW.



11/25

THE JOURNAL OF424

leadership recognized that Roosevelt had not been duped into the pas-sage of the Economy Act. On the contrary, the Roosevelt administrationopenly sided with the business community on veteran issues and con-

tinued the conservative fiscal policies that had characterized the vilifiedHoover administration. And, despite administration assurances that thecuts would be handled justly and humanely, reductions proved evenmore draconian than the VFW originally feared. The Economy Actremoved 501,777 veterans and their dependents from the pension roll.Those who retained disability benefits shouldered anywhere from 25 to80 percent in reductions.23 The VFW, therefore, concluded that the NewDeals policies threatened to undermine irrevocably the privileged posi-tions expected by veterans and their supporters. From this point, the

VFW leadership began referring to the Roosevelt administrations reliefand recovery efforts with ironic quotation marks around the phrasenew deal. One characteristic editorial began, the tragic consequencesof the new deal in veteran legislation become more and more apparent,while an article outlining the specifics of veteran benefit reductions wasentitled An Analysis of the New Deal for Disabled Veterans.24

The VFW also communicated this message through the very effectiveuse of critical humor. The back page ofForeign Service always containeda list of jokes and comic drawings known as Jest-A-Minute. This sec-

tion began to include jokes critical of the Roosevelt administration. Inthe following jokes, veterans lampooned the New Deal:

Dealers Choice

A gagster in Judge says the new deal started with the jack left out.The veteran apparently sat at the dealers right because he got the cut!

Jeers or Cheers?

Cheer Leader: Three cheers for the New Deal!Veteran Rooters: Raw! Raw! Raw!25

In a similarly mordant way, VFW editorials deployed the well-knownforgotten man theme of the Roosevelt election campaign as a rhetori-cal weapon. A May 1933 editorial huffed that while legislation is beingenacted for the relief of agriculture, the railroads, banks, and other finan-cial institutions, the veteran absorbed a reduction in income amount-ing to $460,000,000. The VFW warned, If the present session ofCongress ignores the plight of these former defenders of the nation then

23. Foreign Service, February 1934, 4; and Sargent,Roosevelt and the HundredDays, 242.

24. Foreign Service,May 1933, 57.25. Ibid., 30.

STEPHEN R. ORTIZ


12/25


truly history will record the veteran as the real forgotten man of thedepression and democracy will have failed its saviors.26

The VFW leadership urged members and local posts to express their

outrage over the Economy Act by writing to their elected officials. ManyVFW posts and members voiced their complaints directly to the WhiteHouse. The L. M. Tate Post 39 of St. Petersburg, Florida, wired FDR thatthe members were ready to do our part in the interests of economy butsuggested that cuts should not be made at the expense of the private inthe rear rank. The Huntington Park, California, Post 952 forwarded tothe White House a resolution passed by the Los Angeles County VFWCouncil reversing its decision to participate in a Roosevelt Day program.The Los Angeles County VFW Council explained its refusal to participate

in view of the fact of the arbitrary assumption of dictatorial and uncon-stitutional powers, especially in veterans affairs. Minnesota VFW offi-cers informed FDR by telegram that delegates of all posts, Veterans ofForeign Wars, Minnesota . . . voted unanimouslyoppose granting of dic-tatorial powers to President and are absolutely opposed [to] cutting vet-erans benefitsemphatically demanding our Government that itsdefenders be not betrayed. Harry Hoffman, commander of City ofDetroit Post 334, ominously warned FDRs personal secretary that thesober thinking veteran is getting tired of sitting idly by, he is thinking

and some of these days youre going to have a real Bonus Army in Wash-ington, men who served overseas.27

Democratic allies within the VFW had even more direct admonitionsfor the new administration. Democratic Party Chairman James A. Farleyreceived a letter from Joseph Heffernan written from the Ohio state con-vention of the VFW where there was a strong undercurrent for opencensure of President Roosevelt because of the Economy Act. Heffer-nana VFW member, Democrat, and ex-mayor of Youngstownclaimedhe was able to keep the issue off of the convention floor and prevent a

direct expression. Nonetheless, he urged Farley, Please do not under-estimate the dynamite in the veteran situation. Heffernan put the con-troversy in the strict electoral terms that Farley understood, They feelthat they were a great influence in the defeat of Hoover, and, frankly,I should not like to see them turn en masse against Roosevelt. He

26. Ibid., 47.27. L. M. Tate Post 39 to FDR in Economy Program, 1933, T, PPF 200f, Box

159, FDRL; Harry S. Roberts, Huntington Park Post 952, to Colonel Howe, 7 July1933, in Veterans of Foreign Wars, 19331934, Official File (OF) 84, FDRL; Ken-neth A. Bixler and W. R. Ambrose to FDR, 10 March 1933, in Economy Program,1933, U-V, PPF 200f, Box 159, FDRL; Harry C. Hoffman, City of Detroit Post 334, toSec. Howe, undated, in World War Veterans, June 5June 13, 1933, OF 95, FDRL.



