Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 November 2010
In January 1911, Senator Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin announced the creation of the National Progressive Republican League (NPRL). Historians have dismissed this organization as a vehicle for La Follette's challenge to William Howard Taft for the Republican presidential nomination in 1912. This article asserts that a primary purpose of the NPRL was to offer progressives around the country a set of principles that would provide the progressive movement with greater cohesion while allowing for continued diversity in local reform agendas. The NPRL's president, Oregon senator Jonathan Bourne, was renowned as a spokesman for the series of direct democratic reforms known as the Oregon System, which La Follette and Bourne placed at the center of the NPRL platform. Bourne argued that these reforms, focused on altering the way in which candidates were nominated or elected to office, campaigns were funded, and legislation was produced, would provide progressives with a national “foundation” upon which various state and local reform agendas could be constructed. During the campaign of 1912, the league became a casualty of the political and personal conflict between Theodore Roosevelt and La Follette, but Roosevelt's Progressive Party later endorsed most of its agenda, and all elements of the NPRL platform found some political expression before or after 1912.
1 For the debate over the nature and coherence of progressivism, see Filene, Peter G., “An Obituary for ‘The Progressive Movement’” American Quarterly 22 (Spring 1970): 20–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Buenker, John D., “The Progressive Movement: A Search for Synthesis,” Mid-America 51 (July 1969): 175–93Google Scholar; Rodgers, Daniel T., “In Search of Progressivism,” Reviews in American History 10 (Dec. 1982): 113–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For recent efforts to define progressivism as a movement, McCormick, Richard L., “Public Life in Industrial America, 1877-1917” in The New American History, ed. Foner, Eric (Philadelphia, 1997), 107–32Google Scholar; , MichaelMcGeti, A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920 (New York, 2003)Google Scholar; Flanagan, Maureen A., America Reformed: Progressives and Progressivisms, 1890s-1920s (New York, 2006)Google Scholar; Stromquist, Shelton, Reinventing “The People”: The Progressive Movement, the Class Problem, and the Origins of Modern Liberalism (Urbana, 2006)Google Scholar.
2 The origins of the terms “progressive,” “progressivism,” and “progressive movement,” remain the subject of some debate. It is commonly argued that the term “progressive” was in common usage by 1909, while “progressivism” and “progressive movement” were in wide use by the campaign of 1912. See , Rodgers, “In Search of Progressivism,” 127nlGoogle Scholar; , McGerr, A Fierce Discontent, 280Google Scholar. It is clear, however, that at least some reformers who called themselves “progressives” by 1910Google Scholar believed themselves to be, in the words of Indiana senator Albert Beveridge, part of “a mighty movement among the people,” even if they did not necessarily combine the terms “progressive” and “movement” until some time later. See Albert Beveridge to Jonathan Bourne, July 13, 1910, box 172, Albert J. Beveridge Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (hereafter “Beveridge Papers”).
3 Painter, Nell, Standing at Armageddon: The United States, 1877-1919 (New York, 1987), 259Google Scholar; Chace, James, 1912: Roosevelt, Wilson, Taft and Debs—The Election That Changed the Country (New York, 2004), 100–03Google Scholar; Holt, James, Congressional Insurgents and the Party System, 1909-1916 (Cambridge, MA: 1967), 43–49Google Scholar. Lewis Gould has suggested that the league “never found a clear purpose and lacked enough funds to succeed.” See Gould, Lewis L., Four Hats in the Ring: The 1912 Election and the Birth of Modern American Politics (Lawrence, KS, 2008), 40Google Scholar.
4 For a discussion of La Follette's intentions for the league, see Thelen, David, Robert M. La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit (Boston, 1976), 80–81Google Scholar; also Follette, Belle Case La and Follette, Fola La, Robert M. La Follette, vol. 1 (New York, 1953), 316–20Google Scholar. Fola La Follette presents it as more or less coincidental that the insurgents began to discuss a potential bid for the presidential nomination by her father around the same time that he created the NPRL.
5 Jonathan Bourne to William Allen White, July 21, 1910, MS 479, roll 34, Joseph Little Bristow Papers, Kansas State Historical Association (hereafter, “Bristow Papers”); Bourne to Theodore Roosevelt, Jan. 11,1911, reel 364, Theodore Roosevelt Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (hereafter, “TR Papers”); Bourne to Albert Beveridge, July 27, 1911, box 183, Beveridge Papers.
