The set-out of the photograph and its liability can be argued. The photograph was probably taken by a black person itself, and could be more than coincidence that the row of people queing for relief were all blacks, and that they were right in front of the large poster. However, even if the set-out had been deliberate it could still portray the real situation of people in 1937: more than 10 million unemployed, an increase in bank failures and a fall in the Gross National Product of America.
Although the source on the whole is critical towards the New Deal, it also implies two other ideas: Roosevelt / New Deal´s success [or not] and the continued problem of blacks. The picture uses the contrasting image of blacks queing for relief in front of an image of a stereotypical American family to create a contrasting view of the New Deal´s success with the fact that there was still unemployment. This tries to argue Roosevelt´s success and to criticise his policies.
At the time Roosevelt had several groups against him, those groups could be then separated into two main groups: those who thought Roosevelt had too much power, and those who thought Roosevelt was not doing enough. Within those who thought he did not do enough for American people there were socialists and communists and individuals such as Huey Long, Doctor Francis Townsend and the priest Father Coughlin. Socialists and communists opposed the New Deal because they thought and believed that as long as there were communities having to deal with poverty and hunger, the government was not effective enough. Huey Long was the governor of Luisiana, and had also promised an increase on taxes for the rich in order to use the money for builinding schools, hospitals and roads. He did carry out his promises, however he did so through bribery and corruption. He started supporting Roosevelt´s government, but ended up attacking it. He proposed a “Share our wealth” scheme, which consisted on confiscating all personal fortunes of over $5 million and share them out. On the other hand, several of his promises were similar to those Roosevelt was proposing, for instance a minimum wage and pensions for the erderly. In 1935 he was assassinated. Doctor Townsend had a more specific idea. He proposed that everyone over 60 should receive a pension of $200 a month, providing the person had spent all the money during that month and had given up his job. He supported this idea by arguing that it would provide jobs for younger people and increase demand for goods and services. Finally, Father Coughlin also began praising Rooselvelt´s New Deal and ended up attacking it. He argued Roosevelt did not do enough for poor people and set uo a National Union for Social Justice which attracked millions of Americans. However, his ideas were confusing and he lost the mayority of his audience by 1940.
4) Study sources E, F and G. Are these cartoons for or against Roosevelt? Explain your answer with reference to the cartoons.
Source E is clearly against Roosevelt, and it is made clear though various images and details within the cartoon. Roosevelt is portrayed as an incompetent president who dispite the power he has, does not know what he is doing. The cartoon entitled “Priming the Pump” is making fun of a famour phrase Roosevelt said : pump priming. This was the label given to his policies, due to the way in which Roosevelt´s policies worked: putting money into the economy so it could later on work for itself. The pump in this cartoon represents American economy and the leaks represent the problems with it. The buckets of water being poured into the pump portray the money coming from the American taxpayers (which are also rpresented in the cartoon) and therefore shows that enormous amounts of money were being spent on inefficient and unprofitable agencies. This is demonstated by comparing the amount of water coming out of the pump (a thin dribble) with the amount coming out of the leaks. At the side of the cartoon, there is a stream of water labelled (16 billion spent) and they are going `down the drain´ which once again makes a remark about the tremendous amounts of money being `pumped´ into the economy without being used usefully.
The person working the pump to get the economy going is Roosevelt and we can pick out many details in his figure to deduce the cartoon is against him. The look on his face is as if he was enjoying himself because he is grinning and is only focused on the money being `pumped´ into the economy. He seems to be paying no attention to the taxpayer behind him who is the figure suffering and struggling to get the money to Roosevelt´s hands. His ignorance for what he is doing is shown through what he says: “I hope this will make `er work”. This represents what his opposition though of him, that he was incompetent and ignorant and that America could not be governed through agencies and wasting money. This ignorance also included the fact that Roosevelt did not seem to realise the wrong he was doing to the economy and the little benefit he was achieving. In the cartoon Roosevelt is also drawn as a strong man, with the proper use of his legs (which he hadn´t). This represented the fact that Rooselvelt was becoming more powerful and was exceeding himself through his policies.