13/25

THE JOURNAL OF426

reiterated, They can cause trouble, so do not underestimate such a con-certed opposition.28

Despite the reports of general veteran resentment toward the Roo-

sevelt administration, and in contrast to the VFWs position, the Ameri-can Legion national leadership appeared to side with the administrationon the Economy Act. FDRs 5 March appearance on a Legion nationalradio broadcast in which he asked for the support of men who know themeaning of sacrifice gave the impression that the Legion leadershipknew and tacitly approved of the legislation.29 Legion Commander LouisA. Johnsons cozy relationship with the administration only fueled sus-picions. Johnson, while opposed to the severity of the cuts, did every-thing possible to squelch the uproar from veterans. Johnson told FDR

that Legion leadership had started a publicity campaign in AmericanLegion News to convince veterans to Support the President. Indeed,on 15 March, despite his admission that the Economy Act might havethe gravest consequences to the disabled veteran, Johnson issued abattle order that legionnaires support FDR on the issue. He explained,the Legion has every faith in the discretion, firmness, and justice withwhich the President will deal with this problem.30

These statements notwithstanding, the Legion quietly initiatedefforts to repeal the most glaring injustices of the Economy Act. How-

ever, American Legion posts, state departments, and even the nationalexecutive committee repudiated their commanders public stand. TheNewark, Ohio, Legion Post proclaimed, We disapprove of the attitude ofNational Commander Johnson in so completely surrendering the Legionto the victories of the National Economy League and for promisingLegion support for policies and doctrines . . . contrary to its views andaims. The Dennis-Butler Legion Post of Stillwater, Oklahoma, called forJohnsons resignation. Regardless of the Legions behind-the-scenes

28. Copy of letter from Joe Heffernan to James Farley, 1 July 1933, in Veteransof Foreign Wars, 19331934, OF 84, FDRL.

29. FDR Address in American Legion National Broadcast, 5 March 1933, inAmerican Legion, January-June, 1933, OF 64, Box 1, FDRL; and Washington Post,6 March 1933.

30. Johnson was a Democratic Party stalwart from West Virginia, later appointedAssistant Secretary of War by FDR, who carried on a voluminous secret correspon-dence with the administration on veteran issues. On Louis Johnsons ties to the FDRadministration and Legion response to the Economy Act, see Pencak, For God andCountry, 19297. Louis Johnson to FDR, 28 March 1933, in American Legion, Jan-uary-June, 1933, OF 64, Box 1, FDRL. Battle Orders quotation in Pencak,For God

and Country, 192, and Washington Post, 16 March 1933.

STEPHEN R. ORTIZ


14/25


efforts, the perception among legionnaires remained that the Legion hadacquiesced to the President.31

The Economy Act crisis exposed some crucial differences between

the Legion and VFW national organizations that had seldom come tolight between 1919 and 1933. The VFW and the Legion had worked intandem on most veterans issues. Both fought diligently for expandedmedical benefits and the construction of veteran hospitals and clinics.Each sought to strengthen the existing system of pensions and benefitsfor ex-servicemen, their widows, and their families. Both organizationsattempted to make the Veterans Bureau and the War Risk InsuranceBoard more efficient and more responsive to veterans needs. On non-veterans issues, the Legion and the VFW called for a strong national

defense and military preparedness, supporting increased defense spend-ing and the maintenance of civilian military training camps. Moreover,both stridently promoted the emotionally charged goal of American-ism and fervently opposed Bolshevism in any guise. Notwithstandingthese overlapping political agendas, the two national organizations dif-fered in important ways.32

The VFW lacked not only the Legions size and attendant lobbyingstrength, but also its prominent, conservative leadership. In 1933, theLegion maintained a membership of nearly 1,000,000 veterans, while

the VFW had only just topped 150,000 dues-paying members the previ-ous year. As importantly, a group of wealthy and conservative elitesknown as the kingmakers dominated the Legions national leadership.Never far from the reins of national political power, kingmakers suchas Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., Ogden Mills, and Bennett Champ Clark alsoexerted a tremendous amount of control over the Legions policies.While rank-and-file veterans complained about the Legions conservativeoligarchy, the VFW leaders tended to be less elite in social origins, morepopulist than conservative, and ultimately more responsive to the rank-

and-file membership than their Legion counterparts. The VFW leader-ships lack of economic and political stature also translated into asurprising lack of funds for the organization. Thus, the conservative,power-brokering Legion towered over the VFW not just in membership,but also in power and prestige, however measured.33

31. For the American Legion perspective on the Economy Act, see Pencak,ForGod and Country, 17075, 19297; and Rumer, The American Legion, 196201.

