Tag Archives: FDR

The Salvation of Your Soil

 

The Missionary in Cottonland

President FDR warns farmers of planting too much and ruining the arable land.

John F. Knott was born in Austria in in 1878 and emigrated in Iowa with his mother at the age of five. Hired as a cartoonist, Knott began working for the Dallas Morning News in 1905. Knott is famous for his character “Old Man Texas,” a proponent for transparency, capitalism, low taxes, and property rights. His cartoons became popular during World War I and historians believe his cartoons boosted the sales of Liberty Bonds. His cartoons have been reprinted in various magazines and newspapers since their original publication.

            The cartoon that is displayed above is a depiction of the “Old Man Texas” character as a rural farmer in Texas. The setting is very rural and is clearly on the fencing line of a Texas farm or ranch. The character is hunched over reading a letter being held by a government man in a suit who is standing on the other side of a barbed wire fence. The cartoon is called “The Missionary in Cottonland,” referring to the man in the suit’s persuasive nature. The letter he is holding states, “The salvation of your soil and income depends on moderation in cotton planting – Join the co-operative soil conservation movement.” The letter is referring to the conservation movement started by President Roosevelt. The government man is urging the farmer to slow down his production of cotton.

At the time the cartoon was drawn the Texas cotton industry was booming. Agriculture and cotton farming had expanded from Central Texas to the Gulf Coast, and had steadily moved north. A small drought had begun in North Texas and there was fear of over-planting. Cotton is the most-drought resistant crop, so farmers felt inclined to switch from crops such as corn. Roosevelt feared that an increase in the acreage of cotton would increase supply too far, ultimately causing a significant drop in price. The cotton industry in the United State was already struggling because of the mass production in countries such as Brazil, Egypt, India, Sudan, Argentina, and Russia.

Knott is suggesting that Texas farmers follow Roosevelt’s suggestions and switch to crops such a feed. On the side of the cartoon he writes a short column, and at the end wrote, “These foreigners got the jump on our farmers during the last few years and last season they supplied 14,222,200 bales of the world’s cotton consumption of 25,428,000. The United States supplied only 11,205,000 bales. Farmers should take a hint from these figures.” The direct language from Knott makes it clear that he strongly encourages that the spread of cotton acreage come to a stop. He uses to main arguments in his writing to support his claim. The first is that the environment and soil must be conserved or there will be no opportunity for future agriculture. The second is that the United States cotton industry is being trumped by foreign competition, and it would be beneficial for farmers to make the switch to other products and forms of agriculture.

Although both Roosevelt and Knott’s advice for farmers was clear, individuals could not turn away from short-term profit. By the 1920s three quarters of individuals working in agriculture were on cotton farms. The United States cotton industry hit a crisis in the early 1920s. The entire industry saw a collapse due to overproduction and a widespread pest that destroyed certain strains of cotton. The introduction of man-made fibers also hurt the industry. By 1944, the first crop of cotton to be completely planted and harvested by machinery had been produced, marking the end of cotton farming boom.

Knott’s cartoon represents the struggles agriculture has with the markets they belong to, and the constant battle with government institutions. As traditional farming has declined over the past century, this battle has become even more prevalent. Environmental concerns have also become an issue as the climate change narrative becomes more relevant. There is a connection between agriculture at the beginning of the 20th century and current times because of the continuing struggle for the industry. The solution to one problem is followed by an additional hurdle that must be passed. The industry is often glorified, and met with description such as “the backbone of our nation,” however there has recently been a lack of glory and benefit. The contemporary cartoon in my next blog post will display how the struggles for the American farmer are just as real as they were when cotton used to be “king.”

Citations:

Britton, Karen Gerhardt and Elliott, Fred c. and Miller, e. a. “Cotton Culture.” Britton, Karen Gerhardt and Elliott, Fred c. and Miller, e. a. n.p., 11 June 2010. web. 03 May 2017.

“The Conservation Legacy of Theodore Roosevelt.” U.S. Department of the Interior. N.p., 27 Oct. 2016. Web. 3 May 2017.

 


What’s the Next Play Going to Be?

Cartoonist John Knott foreshadows the demise of the NRA regarding the opposition from some industries and companies.

Cartoonist John Knott foreshadows the demise of the NRA regarding the opposition from some industries and companies.

The political cartoon, “What’s the Next Play Going to Be?” by John Knott for the Dallas Morning News published October 28th, 1933, portrays a football team huddled together with “NRA” written on the back of their pants. The field goal in the back has a sign that reads, “’Nobody’s goin to tell us how to run our business,’” (Knott 2) and the opposing team is standing in front of the goal in tackling stances with angry looks on their faces. The men huddled in the group are slouched over as if they are defeated and don’t have a strategy to continue while the team in the back look ready to attack and finish the game. Knott’s cartoon demonstrates the opposition between businesses and the NRA, which was established by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 amongst his other New Deal propositions to cure the economy through industrial self-government.

