^{page 362 note 1} Estimate for October 1932 by the American Federation of Labor. Estimates made by a number of organizations showed variations because of differing definitions of “unemployment” and of deficiencies in the statistical material available. Two scholars who examined the various estimates came to the conclusion that the method adopted by the American Federation of Labor was “careful and thorough and results in an unemployment figure that is probably nearest to being the correct under the definitions adopted”. Russell A. Nixon and Paul A. Samuelson, Estimates of Unemployment in the United States, in: Review of Economic Statistics (Cambridge, Mass.), XXII (August, 1940), 101–11.

^{page 362 note 2} Mitchell, Broadus, Depression Decade (New York, 1947), 97.Google Scholar

^{page 362 note 3} Ahearn, Daniel Jr., The Wages of Farm and Factory Laborers 1914–1944 (New York, 1945). 146.Google Scholar

^{page 362 note 4} Ibid., 172

^{page 362 note 5} Wecter, Dixon, The Age of the Great Depression (New York, 1948), 16.Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 1} Douglas, Paul, Dividends Soar, Wages Drop, in: World Tomorrow (New York, N.Y.), XV (12 28, 1932), 611–12.Google Scholar “While dividend and interest payments did begin to fall off in 1932, wages declined still more. While wages in manufacturing for the nine months from January to September 1932, averaged less than 43 per cent of their totals in 1926 and 1929, the dividend and interest payments were at a rate only five per cent below those of 1929 and 64 per cent above those of 1926. It should moreover be remembered that the fall in living costs made the gain in the real income of the stock and bondholders even greater than is indicated by the monetary figures alone.”

^{page 363 note 2} Ogg, Frederick A., Does America Need a Dictator? in: Current History (New York, N.Y.), XXXVI (09, 1932), 641–48.Google Scholar The author answered the question in the negative.

^{page 363 note 3} Among the writers were Morris L. Ernst, Oswald Garrison Villard, Stuart Chase, Glenn Frank, Lewis Mumford and William Allen White. Nation (New York, N.Y.), CXXXIII (1931); CXXXIV (1932).

^{page 363 note 4} Lippmann, Walter, Interpretations 1931–1932 (New York, 1932), 30.Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 5} James Truslow Adams, Shadow of Man on Horseback, in: Atlantic Monthly (Concord, N.H.), CXLIX (January, 1932), 10. Adams added that he could not foretell what would happen in the United States “except that life goes on and on, and institutions forever change”.

^{page 364 note 1} Bernarr Macfadden, in an editorial in Liberty; quoted by Ogg, op. cit., 646.

^{page 364 note 2} New York Times, 06 6, 1932, p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 3} Barnes, Julius H., Government and Business, in: Harvard Business Review (Cambridge, Mass.), X (07, 1932), 411–19.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 4} Lippmann, , op. cit., 29.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 5} Soule, George, Are We Going to have a Revolution?, in: Harper's Magazine (New York, N. Y.), CLXV (08, 1932), 277.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 6} Davis, Elmer, The Collapse of Politics, in: Harper's Magazine, CLXV (09, 1932). 387.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 7} Testimony of Edward F. McGrady before the Senate Manufactures Committee. American Federation of Labor Weekly News Service (Washington, D. C), XXII (May 14,1932) 1.

^{page 364 note 8} Wecter.op. cit.,16.

^{page 365 note 1} The headquarters of the 33rd Division of the Illinois National Guard secretly circulated a booklet entitled “Emergency Plans for Domestic Disturbances”. Excerpts from it were quoted by World Tomorrow, XV (April, 1932), 103.

^{page 365 note 2} The nearest approaches to mass action during the year were the encampment in Washington D. C, of the so-called Bonus Army and the “siege” of Council Bluffs and Sioux City in Iowa by angry farmers led by the National Farmers' Holiday Association. Despite a few alarmistic reports, neither of them constituted a threat to the safety and security of the established order in the United States.

^{page 365 note 3} William Green, president of the Federation, declared that labor “has steadfastly refused to isolate itself from other groups of American citizens, to develop and emphasize class lines…” American Federation of Labor Weekly News Service, XXII (May 7, 1932), 1.