6 La Follette was concerned throughout 1911 that notable progressives like Gifford Pinchot were using him and the NPRL as a “stalking horse” for a Roosevelt candidacy, and there is some evidence that this was the case. See , Thelen, La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit, 87Google Scholar; also Gable, John Allen, The Bull Moose Years: Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party (Port Washington, NY, 1978), 8–9Google Scholar.
7 For more on the insurgents and La Follette's leadership, see Hechler, Kenneth W, Insurgency: Personalities and Politics of the Taft Era (New York, 1940)Google Scholar; also Holt, James, Congressional Insurgents and the Party System, 1909-1916 (Cambridge, MA, 1967)Google Scholar; , Thelen, La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit, 67–69Google Scholar; Unger, Nancy, Fighting Bob La Follette: The Righteous Reformer (Chapel Hill, 2000), 185–89Google Scholar. For a discussion of the division of labor among the insurgents, see Joseph Bristow to F. S.Jackson, Dec. 15, 1909, MS 470, roll 25, Bristow Papers.
8 , Thelen, La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit, 83–84Google Scholar.
9 Robert J. Collier to Joseph Bristow, July 16, 1910, MS 479, roll 34, Bristow Papers; Bristow to Bourne, July 18, 1910, MS 479, roll 34, Bristow Papers.
10 Bourne to Beveridge, July 11, 1910, Beveridge Papers; Bourne to Bristow, July 13, 1910, MS 479, roll 34, Bristow Papers; for more on Bourne and the Oregon System, see Pike, Albert H., “Jonathan Bourne Jr., Progressive” (PhD diss., University of Oregon, 1957)Google Scholar.
11 Hendrick, Burton J., “Law-Making by the Voters: How the People of Oregon, Working under the Initiative and Referendum, Have Become Their Own Political Bosses,” McClures, Aug. 1911, 435–50Google Scholar; , Pike, “Jonathan Bourne,” 14-17, 43–46Google Scholar. See also Eaton, Allen H., The Oregon System: The Story of Direct Legislation in Oregon (Chicago, 1912)Google Scholar; Kennan, George, “The Direct Rule of the People,” North American Review, Aug. 1913Google Scholar. For more on the initiative and referendum, see Waters, M. Dane, ed., The Battle Over Citizen Lawmaking (Durham, 2001)Google Scholar; Sponholtz, Lloyd, “The Initiative and Referendum: Direct Democracy in Perspective, 1898-1920,” American Studies 14 (Fall 1973): 43–64Google Scholar.
12 , Hendrick, ”Law-Making by the Voters,” 435Google Scholar; , Eaton, Oregon System, 4–5Google Scholar. See also Riker, William H., “The Senate and American Federalism,” American Political Science Review 49 (June 1955): 466CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a discussion of the Oregon System as a step toward direct election of the U.S. Senate on a national level, see Murphy, William B., “Direct Election of U.S. Senators and the Transformation of American Politics” (PhD diss., Syracuse University, 2006)Google Scholar.
13 , Hendrick, “Law-Making by the Voters,” 447–450Google Scholar; , Eaton, Oregon System, 99–108Google Scholar; , Pike, “Jonathan Bourne,” 127–30Google Scholar.
14 Congressional Record, 61st Cong, 2nd sess. (May 5, 1910), 5823–30Google Scholar.
15 , Pike, “Jonathan Bourne,” 129–30Google Scholar. David Thelen notes that Bourne was closely associated with the direct-democracy movement during the Taft administration; see , Thelen, La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit, 80–81Google Scholar; James Holt describes Bourne as a “one issue” progressive focused on direct democracy; see , Holt, Concessional Insurgents, 9Google Scholar.
16 Bourne to Bristow, July 13, 24, 1910, MS 479, roll 34, Bristow Papers. Bourne to Beveridge, July 11, 1910, box 172, Beveridge Papers.
17 Bourne to Roosevelt, May 14, 1910, reel 363, TR Papers.
18 Bourne to Roosevelt, June 23, 1910, reel 363, TR Papers.
19 Bourne to Roosevelt, July 5, 1910, reel 363, TR Papers.
20 Goebel, Thomas, A Government by the People: Direct Democracy in America, 1890-1940 (Chapel Hill, 2002), 110–12Google Scholar.
