Here is a “for the record” disclaimer: I doubt that you could find many points of agreement with my politics and those of Senator Edward Kennedy, but I know of one point that is huge and telling. His record shows that he understands the difference between ideological purity on the one hand and the necessity of finding common ground in order to govern effectively on the other, and he nearly always comes down firmly on the side of effective governance.
In the initial news reports following the announcement of the Senator’s medical condition, the appearance of commentary from across the political spectrum was immediate and concerned…if not heartbroken. What is it about this man, deeply flawed as he may be, that evokes the obvious and evident regard of people as dissimilar as Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Patrick Leahy? Simply put, Senator Kennedy learned the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable.
Politics is important business, but it is not a campaign between good and evil. People of good character and fine intentions disagree about how one might best achieve optimal results in a democratic society, but there is far more that we have in common than separates us. Men like Senator Kennedy understand that you should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and so you find those points of agreement and agree on them. Then you compromise to allow each side to get some more of what it wants. And, finally, the majority will get a slightly larger say just because it can, and then you have a bill. It will not be perfect, but you can always fix the parts that don’t work, and, in any event, you are addressing a problem with legislation that a broad spectrum of representatives can support.
A few years ago, I started digging into Senate history and discovered what was, to my mind, an astonishing truth: in the course of his public career, Senator Kennedy has been one of the most effective legislators in United States history. There is scarcely a major piece of legislation since 1962 that does not have his fingerprints on it somewhere. And it isn’t just the result of excellent staffwork (though his senatorial staffs have been consistently top notch). He works at it conscientiously, and apparently loves the give and take that goes into the process. Even more important in a collegial body like the Senate, he apparently refuses to hold a grudge.
I find I cannot hold one either. The good he has done in his life far outweighs the sins and flaws in my estimation, and I wish him Godspeed and good luck.
And there was this from the Democratic National Convention in 1980:
“And someday, long after this convention, long after the signs come down, and the crowds stop cheering, and the bands stop playing, may it be said of our campaign that we kept the faith. May it be said of our Party in 1980 that we found our faith again.
And may it be said of us, both in dark passages and in bright days, in the words of Tennyson that my brothers quoted and loved, and that have special meaning for me now:
"I am a part of all that I have met....
Tho much is taken, much abides....
That which we are, we are--
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
...strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
William E. Borah, Part II
Without an unfettered press, without liberty of speech, all of the outward forms and structures of free institutions are a sham, a pretense -- the sheerest mockery. If the press is not free; if speech is not independent and untrammeled; if the mind is shackled or made impotent through fear, it makes no difference under what form of government you live, you are a subject and not a citizen. —William Edgar Borah
In December 1907, a new legislator from Idaho took his seat in the United States Senate. From that point, in a career that spanned thirty-three years and saw seven presidents (including both Roosevelts), the war to end all wars, and the Great Depression, William E. Borah amassed a reputation for honesty, political courage, and resolute opposition to everything he considered to be wrong for the United States.
A Republican whose father was a staunch supporter of Abraham Lincoln, Borah nonetheless put together a unique voting record that had little to do with what his friends, or his party, had in mind. He was famous for following his conscience wherever it led politically, but he never suffered that before the people of Idaho. Despite the fact that the senator was often at odds with the state Republican Party, the citizens of the state returned him to Congress with majorities that consistently ran ahead of the rest of the party’s slate.
This is the second part of a two part series, in which we examine the life of a man considered to be one of the most consequential public figures of his time. Part one (IDAHO magazine, October 2007) dealt with events prior to Borah’s election as senator; this part will be focused squarely on the public figure he became.
Part Two: The Lion Ascendant
Although Borah was elected to the Senate in 1906 and actually presented his credentials at the Capitol in early 1907, the various activities of that year, the Hayward trial and his own, kept him from moving east. In the end, Mary Borah moved to Washington that fall, and Borah himself followed permanently in December of 1907.
The Senate where he would make his political home was a very different place at the turn of the last century than it is today, but there were a number of striking similarities. Then, as now, the rich predominated. Lawyers were very prominent, and a number of families sequentially held seats in what was often referred to as “America’s House of Lords.” In that sense, the Senate was a profoundly conservative body that held deep suspicions about the labor movement and very definite ideas about the usefulness of industry. Theodore Roosevelt had contentious relations with the Senate, his Progressivism being antithetical to the nature of the Senate, but, nonetheless, he very often had his own way.
Because he arrived in Washington with the reputation of being a corporate attorney and a prosecutor fighting radical elements of the labor movement, Borah was given very good committee assignments for a freshman. While true, the estimation that both of these things revealed the nature of the man proved to be a mistake for his party’s leaders in the Senate. Their perception that he would play ball with the interests was in error; upon election, Borah had, in fact, severed all ties with the companies he represented. Moreover, even though Senate rules at the time allowed attorneys to continue practicing law, in the end, Borah refused to take on clients as a lawyer. As Borah biographer Claudius O. Johnson explained, attorneys in Congress who continued to practice law were forbidden to represent clients in disputes with the executive departments; however, they were often retained by corporations to shepherd cases through the Federal courts, a seeming conflict of interest that was not against the law at that time. This often resulted in a member of Congress opposing in court a bill he had helped to pass.
After a great deal of consideration, Borah decided that one job was enough, and he could not “take care of one {job} without slighting the other. He chose his career in the Senate.” (Johnson, pg. 93) With one short exception, he never worked as a lawyer again.
His first term in the Senate was largely taken up with the usual business of that body, although the election of 1908 occupied a great deal of time. Steadfastly for Theodore Roosevelt’s hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft, Borah found himself campaigning across the country for the rotund Republican. His eloquence on the stump winning himself a great deal of credit in the bargain. His willingness to campaign for Taft bore fruit very soon thereafter when Borah, with the president’s help, was able to secure a great deal of conservation, reclamation, and irrigation funding for Idaho. He also was part of an effort by Western senators to push through a significant change to the homesteading laws, assuring much more favorable terms for the small landholders.
The senator would be noted throughout his career for taking care to address the concerns of Idahoans who contacted him for help at the Federal level, but his intellectual focus quickly moved to national, and, later, international questions. This focus would result in some criticism from the state party, which would complain, sometimes with justification, that the senator gave strictly local concerns short shrift. The flip side, of course, was that Borah’s burgeoning national reputation was fine publicity for Idaho.
In 1909, he joined battle on the first great crusades of his career. Congress had passed laws on several occasions seeking to tax income, and the laws were quickly overturned by the Supreme Court, citing the Constitution’s bar to direct, or capitation taxes. In a series of speeches over the course of a year, the Senator laid out the Constitutional arguments for the income tax. Borah contended that the main source of income at the time, tariffs and import duties, were regressive in nature, rode heaviest on those least able to afford them, and were, in any event, insufficient sources of income for a quickly-growing nation. Rather more emotionally, he later noted:
It is all unjust and unfair, tyrannical, and to my mind brutal, to hold onto a system of taxation which continues to put all the burden {of revenue for the government} upon what we must eat and upon what we must wear and nothing upon the great incomes which fools so often flaunt in the face of the poor. (Johnson, pg. 119)
Advocates of the income tax tried to include the language as part of a new tariff bill (later passed as the Payne-Aldrich act), but the senate was persuaded by President Taft to vote out the income tax authorization as a Constitutional amendment. As Johnson puts it, “The resolution for the amendment passed the senate without a dissenting vote on July 5 (1910).” (Pg. 119) The hope of those against the tax was that the state legislatures would fail to approve it, and the measure would die. According to biographer Marian McKenna:
To the surprise of conservatives and progressives alike, the income-tax amendment was ratified by one state legislature after another and became the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution on February 25, 1913. Of all the innovations during the reform era the graduated income tax was destined to have the most positive and enduring effect on the American economy. (Pg 108)
The Progressive wave through the American government continued with renewed interest in the direct election of senators. It is useful to remember that members of the Senate at the time of Borah’s first election were not directly chosen by popular vote. Instead, according to the Constitution, senators were elected by state legislatures using a variety of methods. The theory behind indirect election was that the Senate was intended to be a representative body that considered the interests of states vis a vis the national government, rather than being a political body particularly subject to the popular will of the people. In practice, it was actually nothing of the sort. It was discovered very early that the wealthy and vested interests within a state found it easier to persuade a hundred legislators to vote for “their” senator, as opposed to the several thousand citizens it would require in a direct election. Johnson noted: “the amendment resolution had passed the House of Representatives several times, and more than two-thirds of the states had declared for it, but the Senate refused to consider the proposition.” (Pgs. 125-26) Matters came to a head, however, in 1909 when William Lorimer was elected to the Senate by the Illinois legislature, and strong evidence of corruption and bribery surfaced. Upon investigation and after Senate hearings, Lorimer’s election was invalidated in July 1912. Advocates of direct election used the Lorimer case to push their cause. Borah, in particular, was avid to secure passage, and he presented the Judiciary Committee report favoring the amendment on January 11, 1911.
And yet the battle dragged on, fought at every turn by the old guard. Defeated in 1911, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Borah brought the amendment up again the following spring and it finally passed both Houses of Congress with a two-thirds majority. By May 913, ratification was secured for the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution.
The 1912 election found Borah in a quandary. President Taft was planning to run for re-election, and Borah, as we have seen, campaigned for him enthusiastically in 1908. The quandary arose when his friend and political benefactor, Theodore Roosevelt, the old Rough Rider, decided that Taft was squandering his legacy and decided to challenge the incumbent for the Republican nomination. Forced by circumstance to take sides, Borah chose TR and immediately began rounding up support in Idaho. However, as Johnson noted:
Back in Idaho the Statesman was equally strong for the re-election of Taft and Borah. The Republican organization in that State was for the renomination of Taft, and, finding no weakness in Borah’s armor which might make him vulnerable before the electorate, supported the renomination of the Senator also. (Pg. 137)
Early on, the senator had discussed a possible third party with Roosevelt, and Borah had been opposed to the idea. After the convention, in which Taft used the powers of his incumbency to retain the nomination, Roosevelt approached Borah about joining his third party effort to unseat Taft. The senator tried to talk Roosevelt out of the effort, and then refused to take part. Their friendship was over.