^{page 365 note 4} George Sokolsky, Will Revolution Come?, in: Atlantic Monthly, CL (August, 1932), 191. “Amos'n Andy”, a radio comedy program, is still on the air and has an extensive and loyal following.

^{page 365 note 5} Kent, Frank R. in a symposium on The Future of American Government, in: Forum (Concord, N. H.), LXXXVII (05, 1932), 212.Google Scholar

^{page 366 note 1} Steffens, Lincoln, Bankrupt Liberalism, in: New Republic (New York, N.Y.), LXX (02 17, 1932), 15.Google Scholar

^{page 366 note 2} The Methodists Fall Back and Advance, in: World Tomorrow, XV (July, 1932), 199.

^{page 366 note 3} Speech before a meeting of the Catholic Conference on Industrial Relations. American Federation of Labor Weekly News Service, XXII (May, 1932), 1.

^{page 366 note 4} We Salute the Rabbis, in: World Tomorrow, XV (November 23, 1932), 486.

^{page 366 note 5} Ibid.

^{page 367 note 1} Lippmann, , op. cit., 286–87.Google Scholar

^{page 367 note 2} Oswald Garrison Villard, The Democratic Trough at Chicago, in: Nation, CXXXV (July 13, 1932), 26. Earlier, in an outspoken personal letter, editor Villard had condemned Franklin D. Roosevelt's “policy of talking mere glittering generalities”. “You are”, he wrote to Roosevelt, “playing the old politician's game of compromising and trimming and evading issues and we had the right to expect a great deal more from you”. Villard to Roosevelt, , 06 17, 1932Google Scholar, Oswald Garrison Villard Papers, Houghton Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

^{page 367 note 3} Hoover, Herbert, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover, 4 vols. (New York, 1952), III, 56.Google Scholar For a statement of Roosevelt's views see The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, , 13 vols. (New York, 1938–1950), I, 851.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 1} Hoover, , op. cit., III, 311.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 2} This figure was given in a nationwide radio speech over the Columbia Broadcasting System by Gibson, Harvey D., chairman of the Emergency Unemployment Relief Committee, New York Times, 10 II, 1932, p. 19.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 3} Hoover, , op. cit., III, 311.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 4} The Public Papers… of Roosevelt, Franklin D., op. cit., I, 794.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 5} Ibid., 806.

^{page 368 note 6} Ibid., 809. For some revealing comments on this speech see Samuel I. Rosenman, Working with Roosevelt, (New York, 1952), 86.Google Scholar

^{page 369 note 1} The Public Papers… of Franklin D. Roosevelt, , op. cit., I, 853.Google Scholar

^{page 369 note 2} Davis, John W., Why I am a Democrat, in: New York Times, 10 30, 1932Google Scholar, Sec. II, p. 2.

^{page 369 note 3} New York Times, May 2, 1932, p. 4; Sidney Hertzberg, Political Dissent in 1932, in: Current History, XXXVII (November, 1932), 161–66. Aside from the parties that claimed to be socialist, many other parties entered the electoral contest on a national and regional scale. For a humorous account of the activities of these groups see James Oneal, Messiah vs. Messiah vs. Messiah, in: American Mercury (New York, N. Y.), XXVII (October, 1932), 177–83. See also R. V. Peel and T. C, Donnelly, The 1932 Campaign (New York, 1935), 201–06.

^{page 370 note 1} Quoted in North, Joseph, The Communists Nominate, in: New Masses (New York, N.Y.), VIII (07, 1932), 4.Google Scholar A melodramatic account of the Communist party convention.