National Tribune, 11 May 1933.32. On the American Legion, see Pencak, For God and Country; and Rumer,

The American Legion. On the VFW, see Mason, VFW: Our First Century, 18991999,5495; Goldsmith, The Veterans of Foreign Wars; and Ortiz, Soldier-Citizens,passim.

33. Legion membership totals inNational Tribune, 7 February 1935; and theVFWs in Goldsmith, The Veterans of Foreign Wars, 194. On Legion and VFW lead-



15/25

428

In 1933, though, the differences between the VFWs militant protestand the Legions perceived acquiescence on the Economy Act affectedthe institutional vitality of the two veteran organizations. The American

Legion suffered a nearly 20 percent loss of membership; some 160,000veterans did not renew their Legion membership.34 In the same year, theVFW continued a rapid expansion begun in 1929. New posts sprang upacross the nation. Although the VFW leadership found the membershiptotal difficult to calculate with members joining and just as rapidly fallingby the wayside, the VFW signed up over 40,000 new recruits in 1933.The organization experienced a net growth of 165 new posts, with 74more posts regaining their charters by paying their overdue fees. Postgrowth, while an imperfect measure of organizational vitality, can at

least allow for generalizations about an organizations relative strength.The VFW flourished at the expense of the American Legion as a directresult of their respective stances on the Economy Act.35

The political mobilization of veterans against the Economy Actquickly produced legislative results. On 16 June 1933, Congress passedthe Independent Offices Appropriation Act, rolling back some 100 mil-

lion dollars in cuts, limiting reductions for those disabled in war to 25percent, and creating ninety review boards for veterans to appeal theirnew disability classifications. Although FDR grudgingly signed the legis-lation, only his threat of a nationally broadcast veto message capped therestored benefits at $100,000,000. Several considered amendmentspushed for significantly greater restorations. Budget Director Douglasprivately commented, This veteran uprising is an outrage. . . . To thinkthat a small group can intimidate Congress and whats more FDR is dis-couraging. Senator Frederick Steiwer (Republican, Oregon), a VFW

member and Senate leader for more generous restorations, wrote anOregon veteran, we raised so much hell that I am reasonably hopefulthat the President will further liberalize his regulations. Still, despitethe attainment of these more amenable terms, veterans absorbed nearly$360,000,000 in benefit reductions. The Independent Offices Appropri-

ership, see Pencak,For God and Country, especially 48106; Mason, VFW: Our FirstCentury, 18991999, 5495; and Goldsmith, The Veterans of Foreign Wars, 192.

34. Chart of American Legion membership totals from 192034 inNational Tri-

bune, 7 February 1935.35. Post growth information found inForeign Service, January-December 1933;

and Report of the Adjutant Generals Department and Report of the Chief of Staff,34th National Encampment of the VFW, 1933 (Washington: GPO, 1934): 15263,18285.

THE JOURNAL OF

STEPHEN R. ORTIZ


16/25


ation Act only temporarily placated veteran unrest. For the VFW, thecontinuing fight over the Economy Act came to a climax at the 1933VFW national encampment in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, held from 27

August to 1 September.36

Proclaiming veteran legislation the number one priority, the VFWheld a raucous national convention with a roster of speakers openly hos-tile to the Economy Act. The call for political mobilization against theadministrations policies echoed throughout the 1933 encampment. The10,000 veterans in attendance roared approval at the lengthy denuncia-tions of the Economy Act resounding from the speakers platform. Innumerous addresses, the call was militant, expressed in the well-wornrhetoric of the Great War and in thinly veiled gender and class terms.