Borah would remain neutral through the 1912 election, unable to support the Bull Moose insurgency and unwilling to campaign for Taft. In the end, the split in the Republican Party secured the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
Re-elected to the Senate, the next several years were devoted to large questions, such as women’s suffrage (which he strongly supported), Prohibition (which he also supported), and the continuing haggling necessitated by trade and tariffs. In regard to the vote for women, he was against the idea of working towards a Constitutional Amendment, primarily because he believed that, as Johnson put it, “at least sixteen states” would refuse to ratify, based on their experience with the Fifteenth Amendment, compelling suffrage for Black American men.
On the other hand, Borah strongly favored women’s suffrage, believing that each state ought to settle the matter. His nuanced support was not popular among the suffragettes, who favored the amendment, and the senator was strongly denounced. He never changed his mind, which fell in with his general view of the responsibility of states and their continuing rights under the Constitution.
By the time of the 1916 election, there was some small groundswell for Borah as a presidential candidate, but in the end, he chose not to run. Wilson was re-elected, and the world lurched toward war in Europe.
Borah was no internationalist, preferring to adhere to Washington’s injunction about avoiding foreign entanglements. And as war heated up on the European Continent, Borah was content, for the most part, to reiterate America’s neutrality and insist that International Law be adhered to by the belligerents. America continued to be to be drawn in, and when Wilson severed diplomatic relations with Germany, Borah insisted that this action “certainly did not mean that we were then on the side of the Allies.” (Johnson, pg. 199)
Ultimately, it did not matter. Though a series of steps, small and large, America went to war, and Borah voted to authorize the effort, though, interestingly, he voted against conscription on principle. He also insisted that his vote for the war was because American rights had been abused. In a speech given July 26, 1917, Borah noted that the conflict was “an American war, to be carried on, prolonged, or ended according to our interests.” (Johnson, pg 207) And when the Armistice came, Borah’s strong preference was that the United States should resume its long-standing policy of neutrality.
Immediately after the war, Borah worked to free those jailed under the wartime espionage act. Men such as Eugene Debs served prison time for speaking out against American involvement in WWI, and Borah fought to release them. As adamant as he was on this question, he was more adamant when it came to one of his most significant battles, the defeat of Wilson’s League of Nations.
The senator was one of many who believed that America had been drawn into the war in Europe, and he was intransigently opposed to the idea of international pacts of any sort that would subordinate the Constitution to the whims of foreign powers. He spoke against Wilson’s treaty and League, bitterly complaining that the Senate was being asked to vote for something they had not yet seen, regardless of how often specific provisions were being mooted about. Borah believed that the United States, under the League, would be inevitably drawn into any future conflict
Wilson proved equally intransigent, refusing to allow any version of the Versailles Treaty, save his own, to be voted upon by the Senate. While out on a whistlestop tour promoting the League, Wilson suffered a debilitating stroke, effectively stilling his voice, and the Senate voted not to ratify the treaty, finally killing it after Wilson had left office.
Borah was not opposed to working towards reconciliation of hostilities, merely the form which the League took and the obligations America would have taken on. He was also deeply opposed to the retributive effect of the Versailles treaty:
To Borah and other liberals of his time, including the eminent economist John Maynard Keynes, it seemed an unsound, revengeful peace, above all disastrous in its unrealistic reparations policy. (KcKenna, pg. 185)
Their analysis would prove to be prescient, as the treaty was a contributing cause to the hyperinflation in Germany and the eventual rise of the National Socialist Party.
Through the Twenties, Borah spent time on issues of disarmament, trade policy, and civil rights. Women’s suffrage passed; Prohibition did as well, and the Roaring Twenties rolled on. Peacetime economic expansion was consistent, and the senator gave a great deal of attention to the needs of his constituents, as well as the wider world. It was during this time, in November of 1924, that Borah became chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was the zenith of his political powers. One of the major events of his tenure as chairman was his refusal to have the United States join the World Court, except under strict reservations of national interest. In the end, the senator succeeded in keeping the United States a neutral power, which, as events later developed, proved to be decidedly a mixed blessing.
One interesting personal sidelight from that time, long part of Washington rumor, apparently was confirmed in October of this year when a new biography about Alice Roosevelt Longworth, the brilliant and flamboyant first daughter of Theodore Roosevelt, was published. Written by Stacey Cordrey and titled “Alice,” this book is based heavily on a diary and a collection of love letters belonging to Mrs. Longworth, which were provided to the author by Longworth’s granddaughter, Joanna Sturm. Among other things, these document a relationship between the leonine sixty-year old senator and the forty-one year old socialite that resulted in the birth of her only child, Paulina. Skeptics are invited to seek out a picture of Paulina Longworth, and compare her features with Borah’s.
Borah lost his chairmanship along with the Republican majority during the wipeout election of 1932. Franklin Roosevelt swept to power, pledging to return the country to prosperity. At first an ally of sorts, Borah grew wary of the expansion of executive power under FDR. Interestingly, however:
William Edgar Borah was a lifelong Republican, but he got along better with a Democratic president…better than with any president from his own party. Borah fought FDR on many major issues, sometimes in a leading role, often from behind the scenes, but always maintained friendly personal relations with {the president}. (Hutchinson, pg. 25)
Through the Thirties, Borah’s energy began to wane. Born in 1865, he was near retirement age when he was, again, drawn to action. In 1936, after discussion among the liberal wing of his party, he sought the Republican nomination for president. He ran in a number of primaries, energizing the progressive wing of the party, but in the end, the votes simply were not there. On the other hand, his support would be necessary if the eventual nominee, Governor Alf Landon of Kansas, was to have any chance against President Roosevelt. Borah’s considerable influence shaped the platform Landon would run on, but it would do little good. Landon would be swept by more than ten million votes nationally, and the Electoral College would reflect a Roosevelt blowout, 523-8.
While the president dispatched Landon, the sitting Idaho governor, Ben Ross, was running against Borah. Johnson notes:
Borah was the lone GOP victor in the Gem State. He led Ross in the voting by two to one and even forged ahead of FDR’s tremendous majority by four thousand. The extent of Borah’s victory was not apparent until a final count revealed he polled 126,000 votes, almost double the Ross figure of 71,500 and more votes than any Idaho candidate had ever received (the total population was 445,000). (Pg. 341)
The final major fight of his career came when FDR, upset at the Supreme Court for nullifying law after law passed during his New Deal and citing the heavy workload experienced by the aged justices on the court, proposed the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, which would have allowed the president to increase the size of the court, essentially, by adding a new justice for every justice over the age of seventy. On a court split five to four on most major questions, even two new justices would tip the balance. Borah saw this as a president trying to tip the Constitutional balance against an independent judiciary, and he was not alone. Members of the president’s own party were also up in arms. Republicans thought this might be the opening against Roosevelt they had been searching for. Instead, Borah, in consultation with the Democratic majority, undertook to let the Democrats defeat the plan. The Republicans, with only sixteen senators in the minority, would stay silent and let the majority carry the fight. He would work in the background against the bill, which eventually went down in a 70-20 Senate vote. It was one of the most resounding defeats of FDR’s presidency.
The next few years saw war break out in Europe again, as Borah had feared, and he strongly hoped that the United States would remain neutral. The Senate debated changes to the Neutrality Act, and Borah was against the so-called cash and carry provisions of the amendments. He believed, as in WWI, that the British would work to assure American involvement in the wider European war. Borah continued to seek means of remaining a neutral in the conflict. In the end, he would not live to see American involvement.
On January 15, 1940, William E. Borah suffered a cerebral hemorrhage that left him in a four-day coma, broken by periods of brief consciousness. He died on January 19, and his funeral was held January 22, 1940 in the Senate chambers. The entirety of Washington government was there: the president, the Supreme Court, and both Houses of Congress. The one empty seat was the senator’s desk, after thirty-three years, finally vacant, finally still.
The senator was laid to rest in Morris Hill Cemetery in Boise. His wife, Mary McConnell Borah, would survive him by thirty-six years. Born in 1870, she died in 1976, the nation’s bicentennial.
Sources:
Johnson, Claudius O. Borah of Idaho. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA 1967.
McKenna, Marian C. Borah. University of Wisconsin Press; Ann Arbor, WI, 1961.
Hutchinson, William K. News Articles on the Life and Works of Honorable William E. Borah. US Gov’t Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1940.
In December 1907, a new legislator from Idaho took his seat in the United States Senate. From that point, in a career that spanned thirty-three years and saw seven presidents (including both Roosevelts), the war to end all wars, and the Great Depression, William E. Borah amassed a reputation for honesty, political courage, and resolute opposition to everything he considered to be wrong for the United States.
A Republican whose father was a staunch supporter of Abraham Lincoln, Borah nonetheless put together a unique voting record that had little to do with what his friends, or his party, had in mind. He was famous for following his conscience wherever it led politically, but he never suffered that before the people of Idaho. Despite the fact that the senator was often at odds with the state Republican Party, the citizens of the state returned him to Congress with majorities that consistently ran ahead of the rest of the party’s slate.
This is the second part of a two part series, in which we examine the life of a man considered to be one of the most consequential public figures of his time. Part one (IDAHO magazine, October 2007) dealt with events prior to Borah’s election as senator; this part will be focused squarely on the public figure he became.
Part Two: The Lion Ascendant
Although Borah was elected to the Senate in 1906 and actually presented his credentials at the Capitol in early 1907, the various activities of that year, the Hayward trial and his own, kept him from moving east. In the end, Mary Borah moved to Washington that fall, and Borah himself followed permanently in December of 1907.