^{page 370 note 2} Foster, William Z., Toward Soviet America (New York, 1932), 268–343.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 1} Quoted by Hicks, Granville, Where We Came Out (New York, 1954), 36.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 2} For an autobiographical account of some of the highlights in the career of Thomas, Norman, see A Socialist's Faith (New York, 1951)Google Scholar; see also Maurer, James H., It Can Be Done (New York, 1938).Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 3} In 1931, 32 per cent of the total membership of the Socialist party belonged to the socalled “language federations”. “Language federations” existed for Americans of Bohemian, Finnish, Italian, Jewish, Jugoslav, Lithuanian and Polish antecedents. In 1932 the party's membership increased and “language federations” accounted for 18 per cent of the total. Source: Report to the Special National Convention, Chicago, March 26–29, 1937, Archives of the Socialist party of America, Manuscripts Division, Duke University Library, Durham, North Carolina. “The future of the Socialist party in America”, said a leader of the Finnish Federation, “is in the native born stock. The days of the language federation are past. They will continue to live and function, but they should not be expected to become an active, virile element again.” W. N. Reivo, The Finnish Socialists in America, in: The March of Socialism: Journal of the Seventeenth National Convention of the Socialist Party (Milwaukee, , 1932), 13.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 1} The total membership of the party in 1932 was 16,863. Receipts from membership dues amounted to the meager sum of $ 6,724.99. Source: Report to the Special Convention, Chicago, March 26–29, 1937, Archives of the Socialist Party.

^{page 372 note 2} Radio speech from Madison, Wisconsin, September 25, 1932, Norman Thomas Papers, Manuscripts Division, New York Public Library, New York.

^{page 372 note 3} In a speech at Providence, Rhode Island, Thomas posed these questions to Roosevelt: “Will you state specifically when you or your party officials called on the administration to check the Wall Street boom and what specifically you advised the administration? What did you do as Governor of New York after January 21, 1929, to bring Wall Street to terms?” New York Times, August 22, 1932, p. 2. Walter Lippmann characterized as “preposterous” the widespread feeling in the South and the West that Wall Street feared Roosevelt and added that “if any Western Progressive thinks that the Governor has challenged directly or indirectly the wealth concentrated in New York City, he is mightily mistaken.” Lippmann, op. cit., 261.

^{page 372 note 4} Boss Hague arranged a giant rally for Roosevelt in Jersey City, New Jersey, and shared the platform with the candidate. Hague sternly rebuked Republicans during the campaign for presuming to accuse the Democratic leadership of radicalism. “The Republicans can't hang radicalism on us and make it stick”, he said. “All our leaders are conservative.… the national committee of which I have been a member for fifteen years is conservative. And ours is a party of the interests and industries.… To be against business would be to be against the working man.” World Tomorrow, XV (October 12, 1932), 341.

^{page 372 note 5} Speech over the Columbia Broadcasting System, July 13, 1932, Thomas Papers.

^{page 373 note 1} Speech over the National Broadcasting Company's network from Madison, Wisconsin, September 25, 1952, ibid.

^{page 373 note 2} Speech over Radio Station WEVD, New York City, August 12, 1932, ibid.

^{page 373 note 3} Radio speech, September 3, 1932, ibid.

^{page 373 note 4} Speech over the Columbia Broadcasting System, June 10, 1932, ibid.

^{page 373 note 5} Speech over Radio Station WOR, New York City, September 18, 1932, ibid.

^{page 374 note 1} Many important socialist leaders of Europe and Great Britain clung to orthodoxy in respect of fiscal and financial measures for combating the depression. A noteworthy exception was provided by the leadership of the Social Democratic party of Sweden. On this point, see Sturmthal, Adolf, The Tragedy of European Labor 1918–1939 (New York, 1943), 98–175.Google Scholar For an account of the financial orthodoxy of the second Labour Government in Great Britian, see Cole, G. D. H., A Short History of the British Working Class Movement (London, 1948), 430–37Google Scholar; and Attlee, C. R., As It Happened (London, 1954), 72–74.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 2} Speech over Radio Station WEVD, New York City, August 12, 1952; Speech over Radio Station WOR, New York City, September 18, 1932; Thomas Papers. Thomas was, perhaps, influenced to some extent by alarmistic works about the evil of national debts, particularly by Dennis's, LawrenceIs Capitalism Doomed? (New York, 1932)Google Scholar, and Renatus's, KunoThe Twelfth Hour of Capitalism (New York, 1932).Google Scholar In a review of the two works Thomas sharply criticized the conclusions of the authors. See World Tomorrow, XV (June, 1932), 186.

