OCR Specification focus:
‘Opposition targeted labour provisions and the Second New Deal.’
The Second New Deal (1935–1938) expanded Roosevelt’s social and labour reforms, yet it faced determined opposition from business, the Supreme Court, conservative politicians and within society, reshaping its scope and legacy.
Opposition to the Second New Deal: Overview
The Second New Deal marked a shift from emergency relief to structural reform, including measures such as the Wagner Act (1935), Social Security Act (1935) and Works Progress Administration (WPA). These reforms aimed to strengthen workers’ rights, create a safety net, and stabilise the economy. However, they also triggered widespread resistance from those who believed Roosevelt had overstepped constitutional limits, endangered capitalism, or given too much power to organised labour.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the Social Security Act on 14 August 1935, flanked by congressional sponsors and Labour Secretary Frances Perkins. The Act created federal old-age pensions and unemployment insurance—pillars that antagonised many business leaders and fiscal conservatives. High-resolution public-domain photograph; details and identities are clearly noted in the archive record. Source
Political Opposition
Conservative Coalition and Republican Resistance
A major challenge to the Second New Deal came from a conservative coalition of Republicans and right-wing Democrats, particularly from the South. They criticised Roosevelt for expanding federal power and undermining the principles of free enterprise.
Many Southern Democrats opposed labour provisions such as the Wagner Act, fearing the rise of powerful unions and their potential to disrupt the low-wage, racially segregated labour system in the South.
Republicans accused Roosevelt of leading the country towards “creeping socialism”, claiming the New Deal distorted the relationship between government and private enterprise.
Formation of Opposition Groups
Business leaders and conservative politicians organised opposition groups, most notably the American Liberty League (1934).
It was formed by prominent industrialists such as Al Smith and the DuPont family.
The League argued that the New Deal was unconstitutional, attacked property rights, and discouraged private initiative.
Although it failed to gain widespread popular support, it reflected elite resistance and helped galvanise anti–New Deal sentiment.
Judicial Opposition: The Supreme Court’s Challenge
The Supreme Court became one of the most formidable opponents of Roosevelt’s reforms. Its conservative majority viewed many New Deal policies as unconstitutional intrusions on private business and state powers.
In Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), the Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), ruling that Congress had unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the executive.
In United States v. Butler (1936), it declared the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) unconstitutional, limiting federal involvement in agriculture.
These decisions alarmed Roosevelt, who feared further setbacks to key components of the Second New Deal.
Roosevelt’s “Court-Packing” Plan
To counter judicial obstruction, Roosevelt proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill (1937), often called the “court-packing plan.”
This would have allowed him to appoint additional justices for every sitting justice over 70, potentially expanding the Court to 15 members.
Business and Corporate Opposition
Fears of Regulation and Labour Empowerment
Many business leaders were deeply hostile to the Second New Deal’s labour reforms.
Wagner Act (1935): A federal law guaranteeing workers the right to form unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take collective action, enforced through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Employers resented the Wagner Act for shifting power toward organised labour and limiting their control over workforce conditions.
The Social Security Act, introducing pensions and unemployment insurance, was criticised as an expensive and burdensome government intrusion into business affairs.
Large corporations argued that high taxation and expanding regulation would stifle innovation and investment.
Industrial Resistance to Unionisation
Opposition was not confined to rhetoric. Many employers actively resisted unionisation:
Companies such as Ford used private security forces to break strikes and intimidate organisers.
Business groups challenged union actions in court and funded anti-union propaganda.
Some employers shifted production to “right-to-work” states with weaker union protections.
Opposition within Society and the Left
While much opposition came from conservatives, Roosevelt also faced criticism from the political left, who argued the Second New Deal did not go far enough.
Figures like Huey Long proposed the “Share Our Wealth” programme, advocating for wealth redistribution far beyond Roosevelt’s measures.
Father Charles Coughlin and Dr Francis Townsend gained popular support with alternative proposals for banking reform and old-age pensions.
Although these movements lacked unified leadership, they influenced public debate and pressured Roosevelt to defend his policies from both ends of the political spectrum.
Opposition to Labour Provisions in Practice
The Supreme Court and Labour Law
The judiciary’s attitude towards labour rights was inconsistent. Early opposition to New Deal labour policies gave way to acceptance after 1937, but resistance continued at lower judicial levels, where rulings often favoured employers. This legal landscape meant the Wagner Act’s enforcement varied widely.
Employers and Strike Action
Strikes became flashpoints for opposition.
The “Little Steel” strike of 1937 saw violent clashes between unionists and police, with public opinion often turning against unions due to fears of disorder.