Senator and VFW member Arthur R. Robinson (Republican, Indiana)proclaimed, There is no time for mollycoddling, no time for silk stock-ings, but the moment has arrived . . . when the veterans of all wars mustput on their shining armor and go forth to battle once again . . . and whenthis war is won, no one will dare again attempt to stab the veterans in theback. Robinson denounced the so-called economy bill as the mostcruel, brutal, and utterly indefensible act ever passed by a cowardly Con-gress. Rice W. Means, past national commander of the VFW, ex-Senatorfrom Colorado, and publisher of the national veteran publication

National Tribune, continued the assault in a ferocious attack on the FDRadministration. In response to American Legion Commander Johnsonscall for supporting the President, Means proclaimed, I want to say to youI will never uphold the hand of the one who struck that cruel blow. Wemust not pussyfoot! Means whipped the veterans into thunderousapplause, exclaiming, this economy act was conceived by income-taxdodgers. It was born of a result of ruthless, vicious propaganda. . . . It is astain upon the honor of the United States. Marine Major General Smed-ley D. Butler exhorted the crowd, Youve got to get mad. Its time you

woke upits time you realized theres another war on.37

The VFW furthered its standing as a center of New Deal dissent byinviting one of the most outspoken and controversial critics of the New

36. Pencak,For God and Country ,193; Freidel,Launching the New Deal, 449;and Sargent, Roosevelt and the Hundred Days, 24260. Lewis Douglas to James S.Douglas, 8 June 1933, quoted in Sargent,Roosevelt and the Hundred Days, 247. ForSteiwers membership in VFW Post 81, Portland, Oregon, see Foreign Service, July1933. Frederick Steiwer to Cicero Hogan, 20 June 1933, quoted in Sargent,Roosevelt

and the Hundred Days,260.37. Attendance estimates in Chicago Daily Tribune, 28 August 1933. Address of

Senator Arthur Robinson, 30 August 1933, in34th National Encampment of the VFW,1933 (Washington: GPO, 1934), 53, 54. Address of Rice W. Means, 30 August 1933,in34th National Encampment of the VFW, 1933, 51. Butler Address reprinted inFor-

eign Service, December 1933, 30.



17/25

THE JOURNAL OF430

Deal to address the encampment: Senator Huey P. Long (Democrat,Louisiana). Long obliged by denigrating the Roosevelt administration ina rancorous ninety-minute address.38 He repeated an oft-cited claim that

he was responsible for FDRs nomination at the 1932 Democratic con-vention and expressed hope that Roosevelt would get back on the righttrack. But he spent the majority of his speech to the VFW railing againstthe concentration of wealth and the FDR administrations reneging oncampaign promises to address that issue. Long attacked the administra-tions missteps, such as the Economy Act, and mocked the New Deal asineffective. In an allegory criticizing the New Deal for not addressing theconcentration of wealth, Long described a poker game in which the win-ner walks away from the table with 95 percent of the money, prompting

the remaining players to ask for a new deal. Long responded, Wellwhat are you going to deal with? It isnt going to do any good to breakopen a new deck of cards and deal another hand. The man has gonehome with all the money! Long proposed to redistribute wealth throughsharp increases in income and estate taxes, and came out for immediatepayment of the Bonusall as measures to increase the purchasing powerof ordinary Americans. Long told the assembled veterans that the Bonuswould do ten times the good the sapling bill and the Recovery Act puttogether are doing.39

Longs antiNew Deal diatribe found a receptive audience amongVFW members. The VFW veterans handed multiple questions to thestage for Long to answer and begged him to continue with cries of Goahead! when Long began his concluding remarks. Foreign Servicereported to the VFW membership that Longs speech was vociferouslyapplauded and his wit and droll anecdotes elicited long laughter.40

Moreover, the VFW members in attendance provided Long with morephysical measures of approval. Representative Everett M. Dirksen(Republican, Illinois) reminisced that after Long asked the VFW audi-

ence, Fellows, do I have to put up with this? VFW Sergeants at Armsmanhandled the reporters who were crowding in on the dais, smashingphotographers cameras as the newspapermen were given the bums rushfrom the stage apron in a real scuffle. This brouhaha nearly forced the

38. Longs appearance at the VFW Encampment came within a day of a much-publicized altercation at a Long Island country club in which Long received a proba-bly well-deserved black eye. Dogged by reporters over the incident, Long addressedthe encampment in what Brinkley calls one of the surliest and most vituperativespeeches he had ever made. See Brinkley, Voices of Protest, 6566, for story andquote.

39. Address of Senator Huey Long, 29 August 1933, in34th National Encamp-ment of the VFW, 1933, 3139. The sapling bill was Longs dismissive term for theReforestation Act that created the Civilian Conservation Corps.