The Senate where he would make his political home was a very different place at the turn of the last century than it is today, but there were a number of striking similarities. Then, as now, the rich predominated. Lawyers were very prominent, and a number of families sequentially held seats in what was often referred to as “America’s House of Lords.” In that sense, the Senate was a profoundly conservative body that held deep suspicions about the labor movement and very definite ideas about the usefulness of industry. Theodore Roosevelt had contentious relations with the Senate, his Progressivism being antithetical to the nature of the Senate, but, nonetheless, he very often had his own way.
Because he arrived in Washington with the reputation of being a corporate attorney and a prosecutor fighting radical elements of the labor movement, Borah was given very good committee assignments for a freshman. While true, the estimation that both of these things revealed the nature of the man proved to be a mistake for his party’s leaders in the Senate. Their perception that he would play ball with the interests was in error; upon election, Borah had, in fact, severed all ties with the companies he represented. Moreover, even though Senate rules at the time allowed attorneys to continue practicing law, in the end, Borah refused to take on clients as a lawyer. As Borah biographer Claudius O. Johnson explained, attorneys in Congress who continued to practice law were forbidden to represent clients in disputes with the executive departments; however, they were often retained by corporations to shepherd cases through the Federal courts, a seeming conflict of interest that was not against the law at that time. This often resulted in a member of Congress opposing in court a bill he had helped to pass.
After a great deal of consideration, Borah decided that one job was enough, and he could not “take care of one {job} without slighting the other. He chose his career in the Senate.” (Johnson, pg. 93) With one short exception, he never worked as a lawyer again.
His first term in the Senate was largely taken up with the usual business of that body, although the election of 1908 occupied a great deal of time. Steadfastly for Theodore Roosevelt’s hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft, Borah found himself campaigning across the country for the rotund Republican. His eloquence on the stump winning himself a great deal of credit in the bargain. His willingness to campaign for Taft bore fruit very soon thereafter when Borah, with the president’s help, was able to secure a great deal of conservation, reclamation, and irrigation funding for Idaho. He also was part of an effort by Western senators to push through a significant change to the homesteading laws, assuring much more favorable terms for the small landholders.
The senator would be noted throughout his career for taking care to address the concerns of Idahoans who contacted him for help at the Federal level, but his intellectual focus quickly moved to national, and, later, international questions. This focus would result in some criticism from the state party, which would complain, sometimes with justification, that the senator gave strictly local concerns short shrift. The flip side, of course, was that Borah’s burgeoning national reputation was fine publicity for Idaho.
In 1909, he joined battle on the first great crusades of his career. Congress had passed laws on several occasions seeking to tax income, and the laws were quickly overturned by the Supreme Court, citing the Constitution’s bar to direct, or capitation taxes. In a series of speeches over the course of a year, the Senator laid out the Constitutional arguments for the income tax. Borah contended that the main source of income at the time, tariffs and import duties, were regressive in nature, rode heaviest on those least able to afford them, and were, in any event, insufficient sources of income for a quickly-growing nation. Rather more emotionally, he later noted:
It is all unjust and unfair, tyrannical, and to my mind brutal, to hold onto a system of taxation which continues to put all the burden {of revenue for the government} upon what we must eat and upon what we must wear and nothing upon the great incomes which fools so often flaunt in the face of the poor. (Johnson, pg. 119)
Advocates of the income tax tried to include the language as part of a new tariff bill (later passed as the Payne-Aldrich act), but the senate was persuaded by President Taft to vote out the income tax authorization as a Constitutional amendment. As Johnson puts it, “The resolution for the amendment passed the senate without a dissenting vote on July 5 (1910).” (Pg. 119) The hope of those against the tax was that the state legislatures would fail to approve it, and the measure would die. According to biographer Marian McKenna:
To the surprise of conservatives and progressives alike, the income-tax amendment was ratified by one state legislature after another and became the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution on February 25, 1913. Of all the innovations during the reform era the graduated income tax was destined to have the most positive and enduring effect on the American economy. (Pg 108)
The Progressive wave through the American government continued with renewed interest in the direct election of senators. It is useful to remember that members of the Senate at the time of Borah’s first election were not directly chosen by popular vote. Instead, according to the Constitution, senators were elected by state legislatures using a variety of methods. The theory behind indirect election was that the Senate was intended to be a representative body that considered the interests of states vis a vis the national government, rather than being a political body particularly subject to the popular will of the people. In practice, it was actually nothing of the sort. It was discovered very early that the wealthy and vested interests within a state found it easier to persuade a hundred legislators to vote for “their” senator, as opposed to the several thousand citizens it would require in a direct election. Johnson noted: “the amendment resolution had passed the House of Representatives several times, and more than two-thirds of the states had declared for it, but the Senate refused to consider the proposition.” (Pgs. 125-26) Matters came to a head, however, in 1909 when William Lorimer was elected to the Senate by the Illinois legislature, and strong evidence of corruption and bribery surfaced. Upon investigation and after Senate hearings, Lorimer’s election was invalidated in July 1912. Advocates of direct election used the Lorimer case to push their cause. Borah, in particular, was avid to secure passage, and he presented the Judiciary Committee report favoring the amendment on January 11, 1911.
And yet the battle dragged on, fought at every turn by the old guard. Defeated in 1911, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Borah brought the amendment up again the following spring and it finally passed both Houses of Congress with a two-thirds majority. By May 913, ratification was secured for the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution.
The 1912 election found Borah in a quandary. President Taft was planning to run for re-election, and Borah, as we have seen, campaigned for him enthusiastically in 1908. The quandary arose when his friend and political benefactor, Theodore Roosevelt, the old Rough Rider, decided that Taft was squandering his legacy and decided to challenge the incumbent for the Republican nomination. Forced by circumstance to take sides, Borah chose TR and immediately began rounding up support in Idaho. However, as Johnson noted:
Back in Idaho the Statesman was equally strong for the re-election of Taft and Borah. The Republican organization in that State was for the renomination of Taft, and, finding no weakness in Borah’s armor which might make him vulnerable before the electorate, supported the renomination of the Senator also. (Pg. 137)
Early on, the senator had discussed a possible third party with Roosevelt, and Borah had been opposed to the idea. After the convention, in which Taft used the powers of his incumbency to retain the nomination, Roosevelt approached Borah about joining his third party effort to unseat Taft. The senator tried to talk Roosevelt out of the effort, and then refused to take part. Their friendship was over.
Borah would remain neutral through the 1912 election, unable to support the Bull Moose insurgency and unwilling to campaign for Taft. In the end, the split in the Republican Party secured the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
Re-elected to the Senate, the next several years were devoted to large questions, such as women’s suffrage (which he strongly supported), Prohibition (which he also supported), and the continuing haggling necessitated by trade and tariffs. In regard to the vote for women, he was against the idea of working towards a Constitutional Amendment, primarily because he believed that, as Johnson put it, “at least sixteen states” would refuse to ratify, based on their experience with the Fifteenth Amendment, compelling suffrage for Black American men.
On the other hand, Borah strongly favored women’s suffrage, believing that each state ought to settle the matter. His nuanced support was not popular among the suffragettes, who favored the amendment, and the senator was strongly denounced. He never changed his mind, which fell in with his general view of the responsibility of states and their continuing rights under the Constitution.
By the time of the 1916 election, there was some small groundswell for Borah as a presidential candidate, but in the end, he chose not to run. Wilson was re-elected, and the world lurched toward war in Europe.
Borah was no internationalist, preferring to adhere to Washington’s injunction about avoiding foreign entanglements. And as war heated up on the European Continent, Borah was content, for the most part, to reiterate America’s neutrality and insist that International Law be adhered to by the belligerents. America continued to be to be drawn in, and when Wilson severed diplomatic relations with Germany, Borah insisted that this action “certainly did not mean that we were then on the side of the Allies.” (Johnson, pg. 199)
Ultimately, it did not matter. Though a series of steps, small and large, America went to war, and Borah voted to authorize the effort, though, interestingly, he voted against conscription on principle. He also insisted that his vote for the war was because American rights had been abused. In a speech given July 26, 1917, Borah noted that the conflict was “an American war, to be carried on, prolonged, or ended according to our interests.” (Johnson, pg 207) And when the Armistice came, Borah’s strong preference was that the United States should resume its long-standing policy of neutrality.
Immediately after the war, Borah worked to free those jailed under the wartime espionage act. Men such as Eugene Debs served prison time for speaking out against American involvement in WWI, and Borah fought to release them. As adamant as he was on this question, he was more adamant when it came to one of his most significant battles, the defeat of Wilson’s League of Nations.
The senator was one of many who believed that America had been drawn into the war in Europe, and he was intransigently opposed to the idea of international pacts of any sort that would subordinate the Constitution to the whims of foreign powers. He spoke against Wilson’s treaty and League, bitterly complaining that the Senate was being asked to vote for something they had not yet seen, regardless of how often specific provisions were being mooted about. Borah believed that the United States, under the League, would be inevitably drawn into any future conflict
Wilson proved equally intransigent, refusing to allow any version of the Versailles Treaty, save his own, to be voted upon by the Senate. While out on a whistlestop tour promoting the League, Wilson suffered a debilitating stroke, effectively stilling his voice, and the Senate voted not to ratify the treaty, finally killing it after Wilson had left office.
Borah was not opposed to working towards reconciliation of hostilities, merely the form which the League took and the obligations America would have taken on. He was also deeply opposed to the retributive effect of the Versailles treaty:
To Borah and other liberals of his time, including the eminent economist John Maynard Keynes, it seemed an unsound, revengeful peace, above all disastrous in its unrealistic reparations policy. (KcKenna, pg. 185)
Their analysis would prove to be prescient, as the treaty was a contributing cause to the hyperinflation in Germany and the eventual rise of the National Socialist Party.
Through the Twenties, Borah spent time on issues of disarmament, trade policy, and civil rights. Women’s suffrage passed; Prohibition did as well, and the Roaring Twenties rolled on. Peacetime economic expansion was consistent, and the senator gave a great deal of attention to the needs of his constituents, as well as the wider world. It was during this time, in November of 1924, that Borah became chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was the zenith of his political powers. One of the major events of his tenure as chairman was his refusal to have the United States join the World Court, except under strict reservations of national interest. In the end, the senator succeeded in keeping the United States a neutral power, which, as events later developed, proved to be decidedly a mixed blessing.