21 Bourne to William Allen White, July 21, 1910, MS 479, roll 34, Bristow Papers.
22 Roosevelt to Bourne, Oct. 19, 1910, reel 94, TR Papers. Goebel suggests there was a fundamental difference between eastern progressives, who tended to favor reforms that promoted more efficient government, and western progressives, who favored direct democracy; at this stage in the debate, Roosevelt appears to ascribe to the easterners' point of view. See , Goebel, Government by the People, 110–16Google Scholar.
23 Bristow to J. A. Kimball, June 3,1910, MS 478, roll 33, Bristow Papers; Bristow to Bourne, July 18, 1910, MS 479, roll 34, Bristow Papers; Moses E. Clapp to Beveridge, Nov. 11, 1910, box 183, Beveridge Papers.
24 La Follette later stated that it was during these discussions that he, Bourne, and Bristow developed the plan for the league and ironed out its platform. See La Follette to William Allen White, Dec. 28, 1910, box B105, Robert M. La Follette Sr. Papers in the La Follette Family Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (hereafter “La Follette Papers”). See also Chace, 1912, 59-60; , Gable, Bull Moose Years, 11Google Scholar; , Unger, Fighting Bob La Follette, 193–94Google Scholar; , Thelen, La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit, 79–81Google Scholar.
25 “Declaration of Principles of the National Progressive Republican League,” Jan. 1911Google Scholar, box B138, La Follette Papers. Also , Unger, Fighting Bob La Follette, 1, 184, 191, 194Google Scholar; , Hechler, Insurgency, 83–85Google Scholar.
26 La Follette to John W Greb, Mar. 25, 1911, box B106, La Follette Papers. When La Follette discussed direct democracy as an effective weapon against special privilege, he gave voice to the antimonopoly tradition described by Goebel. See , Goebel, A Government by the People, 110–12Google Scholar.
27 , Thelen, La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit, 80–82Google Scholar.
28 , Unger, Fighting Bob La Follette, 214Google Scholar.
29 , Thelen, La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit, 80–81Google Scholar; Bourne to La Follette, Aug. 19, 1910, box B63, La Follette Papers.
30 , Thelen, La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit, 87Google Scholar; , Holt, Congressional Insurgents, 47–49Google Scholar. The only thing that might have derailed these plans, in the thinking of the insurgents, was the nomination by the Democrats of a progressive candidate in 1912, which of course ended up happening, even though La Follette and his fellow insurgents doubted the existence of a true Democratic progressive in 1911.
31 , Holt, Congressional Insurgents, 19–24Google Scholar. La Follette would eventually moderate his toward progressive Democrats, at least for a time. He offered a positive assessment of Woodrow Wilson's candidacy during the 1912 campaign and sought common ground with Wilson and the Democrats in the early years of Wilson's presidency. Ultimately it was his disagreement with Wilson's attitudes on such issues as women's suffrage, the rights of African Americans, and World War I that ended his hopes for further collaboration. See , Unger, Fighting Bob La Follette, 223–30Google Scholar.
32 Bourne to William Allen White, July 21, 1910, MS 479, roll 34, Bristow Papers.
33 , Hechler, Insurgency, 202Google Scholar; , Unger, Figbting Bob La Follette, 194Google Scholar; , Painter, Standing at Armageddon, 259Google Scholar.
34 , Unger, Fighting Bob La Follette, 194–95Google Scholar; , Thelen, La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit, 82–83Google Scholar ; Chace, 1912, 103.
35 Cooper, John Milton Jr, The Warrior and the Priest: Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosepelt (Cambridge, MA, 1983), 152–53Google Scholar; , Chace, 1912, 103Google Scholar.
36 , Unger, Fighting Bob La Follette, 194–95Google Scholar.