^{page 374 note 3} For the full text of the speech sec New York Times, October 21, 1932, p. 14. In a critical editorial the newspaper expressed regret that a fine gentleman like Thomas could advocate a course “so incautious, ill-founded, misleading and inflammatory.” Open Sesame on Promises, in: New York Times, October 22, 1932, p. 14. Thomas informed the writer of this article that he did not, as some critics charged, purposely wait till the end of the campaign for putting forth his demand for a capital levy. He had asked a fellow Socialist, Prof. Maynard Krueger of Chicago University, to send him material on a capital levy “of which I was at the time ready to be a strong advocate.” “I never did get all that I wanted but I did get some material and so I spoke at Columbus.… I should have said more on the subject and earlier, if I had gotten the material which I thought I ought to have had.” Thomas added that in his advocacy of the capital levy he was influenced by the writings of the British Socialist, Hugh Dalton. Thomas, to writer, 01 17, 1955.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 1} Thomas was critical of the Supreme Court's record in the sphere of social legislation and held that it had done “more damage to social progress in America than any Congress.” Speech at Morristown, New Jersey, New York Times, October 29, 1932, p. 10. He said that the power of the Court “to enact its social prejudices into law under the guise of interpreting the Constitution” should be curbed.

^{page 375 note 2} Speech over the Columbia Broadcasting System, July 13, 1932, Thomas Papers. Thomas told the writer that he had spoken to many farm groups, “but never got big audiences or very much help from farm leaders.” Thomas to the writer, January 17, 1955.

^{page 376 note 1} Speech over the National Broadcasting Company network, Madison, Wisconsin, November 7, 1932, Thomas Papers.

^{page 376 note 2} Speech at Madison Square Garden, New York Times, November 4, 1932, p. 16.

^{page 376 note 3} Christian Science Monitor, November 2, 1932, p. 10. “He speaks at once with dignity and fire, with practical realism and sensitive imagination.… When he speaks it is the depth of conviction that counts primarily. But he is the fortunate owner of a rich, resonant voice, and has the gift of speaking at high speed yet with clarity and freedom from rhetorical bombast.” Devere Allen, Norman Thomas – Why Not?, in: Nation, CXXXIV (March 30, 1932), 365. Press accounts of the meetings addressed by Thomas referred to the unusually large crowds that turned out to hear him. In Philadelphia, according to the New York Times, the crowd that turned out for Thomas was the biggest at any Socialist gathering. Thomas spoke before one of the biggest political rallies ever held in the “ultra-conservative” insurance city of Hartford. Thousands thronged to hear Thomas in Indianapolis whereas during the campaign of 1928 only two hundred had been present. (Levinson, Edward to Woodward, W. E., 09 12, 1932Google Scholar, Archives of the Socialist Party.) Large crowds turned out to hear Thomas in such places like Columbus, Ohio, and Madison, Wisconsin. In his own city of New York, Thomas addressed enthusiastic meetings including a huge rally in Madison Square Garden. For an account of the Madison Square Garden meeting, see New York Times, November 4, 1932, p. I.

^{page 377 note 1} Davis, , op. cit., 395.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 2} Wittke to Thomas, , 06 3, 1932Google Scholar, Archives of the Socialist Party.

^{page 377 note 3} Some of them who belonged to the League for Independent Political Action disclaimed the “socialist” label but expressed faith in the need for increased social control.

^{page 377 note 4} “The value of the vote for Thomas next fall”, wrote Prof. Robert Morss Lovett, “will be in its protest against the present operations of political government. Only by the negative force of fear will it be able to effect any immediate change. A promise that a third party will be a serious contender in 1936 will be the most salutary result of the campaign of 1932, not only in consequence of the deterrent fear with which such a prophecy may strike the predatory forces now in control, but by virtue of the hope which it will give to the masses everywhere whose faith in the democratic process is almost gone.” Robert Morss Lovett, Progressives at Cleveland, in: New Republic, LXXI (July 20, 1932), 259.