The accompanying editorial, “A Test for the NRA,” provides context for the cartoon regarding Henry Ford and steel companies that oppose the National Recovery Administration. The steel companies wanted to run their own businesses, hence the sign hanging from the field goal, and to not be controlled by the government or by codification that moderated how the businesses ran. There were a select few Ford dealers who had accepted the blue eagle, but there were also others who opposed it, leaving the NRA at a predicament on whether to punish the steel companies or not. There was also a section of the National Industrial Recovery Act, a law passed by Franklin D. Roosevelt to authorize him to regulate production, that stated that companies must recognize work unions, but the steel companies did not recognize the United Mine Workers of America, a labor union. Although the strikers were not recognized, they still refused to go to work despite the President’s demands. Furthermore, the NRA was having difficulties being in charge and keeping industries in check due to the clashing temperaments within the steel companies, which foreshadowed its own demise.

In 1929, the stock market crashed due to a decline in consumer spending and increase in unsold goods during World War I, leading to the Great Depression. When Franklin D. Roosevelt got elected in 1933, he enacted the New Deal in an attempt to hasten recovery from the Depression. The National Industrial Recovery Act was a part of Roosevelt’s New Deal program, and it authorized the President’s right to regulate production. The NIRA attempted to end the Depression through industrial self-government in which industries and businesses would draft codes of fair labor practices, such as set wages, maximum hours, and the right to withhold unions.

Along with the NIRA came the National Recovery Administration, which approved the codes of business. Hugh S. Johnson was in charge of the NRA, but he was not fit for the job due to his submissive character. He was afraid that the Supreme Court would rule out the NRA, so he depended on businesses to voluntarily cooperate with the codification and establish set wages and hours within their workplace. These codes meant change; unfortunately, prosperous companies, such as steel and automobile companies, were not happy with these conditions and refused to comply with them. They had their own successful methods and were not willing to change them as the NRA prompted to do so. Because the Depression was affecting the nation atrociously, production and jobs were necessary to keep the people alive, and the NRA allowed businesses to uphold restrictive policies that hindered the road to recovery. The NRA soon created a voluntary blanket code, in which set wages and hours were provided for businesses to expedite codification. Those who agreed to the blanket code were given a placard with a Blue Eagle, the symbol of the NRA, with the words “We Do Our Part,” that was to be placed on their windows, and consumers were only permitted to give their business to those who adhered to the blanket code.

The irony behind the cartoon lies within the players. Football is known to be in an intense sport in which the players put up a fight no matter the circumstance. However, the players huddled up in the center look worn out and ready to quit due to their inability to think of a “game plan” or solution. The “NRA” players aren’t living up to their expectations as football players; instead, they look like they do not belong in the game. Knott presents the NRA this way to portray the NRA’s weakness and inefficiency and to foreshadow the loss they were about to experience.  The NRA’s downfall began when Johnson became erratic and caused various conflicts with government officials and businessmen. Code compliance became a problem, and the NRA let bigger industries get away with code violations. The NRA became so unpopular that it was compared to fascism and was also called “No Recovery Allowed.” The ideas held by the NRA were naïve in that they believed society would look past their interests to work together and better the nation. Due to this, the Supreme Court shut down the NRA and declared that the NIRA was an unconstitutional assignment of power to the president.  

“What’s the Next Play Going to Be?” by John Knott reflects the conflict between the NRA and steel companies during the 1930’s. Steel companies were independently successful and did not want interference from administrations that were forcing new workplace conditions down their throat. However, not all steel companies were unanimous in their decision to adhere to or decline the blanket code, stressing the NRA as depicted in the editorial. The NRA was unsure of what they’d do, for they feared hurting the business of those who adhered to the blanket code. Because of the NRA’s inability to resolve conflict and take charge, the “NRA” team depicted in the cartoon is slumped over and defeated just as they were in reality.

Citations:

Knott, John. “What’s the Next Play Going to Be?” Cartoon. Dallas Morning News [Dallas, Texas] 28 Oct. 1933, sec. 11: 2. Print

“A Test for NRA.” Editorial. Dallas Morning News [Dallas, Texas] 28 Oct. 1933, sec 11:2. Print.

OHL, JOHN KENNEDY. “National Recovery Administration (NRA).” Encyclopedia of the Great Depression, edited by Robert S. McElvaine, vol. 2, Macmillan Reference USA, 2004, pp. 683-688. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Accessed 28 Nov. 2016.

Can’t You Spare a Nickel More

Can't You Spare a Nickel More
A cotton planter in tattered clothing is being given a measly ten cent loan by a much wealthier looking Uncle Sam. Knott emphasizes not only the strains placed on cotton farmers, but also the inadequacy of the payments received.

Can’t You Spare a Nickel More

John Francis Knott – October 20, 1933

The political cartoon, “Can’t You Spare a Nickel More,” was created by John Francis Knott and published in the Dallas Morning News on October 20, 1933. It depicts the cotton planters of the United States with regards to the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, and the economic aspects that accompanied it. The cartoon reveals the economic issues faced by the United States and the twenty million cotton planters depicted in the image. Knott’s cartoon highlights the negative effects that the U.S. government and its New Deal policies – such as the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and the Commodity Credit Corporation – had on cotton planters nationwide. These negative effects included the acreage reduction’s failure to raise crop prices, the tenant farming system’s lack of productivity, the Texas Cotton Acreage Control Law of 1931, and the overall economic incongruities which were created.