One interesting personal sidelight from that time, long part of Washington rumor, apparently was confirmed in October of this year when a new biography about Alice Roosevelt Longworth, the brilliant and flamboyant first daughter of Theodore Roosevelt, was published. Written by Stacey Cordrey and titled “Alice,” this book is based heavily on a diary and a collection of love letters belonging to Mrs. Longworth, which were provided to the author by Longworth’s granddaughter, Joanna Sturm. Among other things, these document a relationship between the leonine sixty-year old senator and the forty-one year old socialite that resulted in the birth of her only child, Paulina. Skeptics are invited to seek out a picture of Paulina Longworth, and compare her features with Borah’s.
Borah lost his chairmanship along with the Republican majority during the wipeout election of 1932. Franklin Roosevelt swept to power, pledging to return the country to prosperity. At first an ally of sorts, Borah grew wary of the expansion of executive power under FDR. Interestingly, however:
William Edgar Borah was a lifelong Republican, but he got along better with a Democratic president…better than with any president from his own party. Borah fought FDR on many major issues, sometimes in a leading role, often from behind the scenes, but always maintained friendly personal relations with {the president}. (Hutchinson, pg. 25)
Through the Thirties, Borah’s energy began to wane. Born in 1865, he was near retirement age when he was, again, drawn to action. In 1936, after discussion among the liberal wing of his party, he sought the Republican nomination for president. He ran in a number of primaries, energizing the progressive wing of the party, but in the end, the votes simply were not there. On the other hand, his support would be necessary if the eventual nominee, Governor Alf Landon of Kansas, was to have any chance against President Roosevelt. Borah’s considerable influence shaped the platform Landon would run on, but it would do little good. Landon would be swept by more than ten million votes nationally, and the Electoral College would reflect a Roosevelt blowout, 523-8.
While the president dispatched Landon, the sitting Idaho governor, Ben Ross, was running against Borah. Johnson notes:
Borah was the lone GOP victor in the Gem State. He led Ross in the voting by two to one and even forged ahead of FDR’s tremendous majority by four thousand. The extent of Borah’s victory was not apparent until a final count revealed he polled 126,000 votes, almost double the Ross figure of 71,500 and more votes than any Idaho candidate had ever received (the total population was 445,000). (Pg. 341)
The final major fight of his career came when FDR, upset at the Supreme Court for nullifying law after law passed during his New Deal and citing the heavy workload experienced by the aged justices on the court, proposed the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, which would have allowed the president to increase the size of the court, essentially, by adding a new justice for every justice over the age of seventy. On a court split five to four on most major questions, even two new justices would tip the balance. Borah saw this as a president trying to tip the Constitutional balance against an independent judiciary, and he was not alone. Members of the president’s own party were also up in arms. Republicans thought this might be the opening against Roosevelt they had been searching for. Instead, Borah, in consultation with the Democratic majority, undertook to let the Democrats defeat the plan. The Republicans, with only sixteen senators in the minority, would stay silent and let the majority carry the fight. He would work in the background against the bill, which eventually went down in a 70-20 Senate vote. It was one of the most resounding defeats of FDR’s presidency.
The next few years saw war break out in Europe again, as Borah had feared, and he strongly hoped that the United States would remain neutral. The Senate debated changes to the Neutrality Act, and Borah was against the so-called cash and carry provisions of the amendments. He believed, as in WWI, that the British would work to assure American involvement in the wider European war. Borah continued to seek means of remaining a neutral in the conflict. In the end, he would not live to see American involvement.
On January 15, 1940, William E. Borah suffered a cerebral hemorrhage that left him in a four-day coma, broken by periods of brief consciousness. He died on January 19, and his funeral was held January 22, 1940 in the Senate chambers. The entirety of Washington government was there: the president, the Supreme Court, and both Houses of Congress. The one empty seat was the senator’s desk, after thirty-three years, finally vacant, finally still.
The senator was laid to rest in Morris Hill Cemetery in Boise. His wife, Mary McConnell Borah, would survive him by thirty-six years. Born in 1870, she died in 1976, the nation’s bicentennial.
Sources:
Johnson, Claudius O. Borah of Idaho. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA 1967.
McKenna, Marian C. Borah. University of Wisconsin Press; Ann Arbor, WI, 1961.
Hutchinson, William K. News Articles on the Life and Works of Honorable William E. Borah. US Gov’t Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1940.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
William E. Borah, Part One
William Edgar Borah: The Lion of Idaho
By Dene Oneida
I would sooner lose in a right cause than win in a wrong cause. As long as I can distinguish between right and wrong, I shall do what I believe to be right—whatever the consequences. —William Edgar Borah
It is interesting to consider that the most consequential politician ever to emerge from the State of Idaho is scarcely remembered one way or another these days. Perhaps the problem is that he died so long ago, on January 19, 1940, nearly two years before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor signaled the US entry into World War Two. Perhaps it is because the people who knew him, respected him, and voted for him are long gone. Perhaps it is because his style of politics, heavy on ideas and consequences and astonishingly light on sound bites and posturing, is no longer in vogue. Perhaps it is because we have passed the time in our history when citizens trusted their legislators to use their best judgment on the issues of the day and be statesmen (to the extent that was possible), and not simply be mouthpieces of a transient “will of the people” and officeholders in a quest for re-election. Perhaps it is all of these things. Regardless, the fact that William Edgar Borah, The Lion of Idaho, is fading from history in the Gem State ought to provoke a sense of outrage on behalf of a man whose words and vision of America significantly helped to shape our country, its place in the world, and, in some significant measure, the world itself.
In this two part series, we will examine the life of a man generally considered to be one of the most consequential public figures of his time. Part one will deal with events prior to Borah’s election as senator, while part two will be focused squarely on the public figure he became.
Part One: Lion Rising
Born June 29, 1865 in the Jasper Township near Fairfield in Wayne County, Illinois, narrowly missing the Civil War (which ended April 9, 1865) at the beginning of his life as he missed WWII at the end, Borah was born into a devout Christian family who made their living as farmers. The sixth of ten children born to William N. and Elizabeth West Borah, William grew up in relatively comfortable circumstances, very much a part of the larger community. While the larger community appears to have been relatively devout as well, Borah biographer Claudius O. Johnson noted:
There was a breadth of tolerance and a nobility of spirit about the patriarch of the Borah household which made a lasting impression upon his children. That it has influenced the public career of Senator Borah there is not the slightest doubt. The Senator’s private correspondence touching matters of religious bigotry, race hatreds, and similar subjects in which passion and prejudice play a large part is replete with lessons in Christian charity learned from his example. (Johnson, pg 5.)
By all accounts, Borah’s father was very much involved in the issues of the day as well, and took an active, “although wholly local,” political interest, as Johnson put it. He was a strong supporter of Abraham Lincoln politically and philosophically, and his staunch Republican Party affiliation obviously influenced his son, who remained a lifelong Republican in spite of the fact that he and the Idaho party rarely agreed upon much of anything at all.
Borah’s early education was accomplished in a public school under a teacher who had both a classical education and, apparently, a fondness for strong spirits. This former college professor instilled a love of language and literature in the young man, who, as Johnson notes, “was good at speechmaking from the start, and…was often singled out to do the honors on special occasions.” Later, at Enfield College (which was actually a Presbyterian secondary school), the young Borah learned Latin, history, literature, and mathematics (at which he did relatively poorly). He continued with oratory, at which he gained a small reputation, and was an excellent debater and writer. Not at all coincidentally, this led him to think, briefly, about a career in the theatre, and, more pointedly, about a career as a lawyer. Again according to Johnson, he received no encouragement in this vocation from his father, who viewed lawyers as one with “Pharisees and the Publicans.” For this and for financial reasons, Borah’s father did not send his son back to Enfield the following year. His schooling might have come to an end, save for the intercession of an older sister, living in Lyon, Kansas, whose husband was a lawyer. Young Will moved to Kansas, and after a year attending public school there, he taught school for a year or so. In 1885, however, having never forgotten his ambition to be a lawyer, Borah entered the University of Kansas at Lawrence.
He was there less than two years. He spent one year as a “sub-freshman,” studying Latin and English primarily, and spent his following year studying history, literature, elocution, and composition. In early spring of 1887, Johnson notes, Borah left UK after being threatened with tuberculosis. He never returned to school. Instead, he read the law under the tutelage of his brother-in-law, and subsequently passed the requirements for admission to the Kansas State Bar.
From 1888 to 1890, Borah practiced law in Lyon, working briefly as the City Attorney in town, and subsequently gaining a small reputation for his abilities. Always ambitious, however, Borah concluded that he needed to be a player on a larger stage if he intended to truly make something of himself. He looked west, intending originally to migrate to Seattle, Washington, but was persuaded by the Mayor of Lyon, the man who had appointed him as City Attorney, that he might want to give Boise a try. He did, and after making the acquaintanceship of a Nampa gambler who said he would send business Borah’s way, he set up an office and went to work.
Borah biographer Marian McKenna noted that the Boise the young lawyer found when he arrived
…was a “wide open town which needed law and order more than it wanted them. The city was generously sprinkled with gambling places, saloons like “The Naked Truth,” bawdy houses, and dance halls…“where vice of all kinds flourished unashamed and ‘six shooter’ justice sent some of the worst sinners the world ever saw to the ‘boothill’ graveyards.” (McKenna, pg 19.)
Like most young attorneys, his initial clients comprised the usual assortment of drunks, wastrels, and ne-er do-wells that forever seem to inhabit the court system of the nation. Borah had no philosophical problems with defending them, adhering to the ethics of the bar association that everyone is entitled to representation and a fair trial on the merits of their case. Over time, however, the bulk of his legal work moved from criminal to civil litigation. As Johnson puts it:
Borah was eager for business…and he gave to it all the energy he possessed. More and more civil suits came his way, so that in time he practically abandoned his criminal practice. His work became very largely that of counsel and attorney for some of the strongest corporations in Idaho…At the time of his election to the Senate he probably had the most lucrative practice in the state. (Johnson, pg 25.)