The taxpayer, who is behind Roosevelt in the cartoon, is shown both unhappy and worried. His preocupation comes from noticing that Rooevelt does not seem to know what he is doing nor he seems to know what he is causing; and his unhappiness is due to the fact that ordinary Americans had trusted Roosevelt and had given him the power to carry out his policies, and now they were realising not only that his policies did not work but also that the ones being damaged were themselves. The taxpayer is represented as a tired and ordinary man, which makes a reference to the heavy weight taxpayers had on their shoulders (all the money they had to provide Roosevelt with) and that as they were not rich and had no high incomes, therefore higher wages implied lower standards of living. All of these points imply that Roosevelt´s policies and government were a failure, therefore the source is against Roosevelt.
Source F, on the other hand, seems to favour Roosevelt. The name of the cartoon is “getting rid of the rubbish”. This makes a reference to the image of Roosevelt taking out a dustbin full of Hoover’s previous policies, such as “rugged individualism” and famous phrases such as “Prosperity is around the corner” and “car in every garage” which only achieved to raise false expectations within American people. It is clearly critical towards Hoover’s way of dealing with the Depression. The way in which these policies and `slogans´ are considered rubbish, implies that Hoovers measures were insufficient as well as fake. Talking and turning the back on the problem would not solve the problem America was facing, specially for ordinary Americans
The dustbin carries good ideas too, but according to Roosevelt’s “New Deal” or new start, all previous ideologies should be put away. However, this dustbin which represents the New Deal is not the only way in which the cartoon criticises Hoover. He is represented as an unfriendly-looking man, leaving only “rubbish” behind him. Although he left a great deal of problems behind him, he does not seem to have been affected by the crisis, as he continues to be well dressed and carries his suitcase/bag. He also seems to be reading over a train time table, which hints at the possibility that Hoover is running away from the Depression.
The most clear sign of favour towards Roosevelt is the way in which he is portrayed. He is presented as positive, confident, energetic, happy, strong and using his legs properly. Each of these traits can be analysed separately. He is seen smiling which implies he is looking forward to helping America recover from the Depression and has a positive attitude towards this help. He seems very confident thanks to the support he had received in the elections and the trust Americans had deposited on him. He clearly has all of his energy ready to use it against the Depression and specially due to his incapacity. The way in which he smiles, I think, tries to put a message across: “excitement and hope” (Source A) is needed to fight back the Depression. His arms are shown strong and muscular as if he could pull America up again into its usual standards of living. By drawing him with the proper use of his legs, the cartoonist tells the audience that Roosevelt’s incapacity will not enable him to carry out his job successfully.
Finally, Source G is also against Roosevelt. This source has several similarities with Source E, however this source not only criticises Roosevelt, but also the Congress. In both sources, E and G, the remedies set out to recover from the Depression seem to be unprofitable and insufficient. In the case of Source E, the pump (i.e. American economy) had many leaks which represented the agencies´ failure when dealing with the Depression. In Source G however, the American economy is represented by Uncle Sam (a popular figure which also represented America as a nation) and he is sick. The remedies being brought by the doctor (Roosevelt) don’t seem to be effective.
This source also suggests Roosevelt does not know what he is doing, however in this case, Roosevelt is not alone. He is with Congress, which is represented by a nurse. The relationship doctor-nurse is clearly deliberate. They both need each other to carry out their jobs successfully and need each others approval when it comes to decision making. The expression on the nurse’s face is somehow foolish. She seems to be praising Roosevelt and agreeing completely with what he is saying. This hints at the fact that the President had the support from Congress and that this support was unlimited, and therefore criticises them both.
The doctor is saying “Of course we may have to change remedies if we don’t get results.” This is because results are clearly not being achieved. Uncle Sam is still sick which means the economy is still weak and therefore the agencies are not effective. The agencies are represented by bottles half empty containing medicine, and they are all placed on top of a table. This table is completely taken up by these bottles which implies that there were too many of these agencies and that all they achieved was wasting money (once again, like on Source E). There is one bottle which stands out from the rest: it is labelled NRA. This means that it was one of the most ambitious agencies of the New Deal. It aimed to deal with workers, employers, prices and unemployment, and therefore provide greater aid. However, some argued that these agencies were not designed to govern a country, as they were not put together by politicians, but by a panel of experts called the “Brain Trust” who were intellectuals. Therefore this source criticises Roosevelt for lack of experience and for not being effective.