The Great Depression spanned from the late 1920s to the late 1930s. While the depression was most known for its negative effects on American society and the crash of the stock market, it was also associated with the sharp decline of profitable cotton prices; this was devastating due to the increased agriculture during that time period. Therefore, it was important for farmers and cotton planters to get back into business. In 1933, the U.S. government created a program that financially helped farmers for lowering cotton acreage, which reduced supply and thus created higher prices. The program, known as the New Deal, brought about interesting changes to the agricultural aspect of the nation – it constituted the Agricultural Adjustment Administration which called for a forty percent cotton acreage reduction and the Commodity Credit Corporation which provided a ten cent loan for each pound of cotton as long as planters promised to reduce its acreage in the following year (Golay 204).

“Can’t You Spare a Nickel More” depicts stress on the cotton planter’s face as well as Uncle Sam’s (Knott 2). These difficult times created a bleak outlook for the nation along with its twenty million cotton planters. Even after the Agricultural Adjustment Administration enforced an acreage reduction on cotton, thirteen million bales remained to sustain the world demand for the rest of the year. This countered the goal of raising the price of crops. In addition to this issue, the tenant farming system – a system in which tenant farmers contributed their own land and labor for capital resulted in wastefulness and inefficiency. It caused trouble for the South’s traditional cash crop and created conflicts between planters and tenants due to its many internal economic problems (Hawkins).

The accompanying article, “The Price of Cotton,” explains the cartoon’s exchange of ten cents profoundly; it questions the unfairness of lending of ten cents per pound of cotton rather than fifteen cents and explicitly states that the discrepancy is inadequate (“The Price of Cotton”). The Texas Cotton Acreage Control Law of 1931 further emphasized the strains placed upon cotton farmers by requiring that the amount of cotton planted in 1932 and 1933 could not surpass thirty percent of that of the preceding year (Jasinski). The synthesis of these two sources develops the notion that the combination of reduced cotton acreage and lowered payment to cotton farmers only created an increasing lack of sustenance as well as an overall miserable lifestyle.

The humor in this cartoon is evident in the distinct contrast between the two parties depicted and their relation to the underlying meaning of the image. Despite the fact that the wealthier man is not explicitly labeled as Uncle Sam, it can be inferred based on the combination of the cartoon, the article, and knowledge of American popular culture. While the man representing the twenty million cotton planters of the U.S. is illustrated in tattered clothing with a grim expression, the man who appears to be Uncle Sam handing him the ten cent loan looks stern yet well dressed which emphasizes the economic gap as well as the issues which were created by the loans and cotton reduction (Knott 2). The prominent issue that Knott’s cartoon focuses on is the unfair loans given to the cotton planters by the government. The cartoon focuses attention on the twenty million cotton planters receiving a ten cent loan which insinuates that the planters are not receiving sufficient funds for their duties, thus creating a cycle of internal and external economic incongruities.

 

Works Cited

(1) “The Price of Cotton.” Editorial. The Dallas Morning News [Dallas, Texas] 20 Oct. 1933, sec. 2: 2. Print.

(2) Golay, Michael. America 1933: The Great Depression, Lorena Hickok, Eleanor Roosevelt, and the Shaping of the New Deal. New York: Free, 2013. Print.

(3) Hawkins, Van. “Cotton Industry.” The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.

(4) Jasinski, Laurie E. “Texas Cotton Acreage Control Law of 1931-32.” N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2015. 

(5) Knott, John. “Can’t You Spare a Nickel More.” Cartoon. The Dallas Morning News [Dallas, Texas] 20 Oct. 1933, sec. 2: 2. Print.

(6) Novak, James L., James W. Pease, and Larry D. Sanders. Agricultural Policy in the United States: Evolution and Economics. London: Routledge, 2015. Print.

 

“Boloney!”

John Knott illustrates Al Smith, a notorious opponent of federal policy, disapproving Roosevelt’s Monetary Policy.

The cartoon “Boloney!” published on November 27, 1933 by John Francis Knott illustrates the economist, Al Smith, to be very unhappy with Roosevelt’s Monetary Policy. Roosevelt’s monetary policy, in short, is “how the Federal Reserve regulates the money supply and the interest rates to reach or fine tune macroeconomic goals” (McCusker). The essential purpose of Knott’s cartoon is to highlight how recurrent it is for Al Smith to have opposing views towards national policies.

After taking office on March 4, 1933, Roosevelt made sweeping changes. Within two months he had taken the U.S. off of the Gold Standard. “The removal of the “Golden Fetters” and the devaluation of the dollar to $35 dollars per ounce of gold combined with political events in Europe to cause a flow of gold into America. The economy began to recover” (Napier).  Ultimately, “Roosevelt took away the gold standard to get people to use federal money on programs in hopes of jump starting the economy” (Fisher).  Because of this success, people of the United States were likely to believe that the monetary policy was a good idea.

