The American State from the Civil War to the New Deal The Twilight of Constitutionalism and the Triumph of Progressivism
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Abbreviations Used in the Footnotes
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Old Regime
- Part II Early Progressivism
- 4 The New Jurisprudence
- 5 The Due Process Dialectic
- 6 Toward a Federal Police Power
- 7 Rooseveltian Progressivism
- 8 The Lochner Incident
- 9 Court and Constitution in Crisis
- 10 Taft and the Republican Crackup
- Part III Late Progressivism
- Part IV The New Deal
- Appendix A
- Appendix B
- Primary Sources
- Index
- References
7 - Rooseveltian Progressivism
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2013
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Abbreviations Used in the Footnotes
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Old Regime
- Part II Early Progressivism
- 4 The New Jurisprudence
- 5 The Due Process Dialectic
- 6 Toward a Federal Police Power
- 7 Rooseveltian Progressivism
- 8 The Lochner Incident
- 9 Court and Constitution in Crisis
- 10 Taft and the Republican Crackup
- Part III Late Progressivism
- Part IV The New Deal
- Appendix A
- Appendix B
- Primary Sources
- Index
- References
Summary
THE HOLMES APPOINTMENT
Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency in 1901 significantly advanced progressivism. Roosevelt’s personal enthusiasm for active government, and particularly for war, could only clash with a constitution premised on the idea of limited government and especially vulnerable to war. Even his admiring biographers note that “in Roosevelt’s many-sided character perhaps the dominant urge was his desire for power,” and discern “a certain fondness for war.” He wanted his first Supreme Court appointment to preserve the fruits of the Spanish-American War, whose conquests and cessions raised fundamental questions of republican constitutionalism. The Court split evenly on the question of whether all of the guarantees of the Constitution extended to conquered territory – in the popular phrasing, whether “the Constitution follows the flag.” The “laissez-faire” justices sharply criticized imperialist policy. Fuller, Harlan, Brewer, and Peckham held that the Constitution applied anywhere the United States claimed sovereignty. Justice Brewer publicly chastised Roosevelt’s foreign policy. The Founders did not free us from British tyranny and then claim “the power to hold other territory in like colonial subjection.” Notwithstanding his reverence for the Founders, Brewer believed that Roosevelt’s presidency indicated that the Constitution should limit the executive to one term.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The American State from the Civil War to the New DealThe Twilight of Constitutionalism and the Triumph of Progressivism, pp. 86 - 95Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2013
References
, Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Era (New York: Hill & Wang, 1960 [1946]), 15, 312.Google Scholar
and , The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development, 4th ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1970), 582;Google Scholar
, “Mr. Justice Holmes: A Dissenting Opinion,” Stanford Law Review 15 (1962), 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Republic According to John Marshall Harlan (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 144Google Scholar
, “Two Periods in the History of the Supreme Court,”Report of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Virginia State Bar Association (Richmond: Richmond Press, 1906), 145;Google Scholar
, “The Perils of Popularity: David Josiah Brewer and the Politics of Judicial Reputation,” Vanderbilt Law Review 62 (2009), 574Google Scholar
“Justice Brewer Raps Roosevelt,” New York Times, 21 Nov. 1907, p. 1
“The Soldier’s Faith,” 30 May 1895, in The Essential Holmes: Selections from the Letters, Speeches, Judicial Opinions and Other Writings of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 88–92Google Scholar
, Law Without Values: The Life, Work, and Legacy of Justice Holmes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 67.Google Scholar
, The Transformation of American Law, 1894–1960: The Crisis of Legal Orthodoxy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 131.Google Scholar
, “A Falling Out: The Relationship between Oliver Wendell Holmes and Theodore Roosevelt,”Journal of Supreme Court History 27 (2002), 116–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Theodore Roosevelt on Self-Government and the Administrative State,” in The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science, ed. John Marini and Ken Masugi (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005), 57–59Google Scholar
, The Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902 (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1957), 177, 207, 181, 192, 169;Google Scholar
, “The Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902: A Record of Confusion,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 48 (1961), 243–44, 251;CrossRef
, “The Coal Strike of 1902 – Turning Point in U.S. Policy,” Monthly Labor Review, Oct. 1975, p. 22;
, The Rise of the Federal Colossus: The Growth of Federal Power from Lincoln to F.D.R. (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2011), 264.Google Scholar
, History of the United States Army, enlarged ed. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), 309Google Scholar
, Pure Food: Securing the Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), 136Google Scholar
, “Hell Hath no Fury Like a General Scorned: Nelson A. Miles, the Pullman Strike, and the Beef Scandal of 1898,” Illinois Historical Journal 79 (1986)Google Scholar
, “The Discovery and Study of a ‘Corporate Liberalism,’”Business History Review 52 (1978), 309–20;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900–16 (New York: Free Press, 1963)Google Scholar
, “The Strategic Use of Public Policy: Business Support for the 1906 Food and Drugs Act,” Business History Review 59 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , “The Determinants of Progressive Era Reform: The Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906,” in Corruption and Reform: Lessons from America’s Economic History, ed. Edward L. Glaeser and Claudia Goldin (Chicago: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2006), 319–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Congressional Opposition to Pure Food Legislation, 1879–1906,”American Journal of Sociology 36 (1930), 52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “The Square Deal in Action: A Case Study in the Growth of the ‘National Police Power,’” in Change and Continuity in Twentieth-Century America, ed. Braeman et al. (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1964), 43Google Scholar
, William Howard Taft: The Travails of a Progressive Conservative (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 120Google Scholar
, “A Tale of Two Lochners: The Untold History of Substantive Due Process and the Idea of Fundamental Rights,” California Law Review 97 (2009), 784Google Scholar
Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U.S. 45 (1911), 57–58
, “The Vice Trust: A Reinterpretation of the White Slavery Scare in the United States, 1907–17,” Journal of Social History 35 (2001), 5–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Moral Reconstruction, 160, Michael McGerr, A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870–1920 (New York: Free Press, 2003), 256Google Scholar
, Crossing Over the Line: Legislating Morality and the Mann Act (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 33–35.Google Scholar
CR 45 (11 Jan. 1910), 520–24, 547–549
Hoke v. U.S., 227 U.S. 308 (1913), 321–23
Caminetti v. U.S., 242 U.S. 470 (1917)
Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland Ry. Co., 242 U.S. 311 (1917), 326