5) Study Sources H and I. Which source is the more useful as evidence about public opinion towards the New Deal? Explain your answer.
In order to answer this question properly, I will examine several sources and add in some of my won knowledge of the period of time. For sources H and I, I will pick out their values and limitations in order to provide a balanced conclusion.
Source H is a personal letter from an old man to Roosevelt, thanking him for his help as it had allowed them to keep their house and furniture, as well as extending their bank loan. This letter was published by “Roosevelt’s supporters” as part of his election campaign in 1936, which implies that the purpose of publishing this letter is to win over the voters, and therefore had to show a good example of someone who favoured Roosevelt. This means that the letter was picked out deliberately in other to win the elections, therefore may not show a balanced opinion. However, in this sense it is still useful because we know that in 1936 Roosevelt won in all states but two. The nature of the victory showed the overall public opinion of the time.
Some may argue that this was one of the few letters the White House received to thank Roosevelt for the help provided. However, from our knowledge we know that Roosevelt did receive thousands of letters informing him of the successes of his policies.
It can be argued that this source only represents one family out of millions, and therefore does not provide us with reliable information about public opinion towards the New Deal at the time. However, towards the end of the letter we are told about “those millions of others” who prayed for Roosevelt every night. This may have been considered an exaggeration at the time, but from our knowledge we know that it was not far from the truth as millions of Americans voted for Roosevelt in the 1936 elections. Moreover, by saying this we are being told what millions of Americans thought of the New Deal and Roosevelt.
This source deals with the opinion of one individual (although it implies others thought as he did), and therefore can be considered subjective. It is giving one side of the story and clearly referring to himself and the problems he, as an individual, had. In this case, the problem was eviction. This source only shows the opinion this man had towards the HOLC (Home Owners Loan Corporation), which was the agency in charge of loaning people money to prevent them from losing their homes. Therefore the source is not providing us an opinion towards the New Deal, but towards the HOLC.
In spite of being published by Roosevelt’s supporters and having been read by millions of people, it does not mean it is a hundred per cent reliable. The letter could have been made up in order to win over more voters. This hypothesis is viable as we are told that it had been published by Roosevelt’s supporters, and that the purpose of this publication was the 1936 elections.
Source I is also in favour of Roosevelt and the New Deal. It is an excerpt from a “popular song” form 1936, after the elections (“We’ve got Franklin D. Roosevelt back again.”) Although was are told it is a “popular” song, we assume that it would not be popular amongst Republicans, the rich or businessmen who were against the New Deal and Roosevelt, as they thought he interfered too much in people’s lives.
Despite the argument above, the source can be useful due to various facts. It was written after the elections and Roosevelt had achieved the greatest victory a president had ever achieve until then. Basing on the nature of the victory, we can assume that Roosevelt had public support and that society’s opinion of the New Deal was favourable towards him. The source is celebrating Roosevelt’s success “the donkey won the election day, no more standing in the blowing, snowing rain” and is directed to ordinary Americans. This song could also be directed to those who did not support the New Deal, as a way of making fun of them. But by celebrating his victory, it implies that people agreed with the New Deal.
On source B we can also find signs of public opinion at the time. This source refers to people’s attitude after Roosevelt came into power in 1932 as with “hope and excitement”. It also claims that people showed their opinion through their votes when it came down to voting a president in or out. In Roosevelt’s case it was in several times in a row. This leaves us with no doubt about public opinion towards the New Deal as “all power is still in the hands of the people. They can vote out of power governments they do not like”.
Comparing source H with source I, we can see that source I covers a wider rage of issues: unemployment, recovery, eviction... Whilst source H only deals with eviction. Therefore I have reached the conclusion that source H, despite its limitations, is more useful as evidence of public opinion towards the New Deal. Source H not only covers broader issues, but it was a “popular song” and therefore can not be set up. But most important of all, it is from after the elections and therefore Americans had already says what they thought of the New Deal.