40. Foreign Service, October 1933, 39.

STEPHEN R. ORTIZ


18/25


leadership to temporarily shut down the encampment. The New YorkTimes summed up Longs appearance with the headline, Long AmidBedlam Denounces Foes. The front page of the Washington Post read,

Kingfish Fans VFW Frenzy.41

The VFWs frustration with the limitations of the New Deal andagreement with Longs dissenting political agenda can be measured in amore profound way. The 1933 VFW national encampment went onrecord with a spate of resolutions concerning the political economy ofthe country. The VFW demanded, of course, the full repeal of the Econ-omy Act. The assembled delegates passed resolutions reiterating theirinsistence on cash payment of the Bonus, calling for the reduction ofinterest on existing tax-exempt securities, and demanding the universal

draft of industry and capital during times of warall measures opposedby the Roosevelt administration.42 The encampment also passed Resolu-tion No. 64, stating the VFWs position heartily endorsing a proposedconstitutional amendment providing for the limitation of wealth. TheVFW pledged every effort possible to secure [the] enactment . . . of thishumanitarian proposal. According to the resolution, the amendmentwould benefit the entire Nation and all out [sic] people by distributingwealth, limiting income, and making spending power more equitablethan is possible at present. Seamlessly, the VFW wove the problems of

the Depression, the concentration of wealth, and popular veteran under-standings of the causes of wars into the language of the resolution.According to the veteran delegates, the amendment would through theelimination of huge fortunes, with their attending greed and selfishness,serve to limit the possibilities of future wars.43 Despite the VFW leader-ships claims that there was little or no tendency toward radical thoughtor action and that a spirit of conservatism, coupled with aggressivedetermination, seemed to prevail during the encampment, the set ofresolutions situated the VFW as a leading critic of the first New Deal.44

On 22 September 1933, newly elected Commander James E. VanZandt brought the VFWs agenda directly to the White House. In a briefmeeting with FDR, Van Zandt described the widespread suffering thathas been caused among disabled veterans including the vicious penal-ties upon the more than 175,000 veterans of the War with Spain and the

41. Everett McKinley Dirksen, The Education of A Senator (Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press, 1998),13233; Foreign Service, October 1933, 10; and New YorkTimes and Washington Post, 30 August 1933. The VFW leadership sent formal apolo-gies to the Milwaukee newspapers for Longs violent abuse of the assembled news-papermen. See Chicago Daily Tribune, 30 August 1933.

42. For list of resolutions, see 34th National Encampment of the VFW, 1933,23669.

43. 34th National Encampment of the VFW, 1933, 255.44. Foreign Service, October 1933, 8.



19/25

THE JOURNAL OF432

plight of more than 400,000 disabled World War veterans . . . thrustupon local community charities. Van Zandt issued an emphatic pleafor the Presidents cooperation and tolerant consideration of policies

adopted by the Milwaukee encampment. Reiterating the encampmentsmandateopposition to the Economy Act and continued support forimmediate cash payment of the BonusVan Zandt garnered little sym-pathy from FDR on either issue. Moreover, Van Zandt described the orga-nizations expansive view of the federal responsibility for veterans,enumerating three fundamental principles of veteran legislation: ade-quate relief for veterans with service-connected disabilities; relief to vet-erans suffering from disabilities due either to injury, disease, or old age,who are unable to carry on; and relief to widows and orphans regard-

less of the cause of the veterans death. The VFWs articulation of theseprinciples, in direct opposition to the very basis of the Economy Act,possibly crystallized plans for FDR to speak at the upcoming AmericanLegion national convention in Chicago.45

FDR chose to address the more hospitable Legion convention as away to undermine veteran unrest. An internal White House memoran-dum describing why FDR should attend this gathering of veterans indi-cated the depth of veteran resentment and the political stakes at risk.The writer, John C. Fischer of the Board of Veteran Appeals, described

the political calculations of the veteran situation. He argued, Someonemust speak to pacify the angry veterans and only the President with hismagnificent personality could escape unscathed. The political cloutassociated with the voting bloc of veterans and their relatives repre-sented one sixth of our citizenry, and the convention was a necessaryengagement to insure the future success of the administrations pro-grams. Fischer also pointed to the short-term legislative concerns, not-ing that only FDRs presence could forestall legislation calculated toemasculate the Economy Act and mollify the radicals and disarm a

thoroughly aroused and recalcitrant Congress . . . deluged with veteransappeals. A Washington Post report quoted unnamed Legion leaders thatthe President would attend because resentment against Congressionalcuts in disability pensions has been mounting steadily in veteransranks.46

On 2 October 1933, FDR addressed the Legion national conventionin Chicago. In his speech, FDR acknowledged the governments respon-sibility to care for veterans with service-connected disabilities and thedependents of those killed in action. Yet, FDR bluntly rebuffed further

45. Commander James E. Van Zandt to the President, 22 September 1933, inVFW, 19331936, PPF 87, FDRL; andForeign Service, November 1933, 12.