Roosevelt’s Monetary Policy had great strengths which led him to having many supporters, however, this policy also had adversaries. The most notorious opponent of all was Al Smith. “He was elected as Governor of New York four times and was also the Democratic candidate in the presidential election of 1928″ (George). “Al Smith is known for being an anti-Prohibition candidate”(Richards) which further extends on the idea that Smith supported states rights. Smith’s determination to urge repeal of the prohibition amendment feathered from the fact that he believed in local government majority rather than federally imposed laws and policies.  As mentioned in the editorial that was coupled with this political cartoon, even Al Smith admitted that “his severe condemnation of present national policies is not the first time that he has taken the unpopular side of a question” (No Brass Collar). The article, “No Brass Collar”, delves into Al Smith’s past in order to give critical background information. The fact that Al Smith has always been a supporter of states rights further allows for the viewer of this cartoon to understand and analyze why Al Smith is showing so much animosity towards Roosevelt’s Monetary Policy. Because Smith was also extremely anti-FDR, this could lead to the viewer of this cartoon to believe that his animosity towards Roosevelt was the reason why he hated the monetary policy. However, with the accompanying article of “No Brass Collar,” it is evident that Al Smith hated Roosevelt’s Monetary Policy simply because he had been and always was an advocate for states rights.

Analyzing Knott’s carefully illustrated cartoon, the viewer is able to dig deeper into the real issues proposed in the cartoon. The expression that Al Smith exudes is mainly of disgust and resentment towards the monetary policy. In addition, Al Smith has his hand flexed in a manner that is almost his way of saying that the monetary policy is not even worth looking at, that it is worthless. It is evident in the cartoon that Al Smith does not believe that this policy will be successful by any means. Furthermore, with the title of the cartoon being “Boloney!” which is commonly coined to represent foolishness, the reader can assume that to be Al Smith’s reaction toward the “nonsense” that is Roosevelt’s Monetary Policy. The humor in this cartoon comes mainly from the title itself and how the word “boloney” is certainly not a common word used in politics. Also adding to the overall humor of the cartoon is of course, Al Smith’s facial expression. His face is masked into such disgust that one would believe his frown would never turn upside down. There is just enough humor in the cartoon to enlighten the viewer while also still adequately conveying the political component.

In essence, this cartoon depicts the antipathy that Al Smith exudes towards Roosevelt’s Monetary Policy because of his firm belief in local majority versus national regulation. With the accompanying article, the reader is able to understand that the purpose of Knott’s cartoon is to depict the idea that Al Smith is notorious for opposing federal policy, and that his opinion on Roosevelt’s monetary policy would be no different.

                                                                  Works Cited
“Alfred Emmanuel Smith.” Encyclopedia of World Biography. 2nd ed. Vol. 14. Detroit: Gale, 2004. 284-85. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 9 Dec. 2015.

    Fishback, Price, 2010. “US monetary and fiscal policy in the 1930s,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 385-413, Autumn.

George, Alice L., John C. Stoner, and Daniel J. Walkowitz. Social History of the United States. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2009. 164-65. Print.

   McCusker, John J. History of World Trade since 1450. Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson Gale, 2006. Print.

Napier, Steven, “Roosevelt’s Monetary Policy” (2005). Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 746. http://mds.marshall.edu/etd/746

“No Brass Collar.” Editorial. Dallas Morning News. 27 November 1933, sec 2: 2.

Richards, Lawrence. “Prosperity, Depression, and War, 1921-1945.” Encyclopedia of U.S. Political History. Vol. 5. Washington, DC: CQ, 2010. 316-319. Print.

Lets cut back on spending by a ‘sprinkle’ percent!

Obama, as an ice cream server, "cutting back" on government spending by withholding the sprinkles.
Obama, as an ice cream server, “cutting back” on government spending by withholding the sprinkles.

In late January, President Barack Obama presents a federal budget proposal that would exceed restricted spending caps mandated by congress four years ago. This proposal includes new capital gains, bank taxes, and a new tax on american companies competing in world markets. The political cartoon was posted on January 2nd, 2015, prior to the announcement on Obama’s budget proposal, titled Bloated Government. It is shown and predicted by the cartoon artist, Steve Breen, that Obama voices his want to cut back on government spending but those are not his actions. Barack’s new proposal could cause the government to become further bloated, untiqued, and unresponsive to taxpayers, and that is exactly what the GOP would like to avoid. The cartoon strongly and correctly predicted that Obama would spend more rather than cut back on government spending, just as was seen previously through FDR’s term in office.

President Barack was never actually known for cutting back on costs. In his plans to cut taxes, extend unemployment benefits, fund job-creating public works projects, and increase defense spending, he added $6.167 trillion to the national debt, which is a fifty-three percent increase, in only six years. So far the national debt is building up like an enormous snowball. Today’s taxpayers and future generations face massive indebtedness, while congressional democrats and current administration(Obama) block every attempt to turn things around.

In Steve Breen’s cartoon, Bloated Government, there is a rather large, and heavy set man sitting on the left side of the counter, concluded to be the customer. This obese man is labeled “gov’t” to symbolize the nation’s government currently and how bloated it is. On the counter there is a large bowl, uncommonly huge for the size for a regular bowl of ice cream. The bowl is filled with more than eight bananas, dozens of ice cream scoops of assorted flavors, all drizzled in chocolate, foamed over with tons of whipped cream, and a cherry to top it off. Not your average cup of tea, or rather, bowl of ice cream. This bowl happens to be labeled “spending” to symbolize how great the national government’s spending is and common it has become for it to be that much. On the right side of the counter there are two thin men dressed as the ice cream servers. One man symbolizes Barack Obama, having the same characteristics. “You need to cut back so we withheld the sprinkles,” Obama says in the cartoon. All, put Steve Breen is depicting in his illustration that Obama says he wants the government to cut back on spending but in his actions he does not show that. All that government spending might anger, or already is angering taxpayers, republicans, and congress.