6) Study Sources J and K. why do you think these two people disagree about the New Deal?
I think it is clear that these two people disagree about the New Deal because of their positions during the New Deal period. Whilst Source J is a speech from a “self-made businessman” speaking in 1980, Source K is an extract from Francis Perkins´ book, “The Roosevelt I Knew” written in 1947. we can say that these two people are both `extremes´ during Roosevelt’s presidency. Businessmen were typically part of Roosevelt’s opposition due to his increasing power and interference in individual issues, and Francis Perkins was a member of Roosevelt’s government during the New Deal and therefore helped plan and carry out his policies.
Source J comes from 1980, which were many years after the New Deal was over and America had fully recovered from the Depression. S.B Fuller was “remembering” the time of the New Deal and therefore its reliability can be argued. After a certain period of time, and specially due to age, people tend to forget details and distort the facts, and baring in mind he was a “self-made businessman” he may have selective memory. Businessmen believed the New Deal interfered too much in people’s lives. Business leaders did not like Roosevelt’s support for trade unions and the campaign to raise wages. They also disliked having to pay social security contributions for their workers and objected schemes such as the TVA which they considered competed unfairly with privately owned businesses. The NRA was also criticised by them, arguing they were confusing and difficult to administer. In 1934 a group of business leaders formed the Liberty League to oppose the New Deal. Republicans and the rich also opposed the New Deal for similar reasons: they objected to the higher taxes used to cover costs of the alphabet agencies, the loss of power and the excessive government intervention.
In main idea present in Source J is “rugged individualism”. S.B Fuller considered that the New Deal “hurt us”, referring to businesses. Roosevelt’s government was clearly anti-“laissez faire” and because businessmen were pro-“laissez faire” there was disagreement over how America should be governed. When talking about Roosevelt’s background this man claimed that “he didn’t understand that when you give to people, you hurt them.” Although Roosevelt had been stricken by polio and had demonstrated his determination for success and understanding of suffering, the president was still seen as a “rich man’s son”. This could be backed up by true facts such as Roosevelt being born into a wealthy family, been to an expensive private school and went on to study at Harvard University. Source J also says that “welfare kills a man’s initiative” which refers to relief schemes and higher taxes for the higher classes and implies that by providing the poor with relief the Depression would not be solved.
Business leaders were specially against the National Recovery Administration (NRA) which consisted on drawing up codes for each industry which owners and businessmen were encouraged to sign. These codes fixed prices for goods, set minimum wages, limited workers´ hours and forbade child labour, and workers were also given the right to join trade unions. Businesses that signed up could use the NRA´s sign so they could be differenced, as big publicity campaigns and parades encouraged public to buy goods from members of the scheme. Businesses which signed these codes saw their prices increase tremendously and started to work against it.
On the other hand, Source K was written in 1947 by a member of Roosevelt’s New Deal government: the Secretary of Labour, Francis Perkins. When this source was written Roosevelt had already died (1945) and the Second World War had ended, in favour of the Allied powers. Thanks to the fact that Roosevelt had led America successfully through most of the war, Perkins´ book seemed more reasonable. In the source, which is an extract of the book “The Roosevelt I Knew”, she tries to justify the New Deal, as if explaining herself. The book’s aim, obviously, was to sell in order to spread Perkins´ `explanations´, therefore Perkins´ memories had to be “selective”. By defending Roosevelt and the New Deal, she was defending herself.
In order to write a profitable book and benefit herself, the writer only provides us with a pro-Roosevelt version of the period. Recent events at the time such as Roosevelt’s death and German and Japanese defeat in World War Two were still fresh in people’s minds and therefore it was time to recall other successes. During the war, American manufactured goods and services were highly demanded and thousands of jobs were created, finally pulling America out of the Depression. The war not only benefited American economy, but it also benefited Roosevelt and his popularity, as he seemed to have been the one to pull America out of the Depression and through the war. Perkins defends Roosevelt by saying that the New Deal wanted to give ordinary Americans a “better chance in life” which refers to the schemes introduced in order to provide relief from poverty, starvation and eviction. Only ordinary people suffered from these effects of the Depression and “Roosevelt understood that the suffering of the Depression had fallen heaviest on those people least able to bear it.”