^{page 378 note 1} Memorandum from the National Secretary to the National Executive Committee of the Socialist party of America, December 9, 1932, Archives of the Socialist Party. The office-bearers of the Committee were: Paul Douglas, chairman; Morris R. Cohen, John Dewey, Bishop Francis J. McConnell and Oswald Garrison Villard, vice-presidents; Reinhold Niebuhr, treasurer; Mary Fox, secretary.

^{page 378 note 2} New York Times, October 7, 1932, p. 13.

^{page 378 note 3} Matthews, J. B., Pacifists Prefer Thomas, in: World Tomorrow, XV (10 26, 1932), p. 402.Google Scholar Hoover, Roosevelt, , and Foster obtained 20.4Google Scholar, 2.9, and 1.6 per cent of the votes respectively.

^{page 378 note 4} The results were as follows: Thomas, 1,033Google Scholar; Hoover, 833Google Scholar; Roosevelt, 547Google Scholar; and Foster, 21.Google ScholarWechsler, James A., The Age of Suspicion (New York, 1953), 40.Google Scholar To hundreds of young men, wrote Wechsler “the central figure in the campaign was tall, tireless Norman Thomas.” Wechsler was seventeen years of age in 1932 and was an ardent Socialist. Later he migrated to the Communist camp, but split with the party after some years. He is now editor of the New York Post and is regarded as a liberal and an “anti-Communist”.

^{page 378 note 5} Daily Princetonian, October 28, 1932, p. I. of 58,686 votes cast, Hoover received 29,289; Roosevelt 18,212; Thomas 10,470; Foster 715; and William Upshaw (Prohibition party) 103. None of the candidates carried his own alma materl

^{page 379 note 1} “Leaders of tomorrow, join our fighting band that all workers may soon be free. It is up to us, the students, to educate, organize, and make assured the classless society through the coming of socialism in our time”, declared Paul Ritterskamp, chairman of the National Students' Committee in letters to prospective supporters in various colleges and universities. Ritterskamp to George R. Robinson, Lincoln College, Jefferson City, Missouri, October 7, 1932, Archives of the Socialist Party.

^{page 379 note 2} Memorandum from the National Secretary to the National Executive Committee, December 9, 1932, ibid.

^{page 379 note 3} The following unions endorsed the Socialist ticket: Federated Trades Council, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; International Association of Machinists, Local 1052, Milwaukee; American Federation of Full Fashioned Hosiery Workers, Local II, Newark, New Jersey; Local 39, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and locals from Washington, New Jersey, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Cigar Makers International, Local 87, Brooklyn, New York; Amalgamated Clothing Workers, Chicago Joint Board; and labor unions in La Grande, Oregon and Huntington, West Virginia. Ibid.

^{page 379 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 380 note 1} Quoted in World Tomorrow, XV (November 2, 1932), 425. White stated that Negroes were disappointed with the performance of Hoover, but had little hope in the Democratic party. “In retrospect”, wrote Thomas to the writer, “I think that we socialists made a mistake not to particularize more on the race issue in behalf of Negroes but I do not think it would have made much difference in the vote.” Thomas to the writer, January 17, 1955. The Communist party, with a radically different approach specifically designed to appeal to the racially-minded Negro, had no better luck than the Socialist party. Perhaps, as Wilson Record says, Negroes “were too preoccupied with staying alive and praising God (in that order) to give time to the building of the society.” Record adds that Negroes were reluctant “to invite the stigma of radicalism when the stigma of race was already overwhelming.” The Negro and the Communist Party (Chapel Hill, 1951), II.

^{page 380 note 2} Memorandum from the National Secretary to the National Executive Committee, December 9, 1932, Archives of the Socialist Party. Of the amount cited, locals, branches, and state organizations owed $ 5, 883.76 to the party's national office.

^{page 380 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 380 note 4} Christian Science Monitor, October 28, 1932, p. 4. Here are details of Thomas's expenses on his New England trip: meals $ 16.20; gas and oil $ 22.65; repairs and grease $ 4.85; ferry charges and tolls $ 6.25; public stenographer $ 4; and incidentals $ 1.50.