Although Barack’s proposal was likely to get prevented from making progress in congressional opposition, he did not give up. The budget is down to pre-financial crisis levels, and the president will seek approval to break through spending caps. This will play out to be more spending and more debt. After hearing the proposal Senate Orrin G. Hatch says, “He is the most liberal, fiscally irresponsible president we’ve had in history. I don’t know why he doesn’t see it. You’re facing a debt crisis not because Americans are taxed too little but because the government spends too much.” Obama’s plans represent roughly seven percent increase in 2016 government spending. To his credibility, Obama basically inherited a terrible financial crisis that was the worst that our economy has sustained since The Great Depression. Looking in the past, because of his policies the economy has come roaring back.

The resemblance is existent between President Obama term and FDR’s, just as the likeness of Steve Breen’s political cartoon and John Knott’s. Knott’s cartoon, Nice Work!, portrays the Director of the Bureau of Budgetary, Lewis Douglas, as a hard working man trying to cut down the national budget. In Breen’s cartoon, Bloated Government, Obama is seen “trying” to cut back on government spending. During FDR’s term in office, Lewis Douglas worked hard to cut down the national budget so that the government would not spend as much and taxpayers would remain contempt. FDR went along with Douglas’ plans until he showed his true colors and downplayed efforts to cut costs and balance the budget causing Douglas’ role to diminish. Likewise with Obama, he himself voiced that he needed to cut back on government spending. Not only did he go over the projected budget, but his proposal requests to spend even more. Unlike FDR, Obama worked with congress in order to help the economy. Congress on October 21st, 2015, moved a step closer to clearing a bipartisan budget deal that would boost spending for domestic and defense programs over two years while suspending the debt limit into 2017. The agreement would essentially end the ongoing budget battles between congressional republicans and President Obama by pushing the next round of fiscal decision making past the 2016 election when there will be a new congress and White House occupant. Obama and FDR have both set up the national budget situation for the president to come and take over. The next president will then also have political cartoons to be depicted in during their term.

 

Works Cited

Snell, Kelsey. “House Passes Budget Deal; Senate Expected to Act Soon.”The Washington Post. N.p., 29 Oct. 2015. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.

Mufson, Steven, and Juliet Eilperin. “Obama Budget Proposal Would Boost Spending beyond ‘Sequestration’ Caps.” The Washington Post 29 Jan. 2015, Business sec. Fred Ryan. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.

Mervis, Jeffrey. “Budget for 2016 Accentuates the Practical.” Science Mag 6 Feb. 2015: 599-601. Print.

Amadeo, Kimberly. “Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?”About.com News & Issues. Neil Vogel, 14 July 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.

Amadeo, Kimberly. “Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?”About.com News & Issues. Neil Vogel, 14 July 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.

Crew, Clyde. “Obama’s 2016 Federal Budget And Middle Class Economics.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 2 Feb. 2015. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.

Breen, Steve. San Diego Union-Tribune 2 Jan. 2015: n. pag. Print.

Knott, John. “Nice Job!” Cartoon. Dallas Morning News 25 Nov. 1933, 2nd ed. Print.

Nice Work!

The United States’ economy took a hard strike in 1929. Since that devastating moment in history and throughout the time frame of economic struggle, the active presidents did what they could, in their opinion, to help the economy from self destructing. The Dallas Morning News’ November 25, 1933 editorial visits one of the methods used to succor the nation in times of hardship. In addition, John Knott’s political cartoon accompanies the editorial depicting Lewis Douglas, the director of the Bureau of Budget and Planning during Fredrick D. Roosevelt’s term in office, trying to cut down the national budget to save the economy. The Bureau of Budget and Planning director primarily inspects government activities, coordinate fiscal estimates, and generally control expenditures. The editorial and political cartoon render an illustration of the vigorous attempt to rescue the United States from its state of penury.

On October 29, 1929, also known as Black Tuesday, the United States fell into the worst economic period of the twentieth century when the American stock market crashed. Due to the Great Depression, banks failed, the nation’s money supply diminished, companies went bankrupt causing them to fire their workers in flocks. President Herbert Hoover urged patience and self reliance and claimed that it was not the government’s job to try and resolve the issue. Thus, 1932 was  the blackest year of the Great Depression with one-fourth of the work force unemployed. Once Franklin D. Roosevelt became the nation’s thirty-second president, he acted swiftly to try and stabilize the economy and provide jobs and relief to those suffering. As it turns out, Roosevelt actually created more problems for the government in his attempt to help and by creating the New Deal. Although, not in the beginning. At first, when Lewis Douglas was chosen as the Director of the Bureau of Budget, the nation was contempt with his plans. Douglas was an advocate of balanced budgets and limited government expenditures.

The $2,600,000,000 Budget editorial that is paired with the cartoon voices Lewis Douglas’ plan for the nation. He set a goal of two billion six hundred million dollars for normal annual expenditure by the government. This plan cuts off twenty-five percent in the figure for the fiscal year. The article also mentions how the budget director would have to deal with Congress. Since Douglas’ budget was undoubtedly astray from the normal budget, congress decided to proceed with caution as far as permitting this plan. In contrast, the article articulates that the nation’s taxpayers would love Douglas, for the budget required drastic reductions in pension programs and also economy in all offices. The budget director would not be popular in Washington, but would be worshipped by the tax-bearing citizens.