46. John C. Fischer to Stephen F. Early, 15 September 1933 in AmericanLegion, July-Dec., 1933, OF 64, Box 1, FDRL; Washington Post, 1 October 1933.

STEPHEN R. ORTIZ


20/25


demands by veterans, and specifically, the VFW, claiming, no person,because he wore a uniform must thereafter be placed in a special classof beneficiaries over and above all other citizens. FDR continued, the

fact of wearing a uniform does not mean that he can demand and receivefrom his Government a benefit which no other citizen receives. In thisblunt refutation, a Washington Post reporter explained, Facing theblue-clad soldiers of 1918, who felt the swing of the Administrationseconomy ax in the drive to assure National credit, the President dra-matically pointed his finger at them and backed up his program.47

Afterward, Commander Johnson wrote FDR and assured him thatonly his presence allowed the Legion leaders to reverse the mandate ofthe 1932 Legion convention supporting immediate payment of the

Bonus and quieted the clamor to rescind the Economy Act. The NewYork Times called the convention a victory for the conservative ele-ment, leaving little doubt of the ability of the Legions leadership tohold its members in line . . . with the Administration. Despite FDRssuccess in pacifying the Legion convention, his words further inflamedthe VFW.48

The VFW issued sharp rebuttals to FDRs remarks. Many VFW mem-bers agreed that the wearing of a uniform did not entitle veterans to ben-efits, but found it incomprehensible that this would apply to overseas

and combat veterans, too. Frank O. Gangwisch, commander of Post 12in Pittsburgh, informed FDR, We are writing you, Mr. President, to letyou know that we do not agree with you. We believe that the man whodonned a uniform in time of war is entitled to special benefits notenjoyed by the man who stayed home and earned from fifteen to fiftydollars a day while we were fighting at the front. Commander Van Zandtissued a statement reiterating the VFWs liberal position on veteran ben-efits, claiming that the veterans welfare today is exclusively a federalresponsibility.49

The Foreign Service editorial page assaulted FDRs speech as anabrupt departure from long-held American views concerning veterans. Inan editorial entitled Ideals Ignored, the VFW pointed out the radical-ism of the new deal Administration on veteran issues. Moreover, theVFW leadership predicted, If Franklin D. Roosevelt believes for onemoment that his drastic theories on the problem of veteran welfarereflect the wishes of the American people, he is indeed due for a sad

47. FDR speech to American Legion Convention, 2 October 1933, in PPF:

Speeches, Box 15, FDRL. See alsoWashington Post,

23 October 1933.48. Louis A. Johnson to FDR, October 9, 1933, in American Legion, 1933, PPF350, FDRL;New York Times, 7 and 3 October 1933.

49. Emphasis added, Commander Frank O. Gangwisch to FDR, in SoldiersBonus, 1933, OF 95c, Box 2, FDRL; Van Zandt inForeign Service, November 1933,12.



21/25

THE JOURNAL OF434

awakening at the hands of an aroused Congress. VFW artist Lakepenned the scornful accompanying drawing. In Old Ideals vs. NewDeals (Fig. 3), statements from Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roo-

sevelt concerning the federal obligation to veterans contrasted withFDRs new deal departure. The imagery rendered the drawing an espe-cially harsh condemnation of FDR. Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt stoodsternly and statesmanlike while FDR, cigarette holder prominently dis-played, was drawn with a whimsical, perhaps mocking, visage.50

In October 1933, the VFW initiated an intense publicity drive tobring attention to the plight of veterans and to galvanize opposition tothe Economy Act. VFW Legislative Chairman George Brobeck instituteda nine point program to utilize the network of VFW local posts, radio

broadcasts, and VFW national publications in the effort.51

CommanderVan Zandt was a dynamo. Speaking almost weekly on the NBC and CBSnational radio networks, Van Zandt called for the total repeal of theEconomy Act and immediate cash payment of the Bonus in addressessuch as The VFW Legislative Policy for the Coming Year.52Moreover,throughout the winter of 193334, he continually traveled the countryto address and recruit veterans for the VFW and win public support forthe VFW agenda.53

In December 1933, a national speaking tour headed by Van Zandt

and the extremely popular Smedley Butler drew national media atten-tion to the VFWs mobilization efforts. General Butler, recently retired tothe lecture circuit, commanded huge veteran audiences everywhere hespoke. For recruiting purposes, the VFW published Butlers You Got toGet Mad address to the 1933 encampment inForeign Service. The VFWalso realized that Butler was a real asset for obtaining national mediaattention. The tour of Van Zandt and Butler, spanning ten cities acrossthe Midwest and South in eleven days, garnered reporting from theNewYork Times even when they were in the Deep South. A Roosevelt sup-

porter in 1932, Butler now decried the administrations cozy alliancewith Big Business. His animated harangues against Wall Street andcalls for veteran political activism energized veteran audiences.54Veter-ansand reportersloved Butlers salty language and colorful analogies.In Omaha, Nebraska, Butler launched a stormy attack against capital-