^{page 380 note 5} Clarence Senior to Sturgeon, H. N., Sioux City, Iowa, 11 7, 1932Google Scholar, Archives of the Socialist Party.

^{page 381 note 1} “They worked for almost nothing and without them we would have got practically nowhere”, Thomas, wrote to the writer, 01 17, 1955.Google Scholar

^{page 381 note 2} The journal reached a circulation of 120,000 in the last week of October, 1932, and was reported to be paying its way. After the election, however, the publication was discontinued owing to lack of funds.

^{page 381 note 3} Quoted in Literary Digest, CXIV (October 15, 1932), II.

^{page 381 note 4} Christian Science Monitor, October 24,1932, p. 3. The Monitor's coverage of the Socialist campaign, however, was very inadequate.

^{page 381 note 5} New York Times, November 4, 1932, p. 18. The newspaper predicted an unusually large “protest vote” in an editorial on November 3, 1932, p. 20.

^{page 381 note 6} Literary Digest, CXIV (November 5, 1932), 44.

^{page 381 note 7} Time (Chicago, Illinois), XX (November 7,1932), 15. Thomas made a general prediction about the outcome of the election as early as February, 1932. He told a reporter for the Poughkeepsie Eagle-News that the Democratic party could beat Hoover with almost any candidate and that Governor Roosevelt would win, if he was nominated by his party. Quoted in the New York Times, February 27, 1932, p. 8.

^{page 382 note 1} New Leader (New York, N.Y.), XV (January 14, 1935), 8; Peel, and Donnelly, , op. cit., 230–31.Google Scholar The Socialist party's presidential vote in 1932 was the second highest in its history. In 1920 Eugene Debs polled 919, 799 votes.

^{page 382 note 2} New York Times, November 9, 1932, p. I.

^{page 382 note 3} Thomas, to Sourry, Horace S., 11 9, 1932Google Scholar, Archives of the Socialist Party.

^{page 382 note 4} Thomas to conference on organization, Socialist party headquarters, Chicago, November 9, 1932, Thomas Papers. Thomas told the writer that there were few Socialist watchers at polling booths and that a number of cases were reported of failure of election officials to comply with regulations. It also happened, said Thomas, that the officials became tired after counting Republican and Democratic votes and were not too particular about counting the Socialist votes. Thomas told a story about a visit he once made to a polling booth in New York City. An official recognized him and greeted him warmly. “We are treating you right, Mr. Thomas. We are giving you 26 votes”, said the official. “Have you counted them all?” Thomas asked him. “Hell, no!” was the answer. Interview with Thomas, , 08, 1954.Google Scholar

^{page 382 note 5} Quoted in “The Socialist Avalanche that Failed”, in: Literary Digest, CXIV (December 3,1932), 10.

^{page 382 note 6} Ibid.

^{page 383 note 1} In 1928 the party polled 262,805 votes.

^{page 383 note 2} March of Socialism, op. cit., 16. Only a few months earlier British Socialism had suffered a crushing defeat, its Parliamentary representation being out from 288 to a mere 52 seats. The German Social Democratic party, the strongest unit in the Labor and Socialist International, was fighting with its back to the wall against the growing might of Hitler's Nazis. In fact, the Socialist movement found itself in a stalemate everywhere except in the Scandinavian countries and Spain.

^{page 383 note 3} Thomas to conference on organization, November 9, 1932, Thomas Papers.

^{page 383 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 383 note 5} Waldman to National Executive Committee, December 6,1932, Archives of the Socialist Party. “I predict”, wrote Daniel Hoan, Socialist Mayor of the city of Milwaukee, “that as Roosevelt fails, as he surely will, as his party will not let him promote real remedies, there will be a swing towards the Socialist Party.” Hoan to Frank G. Crane, Kalamazoo, Michigan, November, 1932, Hoan, Daniel W.Papers, Milwaukee County Historical Society, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.Google Scholar