The political cartoon, Nice Work! by John Knott, a rather rugged man is shown chopping off a portion of a tree log, while another more comfortable looking man is shown sitting on the opposite end of the log. The tree log laid out on the ground is labeled ‘National Budget’ and is already partially cut through. The man holding the ax in the air getting ready to continue chopping the log is Lewis Douglas. His arm is labeled ‘Douglas’ and he is not wearing a coat and has his sleeves rolled up. Douglas is illustrated with a sweaty, frustrated, yet determined face. This portrays how Douglas was hard at work to cut down the national budget. The taxpayer sitting on the end of the log has his hand up and his mouth open as if he is alarmed by what Douglas is doing. Although the taxpayer is not showing any sign of stopping him. Taxpayers are alarmed by this proclamation that the director of budgetary is suggesting because the nation has never seen this done and they are not sure if this will necessarily help their current economy’s issues. The cartoon is ironic since the taxpayer should actually be cheering Douglas on for cutting down their taxes, rather than what Roosevelt has in store for them. The government is the one who should be worrying about this new plan when their salary will be cut down just like the tree log.

In the long run, Lewis Douglas was only awarded with a short term in the spotlight. Roosevelt later downplayed efforts to cut costs and balance the budget causing Douglas’ role to diminish. A month after signing the Economy Act on March 20, 1933 to fulfill Douglas’s expectations, Roosevelt restricted gold imports, signaling his turn toward inflationary measures. Given Roosevelt’s new change in direction for the economy, the government needed more funding than what was available so they increased taxes. The monetary extraction from hardworking America prolonged the depression. Lewis Douglas resigned which magnified the increasing divergence between what Frederick D. Roosevelt had promised during a 1932 presidential campaign and what played out to be even more problems for the economy.

Works Cited

Dickinson, Matthew J. “The BoB and Other Institutional Staff Agencies.”Bitter Harvest: FDR, Presidential Power, and the Growth of the Presidential Branch. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. 59-62. Print.

Hazlitt, Henry. “Lewis Douglas Dissects The New Deal: The Former Director of the Budget Thinks We Are Heading Toward Collectivism.”The New York Times 28 July 1935, The Liberal Tradition sec.: BR4. Print.

Patton, Mike. “A Brief History Of The Individual And Corporate Income Tax.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 31 Oct. 2015. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.

History.com Staff. “New Deal.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2009. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.

Knott, John. “Nice Job!” Cartoon. Dallas Morning News 25 Nov. 1933, 2nd ed. Print.

“$2,600,000,000 Budget” Editorial. Dallas Morning News 25 Nov. 1933, 2nd ed., sec. 2: 2. Print.

They Can’t Put Him in Jail for Trying

DOC015
“They Can’t Put Him in Jail for Trying” comments on pre-World War II interactions between Europe and Secretary of the State Cornell Hull.

 

They Can’t Put Him in Jail for Trying

John Francis Knott — March 1937

Distinguished through his thought-provoking ideas and unique artistic abilities, John Francis Knott was a political cartoonist for the Dallas Morning News who illustrated more than 15,000 cartoons in his 50-year career. His work throughout the early 20th century focused much on presidential campaigns and wars of the time and attracted national and international attention. His cartoon “They Can’t Put Him in Jail for Trying”, published on March 22, 1937 equally centralized around the upcoming World War and America and Europe’s atypical relationship leading up to it.

Characterized by historians as a time of political and economic unrest, the 1930s was turbulent for nations worldwide. Coming out of the midst of the Great Depression, the United States was slowly starting to become financially stable again under Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s leadership. Europe on the other hand became plagued with political crisis, with Adolf Hitler making plans to invade parts of Europe and Germany aligning itself with other strong nations, proving that a war was likely imminent. In an attempt to avoid an international feud, the United States, among other nations, called for a peaceful meeting to discuss the issues and try to extinguish tensions. This attempt is essentially what Knott illustrates in his cartoon.

“They Can’t Put Him in Jail for Trying” depicts two characters: a woman holding cannons, muskets, and other miscellaneous weaponry with the word “Europe” on her chest and a man in a car with “Good Neighbor Hull” on it asking the woman if she “want[s] a ride.” The woman in this piece clearly represents the nation of Europe preparing for war with Germany and the Axis Powers. The man is noted to be Cordell Hull, American politician and Secretary of State to Roosevelt who strongly advocated for the meeting between nations. Although the European people were in favor of peace, the men in power were not heeding Hull’s please for compromise. In the background of the illustration are two signs reading “Road to World Peace” and “International Trade” which Hull is gesturing towards as if suggesting this is where he plans to take the woman on the car ride.

The humor behind the illustration is derived from the criticisms of how both American leaders such as Hull and the European nations handled the proposition to meet peacefully. Specifically in the cartoon, Knott ridiculously has Hull offer to give Europe or European leaders a ride to the conference. Equally, signs advertising the benefits of meeting happen to line the road which Hull plans to take. Paradoxically, Knott unrealistically has the European woman carrying heaps of advanced weaponry and warfare machinery through the streets. Overall, the cartoon is Knott’s humorous depiction of Secretary of State Hull’s overt attempt to ask Europe for a meeting to discuss the issues at hand.