These two sources argue or disagree about government intervention during the Depression. Source J based its argument on Republican ideas such as “rugged individualism” and “laissez faire” and therefore opposes increasing government interference, which was the New Deal. However, source K, although biased, defends this interference and argues that what the New Deal was simply trying to do was to “make life better for ordinary people.”
7) Study the following interpretations of the effects of the New Deal.
- The New Deal helped many Americans and by doing this it gave them self-respect. It gave them confidence to lift the United States out of the Depression.
- The New Deal wasted a lot of money, it made people dependent on the government and led to the government becoming too powerful. It did not solve America’s economic problems – the Second World War did that.
Which interpretation is best supported by the evidence in the sources and your knowledge of American history? Explain your answer.
These two statements clearly differ on their view of the New Deal, and therefore have different sources backing them up as well as knowledge. The first statement gives a positive overview of the New Deal, as it makes it sound simple and easy to carry out, which in fact was not the case. On the other hand, statement number two portrays a negative view of the New Deal. It does not seem to share the ideas of increased government investment/intervention in private businesses, but instead it does seem to share others such as “laissez faire” or “rugged individualism”.
Although source A does not provide us with factual information, it does provide us with the essence of Roosevelt’s government. It was based on the idea of restoring confidence. This source is an extract from a speech made by Roosevelt due to the presidential elections 1932, when he was starting to gain people´s confidence. People were made to feel that by having Roosevelt as their president the Depression would soon be over. Hoover´s measures were considered as being “too little, too late” and Roosevelt wanted to change this by working against “Destruction, Delay, Deceit and Despair”. In contrast with Hoover´s talking as a way of getting out of the Depression, Roosevelt was determined to return the confidence Americans had lost. He did this not only through speeches, but also travelled around America vising ordinary people and showing his concern about their miseries. Due to these journeys Roosevelt reassured himself that ordinary Americans were the worst hit by the crisis. After being elected in 1932, Roosevelt regained his direct contact with American people through his “fire-side chats” which were a simple and clear way of explaining his policies directly to ordinary people. These chats were extremelly successful and contributed into reestablishing confidence.
Roosevelt´s concern for ordinary people and their troubles is clearly reflected on source H. This source backs up Roosevelt´s concern because it portrays an ordinary family´s situation. This family had been close to eviction and nearly lost all their belongings, however due to Roosevelt´s policies they managed to keep both their home and their belongings, as well as managing their bank to allow them to keeptheir loan going a “little longer”. This is just one example of how the New Deal was effecient and in many cases managed to get people to being able to say “everything is alright now”. This is a prove that Roosevelt managed to restore confidence through the New Deal. However, we cannot be sure that this source is totally reliable, as it may have been made up as part of Roosevelt´s election campaign. Source H is not totally reliable also because of the fact that it only deals with the problem of eviction, and therefore is not useful in order to judge the New Deal.
The biggest sign of favour towards Roosevelt throughout all the sources can be found in source B. The American historian who wrote this source clearly describes the change from Hoover to Roosevelt as “from depression and discouragement to excitement and hope”. Thsi shows that Roosevelt achieved his aim of restoring confidence in the USA and that the New Deal had been successful. “Excitement and hope” to start up again and revive American industry once more. Reviving industry was another of Roosevelt´s aims, based on his ideas or “Relief, Recovery and Reform.” Relief aimed at relieve extreme poverty, feed the starving and stop people losing their homes or farms. Recovery wanted to revive the economy by getting industry going and people working again. Finally, Reform tried to make the USA a better place for ordinary people by bringing in measures such as unemployment insurance and old-age pensions, and help for the sick, disabled and needy. By giving people money (FERA, HOLC...) and jobs (CCC, CWA...) it decreased the number of unemployed, gave people a sense of purpose and provided many families with an income. Due to the increased number of families which received an income, it meant that there would be more demand for goods and services and therefore the economy would get going again. As more people had something to do, or something to look forward to, they started gaining confidence in themselves and in the goverment. There were demonstrations of support towards the New Deal and therefore as the government saw they were being successful, they continued with their measures.