37 Roosevelt to Bourne, Jan. 2, 1911, reel 96, TR Papers.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
40 Bourne to Roosevelt, Jan. 11, 1911, reel 364, TR Papers.
41 Roosevelt to La Follette, Jan. 3, 1911, reel 96, TR Papers.
42 La Follette to Roosevelt, Jan. 19, 1911, reel 364, TR Papers.
43 Ibid.
44 Roosevelt to William Allen White, Jan. 24,1911, reel 97, TR Papers.
45 Chace, 1912, 103-04; , Cooper, Warrior and the Priest, 152–54Google Scholar; Roosevelt to William Allen White, Jan. 24, 1911, reel 97, TR Papers; Roosevelt to La Follette, Jan. 24, 1911, reel 97, TR Papers.
46 Roosevelt, Theodore, “Nationalism and Popular Rule,” Outlook, Jan. 21, 1911, 96Google Scholar.
47 Ibid., 97. At this stage, Roosevelt was expressing views echoed by easter n progressives like Herbert Croly, with whom Roosevelt closely associated. His later shift on the issue of direct democracy would alienate Roosevelt from Croly and other eastern progressives who were wary of these reforms. See , Goebel, A Government of the People, 110–32Google Scholar; also , Cooper, Warrior and the Priest, 146-48, 161–63Google Scholar.
48 , Roosevelt, ”Nationalism and Popular Rule,” 96Google Scholar.
49 Ibid., 98.
50 Ibid., 100.
51 Bourne to Roosevelt, Jan. 25, 1911, reel 364, TR Papers.
52 Piott, Steven L., Giving Voters a Voice: The Origins of the Initiative and Referendum in America (Columbia, MO, 2003), 32–50Google Scholar.
53 Roosevelt to Bourne, letter dated Feb. 31,1911 (almost certainly Jan. 31), reel 100, TR Papers.
54 William Allen White to Bristow, Dec. 29, 1911, MS 499, roll 54, Bristow Papers; , Thelen, La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit, 90–91Google Scholar; , Unger, Fighting Bob La Follette, 201–02Google Scholar; also Follette, Robert M. La, La Follette's Autobiography: A Personal Narrative of Political Experiences (Madison, 1963), 247–8Google Scholar; , Belle and Follette, Fola La, Robert M. La Follette, 1:408Google Scholar.
55 , Unger, Fighting Bob La Follette, 204–07Google Scholar; , Thelen, La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit, 91–92Google Scholar.
56 , Unger, Fighting Bob La Follette, 209Google Scholar; , Thelen, La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit, 92Google Scholar; , Cooper, Warrior and the Priest, 156–57Google Scholar; Chace, 1912, 105-06.
57 , Belle and Follette, Fola La, Robert M. La Follette, 1:408Google Scholar; Follette, Robert M. La, La Follette's Autobiography, 285Google Scholar.
58 , Thelen, La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit, 94–95Google Scholar; , Unger, Fighting Bob La Follette, 216–18Google Scholar; , Gable, The Bull Moose Years, 11–14Google Scholar.
59 Chace, 1912, 116-17; , Cooper, Warrior and the Priest, 157Google Scholar; also , Unger, Fighting Bob La Follette, 219Google Scholar.
60 At the Progressive Party convention in 1912, former NPRL member Albert Beveridge expressed the party's support for all five of the issues of the defunct league's platform in his keynote address. See , Gable, Bull Moose Years, 78Google Scholar. “For Roosevelt's desire to be the driving force behind historic changes in America and how this influenced his behavior in the 1912 campaign, see , Cooper, Warrior and the Priest, 156–63Google Scholar.
62 Chace, 1912, 162-63, , Gable, Bull Moose Years, 78–81Google Scholar.
63 , Gable, Bull Moose Years, 250–51Google Scholar.
64 Tobin, Eugene M., Organise or Perish: America's Independent Progressives, 1913-1933 (New York, 1986), 101-02, 126-27, 142–57Google Scholar.
65 See note 1 above.
66 , Unger, Fighting Bob La Follette, 281–96Google Scholar; , Sponholtz, “The Initiative and Referendum,” 43–64Google Scholar; Easterling, Larry J., “Senator Joseph L. Bristow and the Seventeenth Amendment,” Kansas Historical Quarterly 41 (Winter 1975): 488–51Google Scholar. The Senate first passed a version of what would become the Seventeenth Amendment in June 1911, not long after the creation of the NPRL; the final version passed by both houses and submitted to the states in 1912, after the league had already collapsed, was identical to this earlier Senate version. See Murphy, “Direct Election of U.S. Senators.”