At a Senate La Follette Committee hearing on 30 June 1937, Chicago Police Commissioner James P. Allman justifies tactics used during the Memorial Day Massacre, where police killed ten demonstrators. The hearing underscores how industrial conflict fed opposition to labour provisions and complicated enforcement of New Deal labour law. The image includes documentary captioning; extra contextual detail about the hearing is visible on the source page. Source
Such incidents highlighted broader societal unease about the growing power of organised labour, even among sections of the working class.
Political Consequences of Opposition
The cumulative effect of opposition constrained the scope and ambition of the Second New Deal.
The “Roosevelt Recession” (1937–38), caused partly by reduced government spending, strengthened critics’ claims that the New Deal was economically unsustainable.
Conservative gains in the 1938 midterm elections weakened Roosevelt’s legislative power, forcing him to rely more on executive action and limiting further radical reform.
Despite these challenges, many Second New Deal reforms endured, reshaping the relationship between government, labour, and the economy. The conflict it provoked revealed deep divisions over the balance between state intervention and private enterprise — divisions that would define American politics for decades.
FAQ
The American Liberty League, formed in 1934 by conservative Democrats and wealthy industrialists like the DuPonts, aimed to rally opposition to Roosevelt’s policies.
It distributed pamphlets, funded legal challenges, and accused the New Deal of undermining property rights and individual liberty. However, despite significant financial backing, the League struggled to gain mass popular support. Its influence remained largely confined to elite and business circles, and Roosevelt’s personal popularity meant it failed to derail the New Deal. Nevertheless, it helped shape a broader conservative narrative that influenced later political opposition to government intervention.
Initially, Roosevelt enjoyed strong support in Congress, but growing concerns about federal overreach, spending, and executive power strained this relationship by 1937.
Conservative Democrats increasingly joined Republicans to form a conservative coalition, blocking new reforms.
The defeat of Roosevelt’s court-packing plan deepened congressional resistance, signalling a limit to executive influence.
After Democratic losses in the 1938 midterm elections, Roosevelt struggled to pass further major reforms, marking a turning point in New Deal momentum.
This shift revealed how political opposition could limit presidential ambitions, even in a period of significant reform.
The Court’s shift is often linked to the “switch in time that saved nine.” Facing Roosevelt’s court-packing threat, Justice Owen Roberts changed his voting behaviour, siding with liberal justices to uphold key New Deal measures.
In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937), the Court upheld the Wagner Act, recognising Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.
This marked a broader acceptance of federal intervention in economic affairs, aligning judicial interpretation with New Deal principles.
The change reduced direct judicial opposition and allowed Roosevelt to consolidate reforms without altering the Court’s structure.
Public attitudes were mixed. While many supported workers’ rights and improved conditions, events such as violent strikes caused unease about union power.
Incidents like the Memorial Day Massacre (1937), where police killed striking workers, shocked the public but also raised fears of labour militancy.
Middle-class Americans worried that union unrest threatened stability and economic recovery.
These sentiments emboldened political and business opposition, as critics argued that New Deal labour policies were destabilising and too favourable to unions.
Opposition to the Second New Deal reshaped American politics beyond Roosevelt’s presidency.
The conservative coalition persisted into the 1940s and 1950s, slowing further federal reform.
The rhetoric developed by opponents — warning of excessive government power and threats to free enterprise — became a staple of modern conservative ideology.
Business lobbying against labour rights laid the groundwork for later anti-union policies, such as the Taft-Hartley Act (1947).
Thus, opposition during the Second New Deal not only limited Roosevelt’s agenda but also influenced the trajectory of American political debate for decades.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
Name two groups or institutions that opposed aspects of the Second New Deal between 1935 and 1938.
Mark scheme:
Award 1 mark for each correctly identified group or institution, up to a maximum of 2 marks.
Possible correct answers include:
The Supreme Court
The American Liberty League
Conservative Southern Democrats
Republican politicians
Business leaders and corporations
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain two reasons why the Second New Deal faced significant opposition in the years 1935–1938.
Mark scheme:
Up to 3 marks for each well-explained reason.
To achieve full marks, each explanation should include specific detail and demonstrate understanding of the context.
Indicative content:
Expansion of federal power (up to 3 marks): Opponents, including Republicans and conservative Democrats, argued that Roosevelt’s policies overstepped constitutional boundaries, undermined states’ rights, and threatened free enterprise. The Supreme Court reflected these concerns in decisions such as Schechter Poultry v. United States (1935), striking down New Deal legislation.
Labour provisions and union power (up to 3 marks): The Wagner Act empowered workers and unions, which many business leaders feared would disrupt industry and limit managerial control. Violent events like the “Little Steel” strike of 1937 reinforced societal concerns about union strength and unrest.