In Source I we are given an excerpt from a “popular” song from after the 1936 elections. This source is biased, as it comes from people in favour of the Democrats, and therefore of Roosevelt and the New Deal. Due to this the song would not be popular amongst Republicans, businessemen or rich and therefore its liability is limited. However, the song was still popular amongst the vast majority of the American population. We know this because the nature of the elections this song talks about (the Democrats won in all states but two) was the dominant opinion of the time. This song is celebrating Roosevelt´s re-election which means people liked their president and he inspired them trust and confidence. Roosevelt had managed to restore confidence in the government and in themselves which was why he won the elections in 1936 “We´ve got Franklin D Roosevelt back again. No more breadlines we´re glad to say.”
When Roosevelt became President his most urgent problem was to rescue the banks. Since 1930, over 5000 banks had been forced to close and the banking system was on the point of collapse. This is because savers had withdrawn their money and businesses had been unable to repay bank loans. Roosevelt immediately closed all bank for four days. After these four days, only those banks the government decided were honest and well run were allowed to reopen. These banks were supported by government loans to help them continue operating and to reassure people that their money would be save. After the reopening of banks, Americans deposited $1 billion which clearly showed that they had regained confidence. Therefore, this fact clearly supports the first statement.
The source that agrees the most with the second statement is Source C. It claims that Roosevelt used the power he had been given “ruthlessly”. To some extend this statement is true. Some agencies like the CWA could be considered as a waste of money. This scheme did do some useful work such as building roads, but many of the jobs, such as sweeping up leaves in parks or getting out-of-work actors to give free shows, simply gave people something to do. Another example of an unnecessary scheme could be the WPA. Republicans argued that this scheme was paying people to do unnecessary jobs and therefore wasting money. However, this scheme gave work to about two million people per year and built roads, public buildings, schools, bridges, tunnels, sewers and a windbreak of trees 1600 km long to stop further soil erosion. Source G supports the idea that too many unnecessary agencies were being set up. The image seen in this source is a doctor (Roosevelt) and a nurse (Congress) trying to cure a sick man (American economy) using many different remedies (agencies). These remedies have not been used up, however the table in the cartoon is full of them which means that each one of them has not been fully effective. This idea is also true to some extent, not all schemes were equally successful. Some agencies such as the WPA could have been avoided, and schemes such as the CWA were not neccessary. However other schemes like the TVA were both successful and neccessary. Even though some schemes were more successful than others, the Second World War did the work these schemes had not been able to do. Source C makes this point clear by saying “by leading his country into war he was able to put every man and woman into work.” Therefore Source C supports the second statement in all aspects: people did become more reliant on the government and the Second World War did the work Roosevelt had not managed to do.
On the other hand, the second New Deal, was not as successful as the first. Both of them had the same aim: getting America back on its feet. They did not manage to put America back were it had been before the Depression, but they did manage to provide relief and recover America from the extreme effects of the crisis. During both New Deals, there was a similarity with the situation during the boom in the 1920´s. Although there was a majority who shared the same situation, blacks and women still had to suffer from discrimination. In the 1920´s the general situation was success and wealth, and in the 1930´s it was recovery. In the 1930´s blacks were still second-class citizens, due to the widespread racism and discrimination. They were even put into segregated CCC camps and were not allowed to live in the new town of Norris in the Tennessee Valley. By 1933 around 30% of blacks had to live on relief, as jobs were normally given to whites. However, blacks received more relief than even before. Around 200,000 benefited from the CCC programme, got a large share of housing and were given positions of responsability in the New Deal administration. During the Depression there could be seen long queues entirely of black people waiting for government relief, as it was the case in 1937, as we can see on the photograph of Source D. The New Deal lacked from measures directed to women. Due to the fact that they were considered cheap labour, the number of women employed did increase, however, their wages were half that on men. Despite the fact that the Social Security Act required state governments to provide women with dependant children some money, some governments avoided paying these sums. Some women were also given positions of responsability withing the New Deal administration. These facts agree with the second statement, as blacks and women became more dependant on the government without increasing their confidence.