At that time, most of the largest financial interests in Idaho were producers of primary goods: timber companies, mines, sheep and cattle ranchers, the railroad, and a couple of other large concerns. Missing from this roll is agriculture, and while his financial well-being depended upon his usefulness to the moneyed elite, Borah’s sympathies primarily lay with the farmers and small business owners. This sentiment largely stemmed from Borah’s constitutional unease with concentrations of money and power; indeed, his thirty-three year tenure in the US Senate demonstrated, again and again, his ardent opposition to monopolies and large corporations. Not surprisingly, his enmity was returned in full measure by the monopolies and corporations. As a result, Borah’s senatorial career would be marked by a distinct coolness between the Idaho Republican Party and the Senator, but Idaho voters would happily return him with large majorities each successive election.
Likely due to his upbringing, Borah’s view of government was Jeffersonian in nature, and he believed that citizens must take responsibility for governing themselves. His natural inclination moved in favor of the Jefferson’s citizen-farmer ideal, and he championed the cause of groups who were marginalized in Idaho politics, such as the farmers, mechanics, mineworkers, and the Mormons (who dealt with religious bigotry in addition to being, primarily, farmers).
On the other hand, Borah’s early years in Idaho also had time for friendships and acquaintanceships that transcended class or party lines. A determined Republican, he nonetheless developed a great and abiding friendship with James H. Hawley, an attorney, ardent Democrat, and Governor of Idaho from 1911 to 1913. “He and Borah were often on opposite sides of important lawsuits,” Johnson notes, “but this never interfered with their relationship.” (Johnson, pg 33.) As it developed, Hawley and Borah would later combine forces during the most important trial in Idaho history, but their friendship lasted until the death of the older Hawley in 1929. While it is true that he was to part ways with a small number of friends over political differences, it is also true that William Borah appears to have been a man with a gift for friendship, a talent that stood him in good stead throughout his political career.
“By 1892,” notes McKenna, “Borah was active in state politics…serv[ing] as part-time secretary for William J. McConnell, elected governor in 1892 and re-elected in 1894.” (Pg 23.) A significant benefit to Borah was his developing relationship with the governor’s daughter, Mary. Their courtship was lengthy, but, in the end, they were married on April 21, 1895. Their marriage would endure almost forty-five years, encompassing nearly the entirety of Borah’s political career.
As his personal life settled into place, Borah’s professional life became more and more public in nature. In 1896, he was hired by Cassia County to assist in the prosecution of “Diamondfield Jack” Davis, accused of murdering two sheepherders on behalf of cattle baron interests during the cattleman/sheepherder range wars. Borah spent a great deal of time backtracking Davis’ movements, finding three cowboys whose testimony secured a conviction. The cattle interests procured a stay of execution and, in 1901, Governor Frank Hunt gave Davis a full pardon, but Borah’s reputation was made.
Likewise, in 1899, Borah found himself involved in another murder case after the Western Federation of Miners dynamited all the surface property at the Bunker Hill-Sullivan mine in Kellogg. Governor Steunenberg, then in his second term, called in federal troops and declared martial law in Shoshone County. According to McKenna,
Within a week more than one thousand arrests were made, many without warrant, and the prisoners were herded into “bull pens.” When a special grand jury convened, numerous indictments were found against members of the miners’ unions. (Pg 28.)
Among them was an indictment against Paul Corcoran, secretary of the Burke local of the union, who had shot and killed Jim Cheyne, a hired strikebreaker, during the disturbances. Steunenberg appointed Borah, his friend, James Hawley, and James Forney to prosecute Corcoran.
After a lengthy trial, during which Borah was careful to separate unionism from the criminal activities that this union, and Corcoran, had engaged in during the unrest at Bunker Hill, he secured a conviction of murder in the second degree. Interestingly, after having his conviction affirmed by the State Supreme Court, Corcoran was pardoned…by Governor Hunt. In the aftermath of the case, McKenna notes, the prisoners in the “bull pens” were released, the troops were removed,
…and a House committee began an investigation into mining conditions in the district. Two results followed: the Western Federation of Miners was almost completely disbanded in the Coeur d’Alene area, and the labor leaders of the disturbances were compelled to locate in other parts of the United States. (Pg 31.)
This case would have echoes several years later, and Borah would, again, be a part of the prosecution.
Contemporaneous with his legal career was the development of his political life. He dabbled briefly with the free silver movement during the 1896 presidential election. He ran for Congress on the Silver Republican ticket, losing but running ahead of the other candidates on his slate. By 1898, however, he was firmly back in the mainstream Republican fold, campaigning for the party but not actively seeking office.
This changed in 1902, as Borah, an active supporter of President Theodore Roosevelt, sought election to the US Senate. After a tense several days, the legislature re-elected Senator Weldon Heyburn, a defeat that Borah accepted gracefully. In 1906, he again sought the Senate, was nominated by the Republican party, and was elected by the legislature in January of 1907. Before he could take his seat, however, the most important trial of his life intervened.
On December 30, 1905, former governor Frank Steunenberg, Borah’s friend and political mentor, was mortally wounded when a bomb, attached to the front gate of his Caldwell home, exploded as he entered the yard. His body shattered and fragments of his clothing blown fifty feet away, Steunenberg died twenty minutes later.
In response, Governor Frank Gooding cordoned off Canyon County, stopping and searching everything that moved.
Within a few days detectives became suspicious of a stocky man with a black valise registered at the Saratoga Hotel in Caldwell. Pieces of plaster and chloride of potash useful in making a bomb were found in his room, and his valise contained other suspected materials. He was arrested on New Year’s Day and eventually removed to the penitentiary in Boise. Although he called himself Tom Hogan, he was later identified as Harry Orchard, a figure in the Coeur d’Alene disturbances of 1899 who had disappeared immediately after the riots. (McKenna, pg 49.)
Orchard eventually confessed, implicating William “Big Bill” Hayward and Charles Moyer, who were, respectively, secretary and president of the Western Federation of Miners, as well as George Pettibone, who also worked for the union. The noted attorney Clarence Darrow headed the team for the defense. Hayward’s conspiracy trial was first, and began on May 9, 1907.
Orchard proved to be a highly credible witness, even though the prosecution faced a legal obstacle; Idaho law prohibited conviction based only on the testimony of an accomplice, no matter how credible; there must be clear and convincing corroborative evidence. Despite the fact that Orchard’s story was not entirely buttressed, the defense had a great deal of difficulty countering his testimony. The trial had sufficient latitude to swing either way, so when Hayward took the stand, he and Borah sparred at length; in the end, Hayward admitted to, precisely, nothing. Borah was stymied. Then:
In the opening argument for the defense Darrow made one of the longest and most forceful speeches of his career; it lasted eleven hours…[h]e gave a history of the labor movement…[noting that] the Western Federation of Miners had been formed to protect helpless and hopeless workers, and he recited its achievements. (McKenna, pg 55.)
Darrow was having nothing to do with the conspiracy charge; either the defendant was guilty of murder, or he ought to be acquitted. Calling Orchard “a depraved killer,” he struck again and again at his credibility, calling his testimony “rotten.” (McKenna, pg 55.)
Borah took nine hours to sum up the case. He touched on the disturbances in the north, pointed out the role of the union and Hayward’s position, then noted the union’s antipathy toward Steunenberg. He went through Orchard’s testimony at intricate length, showing where it was directly corroborated and where it was circumstantial, and defended Orchard’s religious conversion, which had influenced his decision to testify for the prosecution, and took care to point out that Orchard’s story had been consistent throughout, and that no evidence had been submitted to controvert any of it.
Borah’s summation would take nine hours. Much of the verbiage appears to us, at this distance in time, to be florid, almost Victorian in its rhythms, but it was highly effective before the jury:
I remember again the awful night of December 30, 1905, a night which added ten years to the life of some…in this courtroom now. I felt again its cold and merciless chill, faced the drifting snow and peered at last into the darkness for the sacred spot where last lay my dead friend, and saw true, only too true, the stain of his life blood on the whited earth. I saw men and women standing about in storm and darkness, silent in the presence of the dreadful mystery, and Idaho disgraced and dishonored—I saw murder—no, not murder—a thousand times worse than murder, I saw anarchy displaying its first bloody triumph in Idaho…” (McKenna, pg 61.)
While his great rival, Clarence Darrow, called his performance “the fairest and ablest I have ever heard from counsel in a great murder trial,” the case remained hung in the balance. After nearly three months, the case went to the jury at ten o’clock on a Saturday night; at eight the next morning, Haywood was acquitted. In the end, after Darrow later won an acquittal for George Pettibone, the charges against Charles Moyer were dropped.
Harry Orchard was tried and convicted for the murder of Frank Steunenberg, and served out a life sentence in the Idaho State Penitentiary, dying there at age eighty-eight in 1954.
Borah emerged from the Hayward trial defeated in the court of law but victorious in the court of public opinion. Newly elected as senator and now noted, regionally and nationally, as an orator of power and ability, he faced his own trial by jury.
Borah was attorney for the Barber Lumber Company, a concern owned in part by former Governor Steunenberg. On March 11, 1907, on the eve of the Hayward trial, Borah and Steunenberg were named in indictments for timber fraud. The coincidence of timing was apparently no coincidence. Borah’s enemies, among them a judge, James H. Beatty, who had been overlooked for the Senate seat Borah had won, hoped to convict, or at least tarnish the name of the new senator. Other enemies, chiefly the Western Federation of Miners, also hoped he would be removed from the Haywood prosecution. Governor Gooding had other ideas. He petitioned President Roosevelt, asking him to delay the case against Borah so he could move ahead with the Haywood trial. Roosevelt agreed, and the fraud case was suspended. With the end of the trial, however, Borah’s career was on the line.