50. Foreign Service, December 1933, 45.51. National Tribune, 26 October 1933.52. New York Times, 28 September 1933 and 29 October 1933;Foreign Service,

October 1933 to March 1934.53. SeeForeign Service, October 1933 to April 1934, for Van Zandts breakneck

tour of VFW posts across the nation.54. For more on the mercurial Butler, see Hans Schmidt, Maverick Marine:

General Smedley D. Butler and The Contradictions of American Military History

(Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1987).

STEPHEN R. ORTIZ


22/25


ists, blaming them for the National Economy Act. In New Orleans, But-ler shared the dais with Huey Long at a VFW rally and told the veterans,I believe in making Wall Street pay for ittaking Wall Street by thethroat and shaking it up. In Atlanta, he explained, Jimmie [Van Zandt]and I are going around the country trying to educate the soldiers out ofthe sucker class.55

The power of veteran political activism over a Congress facingreelection proved too forceful for the administration to suppress. InMarch of 1934, the passage of a second Independent Offices Bill all butrepealed the Economy Act. Once the Roosevelt administration recog-nized the likelihood of major revisions to the Economy Act, multipleattempts ensued to water down the restorations in cuts. The VFW leg-islative committee, however, asked congressional allies to reject anycompromise proposal floated by the administration limiting the restora-tion of benefits even if it meant a presidential veto.Foreign Service glo-

rified the decision: the leaders of the VFW, inspired by the knowledgethat they were fighting for a cause that was just and honest, declined to

55. National Tribune, 14 December 1933;New York Times, 10 December 1933;andAtlanta Constitution, 11 December 1933.

Fig. 3. Old Ideals vs. New Deals, Foreign Service,December 1933.

Reprinted by permission of the VFW.



23/25

436

be a party to this type of treason. FDR indeed vetoed the bill but, on 29March 1934, both houses of Congress handily overrode the veto. Secre-tary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes complained in his diary that the

members of the House man after man, like so many scared rabbits, ranto cover out of fear of the soldier vote.56

In the end, the Independent Offices Bill handed FDR his first signif-icant congressional defeat. Ickes confided that the veto override dealtFDR his first serious political setback and a serious blow to his econ-omy program. Arthur Krock of theNew York Times called the veto over-ride the Presidents first Manassas, pointing out that FDRs supremecontrol of the parliamentary arm lasted a year and twenty-four days.TheBoston Herald noted that the veto override offered a grim warning

that the veterans are in the saddle again and they have always riddenhard. Commander Van Zandt issued a victory statement claiming,Congress has demonstrated it will no longer tolerate dictatorship.Emboldened by the triumph, the VFW rededicated its energy to theimmediate cash payment of the Bonus and continued to voice dissentwith administration policy.57

Even after the repeal of the Economy Act, veteran political activismremained at the epicenter of New Deal dissent. On 23 February 1934,somewhat lost in the hullabaloo over the second Independent Offices

Act, Huey Long delivered a nationally broadcast speech touting his newpolitical organization, the Share Our Wealth Society. In this speech out-lining the organizations platform and purpose, Long appealed to disaf-fected veterans, We ought to take care of the veterans of the wars in thisprogram. . . . Every man that wore the uniform of this country is entitledto be taken care of.58 Two days later, Father Charles E. Coughlinreversed his position and openly supported the Bonus on his nationalradio broadcast. On Armistice Day, 11 November 1934, in the middle ofveteran-oriented radio programming, Coughlin announced the formation

of the National Union for Social Justice (NUSJ). By 1935, as Longs andCoughlins organizations grew to reportedly millions of members, theirplatforms almost exactly matched the legislative agenda of the VFW.59

56. Foreign Service,May 1934, 5; Harold L. Ickes, 31 March 1934 diary entry inThe Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes: The First Thousand Days, 19331936 (NewYork: Simon and Schuster, 1953), 158.