Source J also supports this second statement. It claims that “when you give to people, you hurt them.” This makes a reference to the fact that people were becoming more dependant on the government. By saying “we had soup lines and the Depression because men lost confidence in themselves” it is implying that by making people more reliant on government aid and less reliant on their own efforts, people would continue to have no confidence in themselves. This is basically individualism. An individual has to achieve success by his own efforts. The rich also believed in this idea. They believed that by providing people with government jobs, food, homes, loans and benefits, it would only lead to people becoming lazy and becoming “dependant on the government”. Towards the end of the source, we are told that “If you want a dog who hunts, you have to let him get hungry.” This means that if the government wanted to restore confidence and hope, they had to let people suffer and test how it feels to give up and stop trying to achieve success. Once more, the second statement is very well supported by source J.
After having analised all sources that supported either one statement or the other, and using my own knowledge of American history, my final conclusion is that the first statement is best supported by both the sources and my knowledge. This is because by putting together many arguments, I have reached a point where I have achieved an overall, balanced view of the period and I believe that the sources that back up the first statement can be considered more reliable. Both statements are true to a certain extent, and on the whole the first statement seems to have more support. At the time the majority of American citizens were for-the New Deal and therefore Democrats, which explains the fact that there were more good comments about the New Deal than critics. On the whole, I do think Roosevelt restored confidence and helped America get out of the Depression.
8) Use the sources and your own knowledge of American history to explain why there has been so much disagreement in the USA over the effects of the New Deal.
There are many reasons to explain why there has been so much disagreement in the USA over the effects of the New Deal. The New Deal had positive effects, as well as negative ones. However, not everyone agrees on the value these effects have. This means that whilst someone may consider a greater reliance of individuals on the government as a positive effect, someone else may see this as a negative result of the New Deal. If this is applied to every effect of the New Deal, we will end up with several different conclusions. Every effect has its own piece of evidence to back it up in order to make it reliable. From the sources and our knowledge we can define a more precise answer.
The best example of disagreement over the effects of the New Deal are sources B and C. They argue about the consequences of increased government intervention and over political ideas. It gives the impression that Source B was written by a Democrat, therefore follower of Roosevelt; Source C on the other hand, seems to be written by a Republican, therefore a member of the New Deal´s opposition. Due to the diagreement over ideologies, there will also be disagreement over the New Deal. Source B defends the New Deal and presents various realible arguments such as, “the restoration on self-confidence” and “Roosevelt introduced unemployment assistance, and old-age pensions, and he banned child labour.” Here we are presented two different types of arguments. The first one describes the attitude of the time, and seems to be a generalisation instead of an objective statement. However, the second argument gives factual information and describes part of the real work of the New Deal. On Source C there are similar types of arguments. For instance, “[...] power which he used ruthlessly” and “in 1938 he had 11 million unemployed.” In the first statement is clearly subjective. This is due to the fact that some thought that the money used to carry out schemes such as the CWA, for example, had been wasted, as well as others believed the opposite. In the case of the second statement, we are once again provided factual information about one of the failures of the New Deal: reducing high unemployment. However, in this case we are being told about 1938, which was when a second wave of Depression hit America due to the reducement of government spending. Despite the fact that in both sources we are given information which is true, in both cases the sources are biased. In Source B we are only given the plus points of the New Deal, whilst in Source C we are only given the minus ones. Due to the biased and subjective nature of the sources, disagreements are bound to occur.
In order to balance out these views of the New Deal, I will use my knowledge and various other sources to provide more information from both points of view. Throughout the New Deal, there were many improvements achieved in America and amongst its citizens. The first improvement was the rescue of the banking system. In only four days, confidence in the banking system was restored and it was demonstrated by the redeposit of $1 billion after this “four-day holiday”. Even though some of the New Deal agencies were not fully effective, some are seen as a complete success. The AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Agency) could be considered one of them. Thanks to this scheme farmer´s incomes doubled between 1933 and 1939. This scheme consisted on paying farmers to produce less food, by taking land out of production or reducing their lifestock. This not only created an increase in confidence of farmers, but it also improved their standard of living. However, as there was less work to do by the farmers, tenants and sharecroppers were left unemployed. Therefore, by helping a group of people, another had to suffer the consequences. When Source B was written, World War Two had already ended and Roosevelt was a hero to many eyes, as he had rescued them from poverty and hunger and led them successfully through most of the war. This public support can be backed up by many figures and objactive facts. For instance, unemployment figures decreased from 14 million in 1933, down to around 7 in 1937. American Gross National Product (GNP) increased from $56 billion in 1933, up to over $100 billion in 1940. business failures and bank failures also decreased dramatically over the New Deal period.