It is useful to note how timber companies did business at the time. The Barber Lumber Company had acquired lands under provisions of the Stone and Timber Act of 1878, which allowed for purchase of one hundred sixty acres of timberland by eligible individuals at a price of $2.50 per acre. What timber companies typically did was purchase plots filed for by individuals; perhaps more commonly, they found individuals who could file, gave them $100 or so for their trouble, and then filed for the land under their names. Once the purchase went through, the sale to the company was duly noted and the harvest began.
Obviously, the machinations involved were underhanded and woefully transparent, and Borah had been an outspoken opponent of the act in the first instance, but Congress turned a blind eye to the business, looking at it, at worst, as a way for settlers to make a few bucks and for the timber companies to acquire land.
Borah’s opponents, however, saw the opportunity to blacken his name, in spite of the fact that he neither owned timberland nor allowed his wife or secretary to own any. The grand jury indicted, under the assumption that the attorney of the concern would have been privy to the details of the underlying fraud. But there was a problem with the grand jury. A number of newsmen, led by Oscar King Davis, a reporter for the New York Times who had covered the Hayward trial, made an independent investigation and concluded that the grand jury had been packed by US marshall Ruel Rounds, and they went to the Roosevelt with their concerns. His response was to send in his own investigator and replace the judge for the trial, the same Judge Beatty noted above.
By the time the trial finally got underway, Roosevelt brought in an independent judge and prosecutors to assure a fair trial. While he believed Borah was innocent, he considered it politically inexpedient to simply order the charges dismissed. He thought Borah should have the chance for vindication, and he was concerned that dropping the charges would look like a shady deal to secure the new senator’s support in Congress. So on September 23, 1907, Borah went on trial, defended, by his friend James Hawley, among others.
The government called forty witness, the defense cross-examining only two and offering no objections,
…allowing a vast amount of wholly irrelevant evidence, and omitting a motion to dismiss, which the judge evidently expected. Judge Whitson leaned over the bench and said to the prosecuting attorney: “When are you going to connect the defendant with any of this?” (McKenna, pg 78.)
Borah himself was the only witness called by the defense, and the prosecution made no headway on cross. At that point, Hawley rested, and then waived its closing argument. The prosecution closed, the judge charged the jury, and less than fifteen minutes later, the jury returned a verdict of “not guilty.”
It was done. Out of the Hayward trial and his own trial and personal vindication, Borah amassed foundation of the standing and respect that would sustain him throughout his national career.
William Edgar Borah was seated in the United States Senate in December of 1907, and he would remain a member of that body for the next thirty-three years.
By Dene Oneida
I would sooner lose in a right cause than win in a wrong cause. As long as I can distinguish between right and wrong, I shall do what I believe to be right—whatever the consequences. —William Edgar Borah
It is interesting to consider that the most consequential politician ever to emerge from the State of Idaho is scarcely remembered one way or another these days. Perhaps the problem is that he died so long ago, on January 19, 1940, nearly two years before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor signaled the US entry into World War Two. Perhaps it is because the people who knew him, respected him, and voted for him are long gone. Perhaps it is because his style of politics, heavy on ideas and consequences and astonishingly light on sound bites and posturing, is no longer in vogue. Perhaps it is because we have passed the time in our history when citizens trusted their legislators to use their best judgment on the issues of the day and be statesmen (to the extent that was possible), and not simply be mouthpieces of a transient “will of the people” and officeholders in a quest for re-election. Perhaps it is all of these things. Regardless, the fact that William Edgar Borah, The Lion of Idaho, is fading from history in the Gem State ought to provoke a sense of outrage on behalf of a man whose words and vision of America significantly helped to shape our country, its place in the world, and, in some significant measure, the world itself.
In this two part series, we will examine the life of a man generally considered to be one of the most consequential public figures of his time. Part one will deal with events prior to Borah’s election as senator, while part two will be focused squarely on the public figure he became.
Part One: Lion Rising
Born June 29, 1865 in the Jasper Township near Fairfield in Wayne County, Illinois, narrowly missing the Civil War (which ended April 9, 1865) at the beginning of his life as he missed WWII at the end, Borah was born into a devout Christian family who made their living as farmers. The sixth of ten children born to William N. and Elizabeth West Borah, William grew up in relatively comfortable circumstances, very much a part of the larger community. While the larger community appears to have been relatively devout as well, Borah biographer Claudius O. Johnson noted:
There was a breadth of tolerance and a nobility of spirit about the patriarch of the Borah household which made a lasting impression upon his children. That it has influenced the public career of Senator Borah there is not the slightest doubt. The Senator’s private correspondence touching matters of religious bigotry, race hatreds, and similar subjects in which passion and prejudice play a large part is replete with lessons in Christian charity learned from his example. (Johnson, pg 5.)
By all accounts, Borah’s father was very much involved in the issues of the day as well, and took an active, “although wholly local,” political interest, as Johnson put it. He was a strong supporter of Abraham Lincoln politically and philosophically, and his staunch Republican Party affiliation obviously influenced his son, who remained a lifelong Republican in spite of the fact that he and the Idaho party rarely agreed upon much of anything at all.
Borah’s early education was accomplished in a public school under a teacher who had both a classical education and, apparently, a fondness for strong spirits. This former college professor instilled a love of language and literature in the young man, who, as Johnson notes, “was good at speechmaking from the start, and…was often singled out to do the honors on special occasions.” Later, at Enfield College (which was actually a Presbyterian secondary school), the young Borah learned Latin, history, literature, and mathematics (at which he did relatively poorly). He continued with oratory, at which he gained a small reputation, and was an excellent debater and writer. Not at all coincidentally, this led him to think, briefly, about a career in the theatre, and, more pointedly, about a career as a lawyer. Again according to Johnson, he received no encouragement in this vocation from his father, who viewed lawyers as one with “Pharisees and the Publicans.” For this and for financial reasons, Borah’s father did not send his son back to Enfield the following year. His schooling might have come to an end, save for the intercession of an older sister, living in Lyon, Kansas, whose husband was a lawyer. Young Will moved to Kansas, and after a year attending public school there, he taught school for a year or so. In 1885, however, having never forgotten his ambition to be a lawyer, Borah entered the University of Kansas at Lawrence.
He was there less than two years. He spent one year as a “sub-freshman,” studying Latin and English primarily, and spent his following year studying history, literature, elocution, and composition. In early spring of 1887, Johnson notes, Borah left UK after being threatened with tuberculosis. He never returned to school. Instead, he read the law under the tutelage of his brother-in-law, and subsequently passed the requirements for admission to the Kansas State Bar.
From 1888 to 1890, Borah practiced law in Lyon, working briefly as the City Attorney in town, and subsequently gaining a small reputation for his abilities. Always ambitious, however, Borah concluded that he needed to be a player on a larger stage if he intended to truly make something of himself. He looked west, intending originally to migrate to Seattle, Washington, but was persuaded by the Mayor of Lyon, the man who had appointed him as City Attorney, that he might want to give Boise a try. He did, and after making the acquaintanceship of a Nampa gambler who said he would send business Borah’s way, he set up an office and went to work.
Borah biographer Marian McKenna noted that the Boise the young lawyer found when he arrived
…was a “wide open town which needed law and order more than it wanted them. The city was generously sprinkled with gambling places, saloons like “The Naked Truth,” bawdy houses, and dance halls…“where vice of all kinds flourished unashamed and ‘six shooter’ justice sent some of the worst sinners the world ever saw to the ‘boothill’ graveyards.” (McKenna, pg 19.)
Like most young attorneys, his initial clients comprised the usual assortment of drunks, wastrels, and ne-er do-wells that forever seem to inhabit the court system of the nation. Borah had no philosophical problems with defending them, adhering to the ethics of the bar association that everyone is entitled to representation and a fair trial on the merits of their case. Over time, however, the bulk of his legal work moved from criminal to civil litigation. As Johnson puts it:
Borah was eager for business…and he gave to it all the energy he possessed. More and more civil suits came his way, so that in time he practically abandoned his criminal practice. His work became very largely that of counsel and attorney for some of the strongest corporations in Idaho…At the time of his election to the Senate he probably had the most lucrative practice in the state. (Johnson, pg 25.)
At that time, most of the largest financial interests in Idaho were producers of primary goods: timber companies, mines, sheep and cattle ranchers, the railroad, and a couple of other large concerns. Missing from this roll is agriculture, and while his financial well-being depended upon his usefulness to the moneyed elite, Borah’s sympathies primarily lay with the farmers and small business owners. This sentiment largely stemmed from Borah’s constitutional unease with concentrations of money and power; indeed, his thirty-three year tenure in the US Senate demonstrated, again and again, his ardent opposition to monopolies and large corporations. Not surprisingly, his enmity was returned in full measure by the monopolies and corporations. As a result, Borah’s senatorial career would be marked by a distinct coolness between the Idaho Republican Party and the Senator, but Idaho voters would happily return him with large majorities each successive election.
Likely due to his upbringing, Borah’s view of government was Jeffersonian in nature, and he believed that citizens must take responsibility for governing themselves. His natural inclination moved in favor of the Jefferson’s citizen-farmer ideal, and he championed the cause of groups who were marginalized in Idaho politics, such as the farmers, mechanics, mineworkers, and the Mormons (who dealt with religious bigotry in addition to being, primarily, farmers).
On the other hand, Borah’s early years in Idaho also had time for friendships and acquaintanceships that transcended class or party lines. A determined Republican, he nonetheless developed a great and abiding friendship with James H. Hawley, an attorney, ardent Democrat, and Governor of Idaho from 1911 to 1913. “He and Borah were often on opposite sides of important lawsuits,” Johnson notes, “but this never interfered with their relationship.” (Johnson, pg 33.) As it developed, Hawley and Borah would later combine forces during the most important trial in Idaho history, but their friendship lasted until the death of the older Hawley in 1929. While it is true that he was to part ways with a small number of friends over political differences, it is also true that William Borah appears to have been a man with a gift for friendship, a talent that stood him in good stead throughout his political career.