In a companion piece published alongside “They Can’t Put Him in Jail for Trying” entitled “Advice to Europe” Hull’s relationship and overall influence over European nations is better exemplified. The article touches on Europe’s hesitancy on taking advice from “a young upstart” like the United States, despite America’s wealth and political establishment. Ultimately, Europe considers aggression the only practical solution despite Hull’s or other nation’s appeals to handle the issue in a peaceful manner. The article even goes on to say that even someone with more power and authority than Hull would likely have an extremely difficult time in preventing the altercation from being resolved through violence or force.

Essentially, “They Can’t Put Him in Jail for Trying” by John Francis Knott humorously comments on the Secretary of State Cornell Hull’s proposition to Europe to settle differences in a peaceful meeting to avoid an international war. Although Hull’s proposal failed, Knott permanently etched the idea into history with his cartoon and remarked on the tense and confusing times leading up to the Second World War.

 

Works Cited:

“Cordell Hull.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.

Knott, John F. “They Can’t Put Him in Jail for Trying”. Cartoon. The Dallas Morning News [Dallas] 22 March 1937: n. pag. Dolph Briscoe Center for American History. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

Smitha, Frank E. “Crisis and War in Europe, 1937 to 1940.” Crisis and War in Europe, 1937 to 1940. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.

Woolner, Diane. “Repeating Our Mistakes: The “Roosevelt Recession” and the Danger of Austerity.” Roosevelt Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.

 

The Dread Contagion

DOC008

The political cartoon “The Dread Contagion” depicts the American community attempting to reach out and offer the Good Neighbor Policy to those in the Eastern hemisphere.

This cartoon was created during the time period of the late 1930’s, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was president.  This was the era of the Great Depression, in which the American economy declined drastically after a crash in the stock market in 1929 with statistics such as a rise in unemployment rates from 8 to 15 million as well as a GDP that had decreased from $103.8 billion to $55.7 billion (Great Depression). During this decade, FDR was elected president in 1933 and began what he called the New Deal, which was “a series of economic measures designed to alleviate the worst effects of the depression, reinvigorate the economy, and restore the confidence to the American people” (New Deal). Through usage of the media, such as radio and television, FDR was able to bring back the confidence in the depressed democratic community who began fearing that institutions such as fascism and communism could possibly be better than their own. One of the biggest policies that branched from the New Deal, was the Good Neighbor Policy.

The Good Neighbor Policy is essentially what it says, the nation being a good neighbor to its neighboring countries. Roosevelt’s ideal was to “dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor—the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others,” in order to better his relationships with the Latin American countries as well as the eastern hemisphere countries (Carlsen). The Good Neighbor policy was not actually thought out during the time that it was declared by FDR, but the importance of the declaration was the underlying desire to promote commercial relations with other nations to save the United States from its ongoing depression (Smith). In order to prove his ideals towards other nations that previously thought the United States to be an oppressive power, FDR began multiple reciprocal trade agreements with the Latin American countries. Alongside this, the Export-import bank began to provide the other countries with credit for importing goods from the United States. In company with the economic acts done in response to the Good Neighbor policy, militaristic actions were also taken in order to fully gain the trust of the foreign countries. With acts such as the Platt Amendment, the United States proved that they would no longer interfere with domestic affairs in other countries. To further prove they would not use their military to engage in domestic affairs, the U.S. government refused to send in troops when the U.S. oil companies were having conflicts with the Mexican oil companies. Instead of attempting to boycott U.S. imports to Mexico completely, the U.S. oil companies were pressed to come to a compromise with the Mexican president to further demonstrate the Good Neighbor policy (Foreign). FDR’s ideal was to lower the overall armaments in the world and slowly end the desire for war between other nations. The policy overall had the greatest impact on the majority of the western hemisphere.

While this policy had a great effect on the western side of the globe, the same could not be said about the eastern side. This cartoon was made only a few years before the beginning of World War II, and plenty of tensions were flaring up between nations. According to the article associated with this cartoon, Pax Americana, almost all countries can easily tell about how they desire peace while their actions prove the exact opposite. Lines such as “Hitler, with one foot on the Rhine, the other foot on squelched minorities is a man of peace and will sign any treaty to prove it” further implicates that actions towards peace speak louder than words towards peace (Knott). From the implementation of the Good Neighbor policy, the United States has proven themselves to be the nation that is truly pushing towards peace unlike all other nations in the eastern hemisphere. The cartoon shows the eastern hemisphere as it is plagued by the contagious “war fever,” showing the current war-torn state the east is in as well as the fact that war is “contagious” because war can breed more war. The people behind the fence in this cartoon handing out the Good Neighbor Policy towards the eastern hemisphere as a “medicine” in order to cure the eastern nations of their war fever. Essentially, if the eastern hemisphere could implement a policy similar, if not equal to, the Good Neighbor policy and prove their desire for peace with their actions, war could as a whole finally come to an end.

Works Cited

“The New Deal.” Rooseveltinstitute. Web. 27 Nov. 2014. <http://rooseveltinstitute.org/policy-and-ideasroosevelt-historyfdr/new-deal>.

“The Great Depression (1929-1939).” Gwu. Web. 27 Nov. 2014.  <http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/glossary/great-depression.cfm>.