As I have mentioned before, although there had been improvements since 1932, American economy did not get back to what it had been until the break out of war in Europe in 1939. When war started, as it once happened in 1914 up to 1918, America was the leader manufacturer of the world and its goods were demanded across Europe. Source C states that “By leading his country into war he was able to put every man and woman into work.” This is partly true, as it was the out break of war that finally took America out of the Depression. However, this source also claims that Roosevelt “seized on it like a drowning man”, refering to the war. This is a personal view of the situation and therefore cannot be taken into account, and takes away part of the source´s reliability. It turns this source biased. Groups such as Republicans, rich or businessmen thought that many Americans were becoming too reliant and dependant on the government.
Several groups did not benefit from the New Deal, at least not as much as others. Tenants and sharecroppers were left unemployed in the first New Deal, however, during the second New Deal agencies such as the Resettlement Administration or the Farm Security Administration were set up. These aimed to move 500,000 families to better land and to resettle them in new houses. The Farm Security Administration took over the Resettlement Administration, and gave loans to sharecroppers and tenant farmers to buy their own land. Despite this help, the plight of poor farm workers remained grim. Women and blacks also found it difficult to benefit from the New Deal. Women did get employed, however this was due to them being considered as cheap labour. Their avarage wage was half the one of a man´s. Blacks continued to suffer from discrimination. Jobs were most likely given to whites instead to blacks and once they found employment, this were usually low-paid, tough ones. During the New Deal blacks receive more relief than ever before as we can see on Source D, which shows a photograph of blacks queing for government relief. Although this photograph could have been set up, we assume that blacks did receive government relief.
Another point over which many historians disagree, are the agencies. Some think they contributed to the recovery of American economy, whilst others see these schemes as a waste of money and effort. Both opinions could be backed up by sources and facual information. The first argument couls be supported by Source H, for example. This source shows the effectiveness of the HOLC (Home Owners Loan Corporation). Thanks to this agency, families managed to escape from eviction, keep their belongings, restore their confidence on the government and keep their bank loans going a little longer. This scheme loaned money to over a million people in order to avoid them losing their homes. The second argument could be supported by Source G which is a cartoon representing the American economy as Uncle Sam being sick, Roosevelt as a doctor trying to cure his pacient and Congress being a nurse. The remedies used by this doctor seem to be mounting up without being very efficient in curing Uncle Sam. The remedies are the New Deal agencies and although there seem to be many of them, they are all half empty and no results are noticed.
The final argument, is an eternal one. The everlasting fight between the few who are rich but powerful, and the vast majority who are ordinary people but have no power. Although the ones who opposed the New Deal were a small minority, they happened to be the most influential. The rich, Republicans and businessmen who believe in “rugged individualism” and “laissez faire” and are against governement interference, such as the one in the New Deal. However, there are millions who agree with this interference and they see it as necessary. In source J we are presented with the view of a “self-made businessman” who considered that the New Deal “hurt” them. Onthe other hand, Source K argues that Roosevelt “knew that the rich had been hard hit too, but at least they had something left.” This source is from Roosevelt´s Secretary of Labour during the New Deal, so it cannot be considered as reliable.
There is no single reason why there was so much disagreement over the New Deal. It was argued whether Roosevelt did make people more confident or whether he made people more dependant on the government for help. It was argued whether the New Deal was efficient enough or whether it spent too much money on unnecessary things. Big discussions were caused over whether the government interfered too much in the economy and with people’s lives or finally, whether the war was overcome due to the fact that the war broke out, or the fact that the New Deal schemes were created.