57. Ickes, 31 March 1934 diary entry in The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes,158; Krock and Van Zandt in New York Times, 30 March 1934; Boston Herald, 29

March 1934.58. Longs Every Man A King address, reprinted in Henry M. Christman, ed.,

Kingfish to America: Share Our Wealth (New York: Schocken Books, 1985), 44.59. For Coughlin addresses, see United States Incorporated, 25 February

1934, in Charles E. Coughlin,Eight Lectures on Labor, Capital, and Justice (RoyalOak, Mich.: Radio League of the Little Flower, 1934), 8399, and The National Union

STEPHEN R. ORTIZ

THE JOURNAL OF


24/25


In 1935, both Long and Coughlin openly embraced the support ofthe VFW organization and national leadership. On 11 May, Long deliv-ered an address in support of the Bonus entitled A Fair Deal for the Vet-

erans, a national radio broadcast sponsored by the national VFWorganization. In two May radio broadcasts, Father Coughlin challengedhis listeners and NUSJ members to throw the weight of their supportbehind the VFW-sponsored Bonus Bill. On 22 May, just hours after FDRsunprecedented, personally delivered veto of the Bonus Bill before a jointsession of Congress, VFW Commander Van Zandt roused the gatheringof 23,000 Coughlin followers in Madison Square Garden to howlingenthusiasm as a preliminary to Coughlins most acclaimed address.60

During the spring of 1935, correspondence reaching the White

House confirmed the confluence of veteran activism and the Long andCoughlin movements. Many correspondents to FDR wrote in explicitterms about the possibility of a third-party developmentor worseinvolving Long, Coughlin, and veterans. R. S. Appleton warned FDR, Ifyou are the shrewd politician they credit you with being, you will thinktwice before you go against the veterans and the National Union forSocial Justice. E. J. Hawes wired FDR, Remember it was the servicevote and Father Coughlin that put your party in. Hawes warned thePresident, veto of the . . . Bill means only one thing, Huey Long next.

John Allen of Jersey City warned FDR of more ominous developments:if this [Bonus] bill is beaten, this country will see a dictator in the WhiteHouse in 1936, [a] veteran of the World War, backed by the veteran vote,Father Coughlin, and Huey Long. Only two years after Adolf Hitlers riseto power in Germany, these were chilling words indeed.61

The Economy Act of 1933 precipitated a massive political mobiliza-

tion of veterans, a mobilization led by the VFW. As a result, the VFWformed the vanguard of a slowly coalescing group of New Deal Dissidents.

for Social Justice, Nov. 11, 1934, in A Series of Lectures on Social Justice (RoyalOak, Mich.: Radio League of the Little Flower, 1935), 817.

60. Long speech in Christman,Kingfish to America, 11218; and Ernest G. Bor-mann, A Rhetorical Analysis of the National Radio Broadcasts of Senator Huey P.

Long (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1953), 71, 31819. For Coughlin rally, seeBrinkley, Voices of Protest, 17677. For VFW involvement and text of Van Zandtspeech, see Wall Street Journal, 23 May 1935; andNew York Times, 23 May 1935.

61. R. S. Appleton, Attleboro, Massachusetts, to FDR, 10 May 1935, in BonusBill Veto, Against, PPF 200L, container 182, folder 2, FDRL; E. J. Hawes, Drexell Hill,Pennsylvania, telegram to FDR, 10 May 1935, in Bonus Bill Veto, Against, PPF 200L,container 192, FDRL; and John Allen, Jersey City, N.J., to FDR, 11 May 1935, inBonus Bill Veto, Against, PPF 200L, Cont. 169, FDRL.



25/25

While the vilification of the Economy Act emerged as a unifying theme,veterans quickly subsumed the Economy Act into a larger indictment ofthe existing political economy. By weaving together the causes and

results of the Great War, the causes of the Depression, and the corrosiveinfluence of Big Business on the political and legislative processes, theVFW extended a seamless critique of the American political and eco-nomic system. With the Economy Act and the loss of substantial veteranbenefits as the pretext, the VFW issued a very clear renunciation of theRoosevelt administration, decrying the New Deals failure both to keepthe federal governments contract with its veterans and, by extension, toreshape the political economy as many veterans had hoped. Predatingboth Longs and Coughlins organizations, veterans became founding

members, and the VFW national organization an early meeting ground,of an otherwise loosely organized Depression-era protest movement. TheVFWs sophisticated organizational network, energized national leader-ship, national publications and meetings, high-profile spokesmen, andready access to print and radio media provided the early organizationalstructure and the means of national conveyance for New Deal dissent.Ultimately, the combined forces of veterans and the New Deal Dissidentsposed a serious threat to Roosevelts reelection in 1936, supplying thepolitical pressure behind Roosevelts turn to the left and the wide-

sweeping social legislation of the second New Deal. In this coalition,military veterans expressed early and crucial voices of protest. And thepolitics of veterans pensions and benefits, in turn, profoundly shapedthe New Deal era.

STEPHEN R. ORTIZ

new deal for veterans

Documents