Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T19:26:14.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Restive Haven for Progressives: Both Parties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Alan R. Harig
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With the dissolution of the Progressive Party in 1916, many of Theodore Roosevelt's followers parted company. Suddenly without a political home, they sought refuge in the two major parties that they had deserted four years before. Raymond Robins of Illinois and Edward P. Costigan of Colorado were key figures in that scattering of reformers as each attempted to lead Bull Moosers in a different direction. Searching for the party which could most effectively achieve the unfinished program which Roosevelt had launched in 1912, Costigan chose the Democratic party of Woodrow Wilson, while Robins argued that the Republican party best represented Progressive ideals. The purpose of this essay is to examine the manner in which these two leaders solved the Progressives' dilemma in 1916, and particularly the arguments they utilized in attempting to sway their former colleagues.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 1972 , pp. 223 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This and following paragraphs are based on a small body of studies useful for an investigation of Robins' and Costigan's careers. There is no biography of Robins, but on Costigan see the unpublished Ph.D. dissertation by Greenbaum, Fred, “Edward Prentiss Costigan: Study of a Progressive,” Columbia University, 1962Google Scholar. Biographical sketches include those in The National Cyclopedia of American Biography, XLII (New York, 1958), 11–12Google Scholar, on Robins, and XXIX (New York, 1941), 139, on Costigan. See also “Raymond Robins, Crusader,” The Nation, CLXXIX (10 30, 1954), 384–85Google Scholar; Davis, Allen, “Raymond Robins: The Settlement Worker as Municipal Reformer,” The Social Service Review, XXXIII (06, 1959), 131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Costigan: Schuyler, Robert Livingston, editor, The Dictionary of American Biography, XXII (New York, 1958), 123–25Google Scholar; Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1774–1961 (Washington, 1961), p. 741Google Scholar; Creel, George, “Foreword,” in Public Ownership of Government; Collected Papers of Edward P. Costigan (New York, 1940), pp. v–xiiiGoogle Scholar. Both men left manuscript collections, Robins at the State Historical Society of Wisconsin and Costigan at the University of Colorado Western Historical Collections, Boulder.

2 In addition to the sources cited above see Goodykoontz, Colin B., ed., Papers of Edward P. Costigan Relating to the Progressive Movement in Colorado, 1902–1917 (Boulder, 1941)Google Scholar; Greenbaum, Fred, “The Colorado Progressives in 1906,” Arizona and the West, VII (Spring, 1965), 21–32Google Scholar; Greenbauin, “Edward Premiss Costigan,” chapters 1 and 2.

3 Ibid., pp. 161, 231.

4 Costigan to William Holton Dye, April 14, 1914, in , Goodykoontz, ed., Papers of Costigan Relating to the Progressive Movement in Colorado, p. 257Google Scholar.

5 Richberg, Donald, My Hero: The Indiscreet Memoirs of an Eventful but Unheroic Life (New York, 1954), p. 64Google Scholar; Merriam, Charles E., Chicago: A More Intimate View of Urban Politics (New York, 1929), pp. 209–210Google Scholar; SisterMeiburger, Anne Vincent, Efforts of Raymond Robins Toward the Recognition of Soviet Russia and the Outlawry of War, 1917–1933 (Washington, 1958), pp. 17–18Google Scholar.

6 Creel, , “Foreword,” in Public Ownership of Government, p. xGoogle Scholar; D.A.B., XXII, 123; National Cyclopedia of American Biography, XXIX, 139; Goodykoontz, Colin B., “Edward P. Costigan and the Tariff Commission, 1917–1928,” Pacific Historical Review, XVI (11, 1947), 410–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See, for example, Key, V. O. Jr, Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups, 5th ed. (New York, 1964), p. 280Google Scholar; Holt, Michael Fitzgibbon, Forging A Majority: The Formation of the Republican Party in Pittsburgh, 1848–1860 (New Haven, 1969), pp. 141–43, 172–73, 307–9Google Scholar.

8 , Key, Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups, p. 264Google Scholar; Greenbaum, , “Edward Prentiss Costigan,” pp. 251–52Google Scholar, for example, states that most Colorado Progressives supported Hughes.

9 “Statement of Edward P. Costigan on the National Election of 1916,” in , Goodykoontz, ed., Papers of Edward P. Costigan, pp. 320–331 (from typed copy in the Costigan Papers)Google Scholar; Costigan's statement is printed in The Denver Post, October 2, 1916, p. 1; “Statement of Raymond Robins to the Progressives of the Country,” in Robins Papers. Unless otherwise noted, references in the following paragraphs come from the two statements.

10 In 1914 Costigan had criticized the national Democratic Party for placing “the doctrine of state's rights and so-called liberty above the welfare of the general community.” Quoted by Greenbaum, , “Edward Prentiss Costigan,” pp. 17–18, 172–73Google Scholar.

11 For Roosevelt's militant attitude and its effect on the election, see Nathan, Meyer, “Theodore Roosevelt and the 1916 Election,” The Rocky Mountain Social Science Journal, V (10, 1968), 64–75Google Scholar.

12 Colin B. Goodykoontz, “Costigan and the Tariff Commission” see Greenbaum, “Edward Prentiss Costigan” for an account of his later career.

13 The Denver Post, October 2, 1916, asserted that Costigan, “because of his leadership and campaigns, retains a tremendous following in Colorado. …”; Nathan, Meyer J., “The Presidential Election of 1916 in the Middle West” (Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, 1965), pp. 53, 61–2, 200–202Google Scholar; “The Division of the Progressive Vote,” The Outlook, CXIII (08 16, 1916), 881–882Google Scholar.