“By 1892,” notes McKenna, “Borah was active in state politics…serv[ing] as part-time secretary for William J. McConnell, elected governor in 1892 and re-elected in 1894.” (Pg 23.) A significant benefit to Borah was his developing relationship with the governor’s daughter, Mary. Their courtship was lengthy, but, in the end, they were married on April 21, 1895. Their marriage would endure almost forty-five years, encompassing nearly the entirety of Borah’s political career.
As his personal life settled into place, Borah’s professional life became more and more public in nature. In 1896, he was hired by Cassia County to assist in the prosecution of “Diamondfield Jack” Davis, accused of murdering two sheepherders on behalf of cattle baron interests during the cattleman/sheepherder range wars. Borah spent a great deal of time backtracking Davis’ movements, finding three cowboys whose testimony secured a conviction. The cattle interests procured a stay of execution and, in 1901, Governor Frank Hunt gave Davis a full pardon, but Borah’s reputation was made.
Likewise, in 1899, Borah found himself involved in another murder case after the Western Federation of Miners dynamited all the surface property at the Bunker Hill-Sullivan mine in Kellogg. Governor Steunenberg, then in his second term, called in federal troops and declared martial law in Shoshone County. According to McKenna,
Within a week more than one thousand arrests were made, many without warrant, and the prisoners were herded into “bull pens.” When a special grand jury convened, numerous indictments were found against members of the miners’ unions. (Pg 28.)
Among them was an indictment against Paul Corcoran, secretary of the Burke local of the union, who had shot and killed Jim Cheyne, a hired strikebreaker, during the disturbances. Steunenberg appointed Borah, his friend, James Hawley, and James Forney to prosecute Corcoran.
After a lengthy trial, during which Borah was careful to separate unionism from the criminal activities that this union, and Corcoran, had engaged in during the unrest at Bunker Hill, he secured a conviction of murder in the second degree. Interestingly, after having his conviction affirmed by the State Supreme Court, Corcoran was pardoned…by Governor Hunt. In the aftermath of the case, McKenna notes, the prisoners in the “bull pens” were released, the troops were removed,
…and a House committee began an investigation into mining conditions in the district. Two results followed: the Western Federation of Miners was almost completely disbanded in the Coeur d’Alene area, and the labor leaders of the disturbances were compelled to locate in other parts of the United States. (Pg 31.)
This case would have echoes several years later, and Borah would, again, be a part of the prosecution.
Contemporaneous with his legal career was the development of his political life. He dabbled briefly with the free silver movement during the 1896 presidential election. He ran for Congress on the Silver Republican ticket, losing but running ahead of the other candidates on his slate. By 1898, however, he was firmly back in the mainstream Republican fold, campaigning for the party but not actively seeking office.
This changed in 1902, as Borah, an active supporter of President Theodore Roosevelt, sought election to the US Senate. After a tense several days, the legislature re-elected Senator Weldon Heyburn, a defeat that Borah accepted gracefully. In 1906, he again sought the Senate, was nominated by the Republican party, and was elected by the legislature in January of 1907. Before he could take his seat, however, the most important trial of his life intervened.
On December 30, 1905, former governor Frank Steunenberg, Borah’s friend and political mentor, was mortally wounded when a bomb, attached to the front gate of his Caldwell home, exploded as he entered the yard. His body shattered and fragments of his clothing blown fifty feet away, Steunenberg died twenty minutes later.
In response, Governor Frank Gooding cordoned off Canyon County, stopping and searching everything that moved.
Within a few days detectives became suspicious of a stocky man with a black valise registered at the Saratoga Hotel in Caldwell. Pieces of plaster and chloride of potash useful in making a bomb were found in his room, and his valise contained other suspected materials. He was arrested on New Year’s Day and eventually removed to the penitentiary in Boise. Although he called himself Tom Hogan, he was later identified as Harry Orchard, a figure in the Coeur d’Alene disturbances of 1899 who had disappeared immediately after the riots. (McKenna, pg 49.)
Orchard eventually confessed, implicating William “Big Bill” Hayward and Charles Moyer, who were, respectively, secretary and president of the Western Federation of Miners, as well as George Pettibone, who also worked for the union. The noted attorney Clarence Darrow headed the team for the defense. Hayward’s conspiracy trial was first, and began on May 9, 1907.
Orchard proved to be a highly credible witness, even though the prosecution faced a legal obstacle; Idaho law prohibited conviction based only on the testimony of an accomplice, no matter how credible; there must be clear and convincing corroborative evidence. Despite the fact that Orchard’s story was not entirely buttressed, the defense had a great deal of difficulty countering his testimony. The trial had sufficient latitude to swing either way, so when Hayward took the stand, he and Borah sparred at length; in the end, Hayward admitted to, precisely, nothing. Borah was stymied. Then:
In the opening argument for the defense Darrow made one of the longest and most forceful speeches of his career; it lasted eleven hours…[h]e gave a history of the labor movement…[noting that] the Western Federation of Miners had been formed to protect helpless and hopeless workers, and he recited its achievements. (McKenna, pg 55.)
Darrow was having nothing to do with the conspiracy charge; either the defendant was guilty of murder, or he ought to be acquitted. Calling Orchard “a depraved killer,” he struck again and again at his credibility, calling his testimony “rotten.” (McKenna, pg 55.)
Borah took nine hours to sum up the case. He touched on the disturbances in the north, pointed out the role of the union and Hayward’s position, then noted the union’s antipathy toward Steunenberg. He went through Orchard’s testimony at intricate length, showing where it was directly corroborated and where it was circumstantial, and defended Orchard’s religious conversion, which had influenced his decision to testify for the prosecution, and took care to point out that Orchard’s story had been consistent throughout, and that no evidence had been submitted to controvert any of it.
Borah’s summation would take nine hours. Much of the verbiage appears to us, at this distance in time, to be florid, almost Victorian in its rhythms, but it was highly effective before the jury:
I remember again the awful night of December 30, 1905, a night which added ten years to the life of some…in this courtroom now. I felt again its cold and merciless chill, faced the drifting snow and peered at last into the darkness for the sacred spot where last lay my dead friend, and saw true, only too true, the stain of his life blood on the whited earth. I saw men and women standing about in storm and darkness, silent in the presence of the dreadful mystery, and Idaho disgraced and dishonored—I saw murder—no, not murder—a thousand times worse than murder, I saw anarchy displaying its first bloody triumph in Idaho…” (McKenna, pg 61.)
While his great rival, Clarence Darrow, called his performance “the fairest and ablest I have ever heard from counsel in a great murder trial,” the case remained hung in the balance. After nearly three months, the case went to the jury at ten o’clock on a Saturday night; at eight the next morning, Haywood was acquitted. In the end, after Darrow later won an acquittal for George Pettibone, the charges against Charles Moyer were dropped.
Harry Orchard was tried and convicted for the murder of Frank Steunenberg, and served out a life sentence in the Idaho State Penitentiary, dying there at age eighty-eight in 1954.
Borah emerged from the Hayward trial defeated in the court of law but victorious in the court of public opinion. Newly elected as senator and now noted, regionally and nationally, as an orator of power and ability, he faced his own trial by jury.
Borah was attorney for the Barber Lumber Company, a concern owned in part by former Governor Steunenberg. On March 11, 1907, on the eve of the Hayward trial, Borah and Steunenberg were named in indictments for timber fraud. The coincidence of timing was apparently no coincidence. Borah’s enemies, among them a judge, James H. Beatty, who had been overlooked for the Senate seat Borah had won, hoped to convict, or at least tarnish the name of the new senator. Other enemies, chiefly the Western Federation of Miners, also hoped he would be removed from the Haywood prosecution. Governor Gooding had other ideas. He petitioned President Roosevelt, asking him to delay the case against Borah so he could move ahead with the Haywood trial. Roosevelt agreed, and the fraud case was suspended. With the end of the trial, however, Borah’s career was on the line.
It is useful to note how timber companies did business at the time. The Barber Lumber Company had acquired lands under provisions of the Stone and Timber Act of 1878, which allowed for purchase of one hundred sixty acres of timberland by eligible individuals at a price of $2.50 per acre. What timber companies typically did was purchase plots filed for by individuals; perhaps more commonly, they found individuals who could file, gave them $100 or so for their trouble, and then filed for the land under their names. Once the purchase went through, the sale to the company was duly noted and the harvest began.
Obviously, the machinations involved were underhanded and woefully transparent, and Borah had been an outspoken opponent of the act in the first instance, but Congress turned a blind eye to the business, looking at it, at worst, as a way for settlers to make a few bucks and for the timber companies to acquire land.
Borah’s opponents, however, saw the opportunity to blacken his name, in spite of the fact that he neither owned timberland nor allowed his wife or secretary to own any. The grand jury indicted, under the assumption that the attorney of the concern would have been privy to the details of the underlying fraud. But there was a problem with the grand jury. A number of newsmen, led by Oscar King Davis, a reporter for the New York Times who had covered the Hayward trial, made an independent investigation and concluded that the grand jury had been packed by US marshall Ruel Rounds, and they went to the Roosevelt with their concerns. His response was to send in his own investigator and replace the judge for the trial, the same Judge Beatty noted above.
By the time the trial finally got underway, Roosevelt brought in an independent judge and prosecutors to assure a fair trial. While he believed Borah was innocent, he considered it politically inexpedient to simply order the charges dismissed. He thought Borah should have the chance for vindication, and he was concerned that dropping the charges would look like a shady deal to secure the new senator’s support in Congress. So on September 23, 1907, Borah went on trial, defended, by his friend James Hawley, among others.
The government called forty witness, the defense cross-examining only two and offering no objections,
…allowing a vast amount of wholly irrelevant evidence, and omitting a motion to dismiss, which the judge evidently expected. Judge Whitson leaned over the bench and said to the prosecuting attorney: “When are you going to connect the defendant with any of this?” (McKenna, pg 78.)