Barry, Tom, and Laura Carlsen. “The Good Neighbor Policy – A History to Make Us Proud.”Peace. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://www.peace.ca/goodneighborpolicy.htm>.

“Foreign Relations between Latin America and the Caribbean States, 1930–1944.” Gdc.gale. Web. 27 Nov. 2014. <http://gdc.gale.com/archivesunbound/archives-unbound-foreign-relations-between-latin-america-and-the-caribbean-states-19301944/>.

Smith, Joseph. “Good Neighbor Policy.” Encyclopedia of the Great Depression. Ed. Robert

S. McElvaine. Vol. 1. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. 401-402. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 1 Dec. 2014.

Knott, John F. “The Dread Contagion.” Cartoon. The Dallas Morning News [Dallas] 2 Apr. 1936: n. pag. Dolph Briscoe Center for American History. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.             <http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utcah/02261/cah-02261.html>.

Knott, John F. “Pax Americana.” Dallas Morning News [Dallas] 2 Apr. 1936, sec. 2: 2. Print.

How it Will Work

DOC012

How it Will Work 

John Francis Knott – October 1933

This cartoon comes in response to an address to the nation President Roosevelt made in October of 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression. He declared that the United States no longer should rely on outside countries to influence the value of gold in the US, and that the government would be setting up a market where the price of gold and the purchasing power of the dollar would be fixed.

In the previous March, the United States stopped using gold payments and effectively went off the gold standard, but gold was still relevant in trade, both domestic and international. Previously, the Federal Reserve was required to hold gold equal to 40% of the value of the currency it issued (the dollar), and to convert those dollars into gold at a fixed price of a little over $20 per ounce. The Federal Reserve held more than enough gold to convert to currency typically, and this was called “free gold.” In early to mid 1933, large quantities of gold left the Federal Reserve, both domestically and internationally. Experts say individuals and businesses preferred having metallic gold instead of paper currency, and that foreign investors feared that the dollar itself was devaluating. Both of these combined are reasons the Federal Reserve Bank of New York could no longer carry out its’ commitment of handing out gold instead of paper currency, and so the National Banking Holiday was created.

Throughout the next few months, the Roosevelt administration gradually weakened the US’s tie to gold through a series of actions. Beginning in April, the administration prohibited exports of gold and prohibited the Treasury department and other institutions from converting currency into gold. The next month, congress passed the Thomas amendment to the Agricultural Relief Act, which gave the president the power to reduce the content of gold in the dollar by as much as 50%. Silver was also added as an option to back the dollar, instead of just gold. In June, a resolution repealed gold clauses in contracts, both governmental and private. Gold clauses were guarantees in contracts that the parties involved would be repaid in gold or the monetary equivalent, as set by the value from 1900. These three initiatives together evolved the Roosevelt gold policy, leading up to the second phase, which was introduced in October of 1933 (for which the political cartoon is a reaction to).

In simple terms, the purpose of this second phase was to devaluate the dollar. The government authorized the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to buy gold at increasing prices, which raised the value of gold in terms of dollars, but lowered the value of dollars in terms of gold and foreign currencies. The ultimate goal of this was to raise prices of American commodities, which would counteract the deflation that pulled the economy into the state it was currently in. This reflation would hypothetically help those in debt, help banks, and businesses. The reflation would also hopefully lower prices of American goods internationally, which would encourage exports, and raise prices of foreign goods, which would discourage imports.

The cartoon by John Knott in the October 24th edition of the Dallas Morning News is a depiction of President Roosevelt flying and raising a gold dollar coin higher and higher, as if it was a kite. The editorial that accompanies the cartoon, A Market for Gold, says “the establishment of the gold market puts the President in position to push consistently toward a price level which may be acceptable as equitable to both creditors and debtors, without an unnecessary amount of interference because of manipulation abroad.” This quote quite possibly depicts most clearly what the cartoon is trying to show. While the editorial seems to be supportive of the new gold market, it is also skeptical in some ways, mostly about the President mostly ignoring the devaluation of the dollar. The United States had been under the gold standard for so long, and so as it weaned off it, many were nervous and dubious about the results. The editorial ends by saying “All that remains to be done is the announcement and the stabilization that the President in due time will make.” So while the Dallas Morning News supports President Roosevelt’s idea, they are still waiting for more.

A reason the dollar coin is depicted as a kite is because of the uncertainty of the value of the actual currency. It is easy to think you’re flying a kite excellently, but all of a sudden a gust of wind could arrive, or anything of that nature, and the kite will crash to the ground. The editorial board acknowledges that Roosevelt can now control the price of their currency, but that the dollar in due time will devaluate, or fall to the ground (as a kite does).

Works cited:

Knott, John. “How it Works” Cartoon. The Dallas Morning News [Dallas] 24 October, 1933: n. pag. Dolph Briscoe Center for American History. Web. 23 November, 2014.

“A Market for Gold” The Dallas Morning News [Dallas] 24 October, 1933: n. pag. Dolph Briscoe Center for American History. Web. 23 November, 2014.

Gary Richardson, Alejandro Komai, and Michael Gou. “Roosevelt’s Gold Program – A Detailed Essay on an Important Event in the History of the Federal Reserve.” Roosevelt’s Gold Program – A Detailed Essay on an Important Event in the History of the Federal Reserve. 1933. Web. 2 Dec. 2014.