Borah himself was the only witness called by the defense, and the prosecution made no headway on cross. At that point, Hawley rested, and then waived its closing argument. The prosecution closed, the judge charged the jury, and less than fifteen minutes later, the jury returned a verdict of “not guilty.”
It was done. Out of the Hayward trial and his own trial and personal vindication, Borah amassed foundation of the standing and respect that would sustain him throughout his national career.
William Edgar Borah was seated in the United States Senate in December of 1907, and he would remain a member of that body for the next thirty-three years.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
To Senator Craig...
I am a fellow Republican, and I have been since I was old enough to know the difference between the parties. To me, that difference came down, more than anything, to trust. We trust our officeholders to make appropriate choices and use their best judgment; and politicians trust us to take the long view and wait out the passions of today. In short, you do what you need to do, and we give you the time and support to do what must be done. By that standard, we have trusted you all along; but when push came to shove, you did not trust us.
I do not care, could not care less, if you are straight or gay, so long as you live up to your word and up to your responsibilities. It is simply none of my business. Most Republicans I know or are acquainted with share a similar view. We truly do not care what you do in your private life, so long as you hurt no one, break no laws, and keep our interests firmly in mind during the day. Sadly, this you failed to do. By being arrested in the manner that you were and by pleading guilty to ANY charge, even a lesser one, you accepted that your actions, in a public setting, were wrong and actionable. You broke the compact.
I see no way for you to come through this experience with credibility intact, either at home here in Idaho or in Washington. These are troubling times in need of character and steadfast resolution, and hairsplitting about whether you should have done this or ought to have done that serves no purpose save your own ambition and sense of vindication.
A number of years ago, Senator Packwood chose to resign under circumstances involving sexual/public misconduct. There was no "proof" in his instance, either, and he was plenty steamed when his hometown paper, the Oregonian, printed page after page of allegations. In the end, there was nothing for it but to leave, and he chose to exit as gracefully as he could. Senator Adams of Washington, when faced with worse allegations, refused to run for re-election.
Senator, I hope that you will see fit to free the party and the Senate from a full consideration of your case. I know that it hardly seems fair to you on a certain level, and that your instincts, as mine would likely be—initially— are to fight back hard. But this is a battle you cannot win. In the end, I think you will decide that you will have to take one for the team.
Resignation now would allow Governor Otter to appoint your successor, who would then have a prohibitive advantage in retaining the seat. It is likely that, even in the event you choose to remain and not run for re-election, the seat will stay in GOP hands. But if you run for re-election as vindication, you will almost certainly lose. Over 40% will vote against you as a starting point, simply because you are a Republican. And you cannot count on more than 50% of the Republican vote, because of the allegations and the guilty plea. The Democrats will use you and your troubles in a nationwide attempt to paint Republicans as hypocritical, and will get some traction with the issue. You know that, sir. The strong probability is that you will lose; if you do, the national party will lose as well, and these are serious times when we can ill-afford a filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate.
I take no joy in this because I respect the work you have done on behalf of Idaho and the Nation, but for the sake of the Republican Party—and, more importantly, for the sake of Idaho and the US—I respectfully urge your resignation as Senior Senator from the State of Idaho.
I do not care, could not care less, if you are straight or gay, so long as you live up to your word and up to your responsibilities. It is simply none of my business. Most Republicans I know or are acquainted with share a similar view. We truly do not care what you do in your private life, so long as you hurt no one, break no laws, and keep our interests firmly in mind during the day. Sadly, this you failed to do. By being arrested in the manner that you were and by pleading guilty to ANY charge, even a lesser one, you accepted that your actions, in a public setting, were wrong and actionable. You broke the compact.
I see no way for you to come through this experience with credibility intact, either at home here in Idaho or in Washington. These are troubling times in need of character and steadfast resolution, and hairsplitting about whether you should have done this or ought to have done that serves no purpose save your own ambition and sense of vindication.
A number of years ago, Senator Packwood chose to resign under circumstances involving sexual/public misconduct. There was no "proof" in his instance, either, and he was plenty steamed when his hometown paper, the Oregonian, printed page after page of allegations. In the end, there was nothing for it but to leave, and he chose to exit as gracefully as he could. Senator Adams of Washington, when faced with worse allegations, refused to run for re-election.
Senator, I hope that you will see fit to free the party and the Senate from a full consideration of your case. I know that it hardly seems fair to you on a certain level, and that your instincts, as mine would likely be—initially— are to fight back hard. But this is a battle you cannot win. In the end, I think you will decide that you will have to take one for the team.
Resignation now would allow Governor Otter to appoint your successor, who would then have a prohibitive advantage in retaining the seat. It is likely that, even in the event you choose to remain and not run for re-election, the seat will stay in GOP hands. But if you run for re-election as vindication, you will almost certainly lose. Over 40% will vote against you as a starting point, simply because you are a Republican. And you cannot count on more than 50% of the Republican vote, because of the allegations and the guilty plea. The Democrats will use you and your troubles in a nationwide attempt to paint Republicans as hypocritical, and will get some traction with the issue. You know that, sir. The strong probability is that you will lose; if you do, the national party will lose as well, and these are serious times when we can ill-afford a filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate.
I take no joy in this because I respect the work you have done on behalf of Idaho and the Nation, but for the sake of the Republican Party—and, more importantly, for the sake of Idaho and the US—I respectfully urge your resignation as Senior Senator from the State of Idaho.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Immigration follies
I don't believe I have ever seen an instance before where the political elites of this country want something very badly and it somehow fails to happen. I'm not referring to elections; if that were the case, we would presently be looking to the end of the Gore Administration and hoping like hell he could keep the country from devolving into complete disaster. No, I am referring to the fact that between big business and big politics, the fix appeared to be in on the immigration bill presently before the Senate. And yet, somehow, it is going down to ignominious defeat. Why? Because no-one, not even the career politicians attempting to pass this abortion of an omnibus bill, truly believe it will do what they claim it will do. Instead, it will simply increase the number of low cost workers in the United States, and give the Democrats a leg up on new voters.
Oh yes. And depress wages for Americans, cost the tax system far more per illegal than they pay in Social Security withholding, and lead to even more immigration than before.
The people have caught onto the shell game that amounts to a pea under every shell, or, perhaps more appropriately, there is poison in any glass we can select.
The claim is that, without the current bill, the borders cannot be secured, the numbers of illegals cannot be counted or deported, and crops will rot in the fields.
These things we know. Fences work. Ask the people of Berlin. Or ask the Mexican nationals near San Diego. You will have to go to Mexico to do it, though, since the fence there has forced migrants to move farther east to sneak into the US.
We do not have to be against the idea that migrant families should be reunited. Workers should be allowed and encouraged to go back home to their families...in Mexico. We are under no obligation to let illegal immigrants bring their families here.
We cannot reasonably find, arrest and deport all 12 million illegal immigrants, but if we make the fence as nonporous as we can manage and insist that employers vouch for the legality of their employees (and fine or close them if they cannot-or will not), illegal immigrants will find that the living here is not quite as easy as it once was. Many will opt to go home. And that is what we want as well.
To this date, the bill is not dead, but it will need to be resurrected if it is to be a continued threat, and that will take sixty votes. Any luck at all, and the senate will not find them.
Oh yes. And depress wages for Americans, cost the tax system far more per illegal than they pay in Social Security withholding, and lead to even more immigration than before.
The people have caught onto the shell game that amounts to a pea under every shell, or, perhaps more appropriately, there is poison in any glass we can select.
The claim is that, without the current bill, the borders cannot be secured, the numbers of illegals cannot be counted or deported, and crops will rot in the fields.
These things we know. Fences work. Ask the people of Berlin. Or ask the Mexican nationals near San Diego. You will have to go to Mexico to do it, though, since the fence there has forced migrants to move farther east to sneak into the US.
We do not have to be against the idea that migrant families should be reunited. Workers should be allowed and encouraged to go back home to their families...in Mexico. We are under no obligation to let illegal immigrants bring their families here.
We cannot reasonably find, arrest and deport all 12 million illegal immigrants, but if we make the fence as nonporous as we can manage and insist that employers vouch for the legality of their employees (and fine or close them if they cannot-or will not), illegal immigrants will find that the living here is not quite as easy as it once was. Many will opt to go home. And that is what we want as well.
To this date, the bill is not dead, but it will need to be resurrected if it is to be a continued threat, and that will take sixty votes. Any luck at all, and the senate will not find them.
Friday, June 22, 2007
It feels like starting over...
That's probably because it is.
There are a couple of circumstances that have served to force it along, neither of which makes me overjoyed with the universe. First is the fact that my personal circumstances are severely changed. Second, our friends at Blogger/Google have locked me out of my old blog. I have tried to rattle the appropriate cages, to no effect whatsoever. My account remains deadlocked.
And so I move on, and the Snark will not be resurrected. The times seem to call for more serious examination of everything, and however lighthearted I can feel about this and that (mostly that), there is still an air of utter seriousness that ought to be acknowledged. This is not to say that funny is done; just that there are other fish to fry these days, and funny has its place within that...not instead of that.
If you follow me.
So if you are interested in rereading the old posts, they will sit (who knows how long) at Moonbat Central untouched by human (or, at least, my) hands. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy the new focus, Constant Readers. I shall try to make it worth your while, all two of you.
There are a couple of circumstances that have served to force it along, neither of which makes me overjoyed with the universe. First is the fact that my personal circumstances are severely changed. Second, our friends at Blogger/Google have locked me out of my old blog. I have tried to rattle the appropriate cages, to no effect whatsoever. My account remains deadlocked.
And so I move on, and the Snark will not be resurrected. The times seem to call for more serious examination of everything, and however lighthearted I can feel about this and that (mostly that), there is still an air of utter seriousness that ought to be acknowledged. This is not to say that funny is done; just that there are other fish to fry these days, and funny has its place within that...not instead of that.
If you follow me.
So if you are interested in rereading the old posts, they will sit (who knows how long) at Moonbat Central untouched by human (or, at least, my) hands. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy the new focus, Constant Readers. I shall try to make it worth your while, all two of you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
