Introduction

    1929 marked the start of one of the most difficult eras in American history.  Suddenly, the seemingly invincible economy of the twenties plummeted, and millions of Americans were left wondering what went wrong.  They could not feed their families; they lost their homes, their possessions, and subsequently, many lost their pride and hope.  Many hungry, unemployed Americans gave up believing in the “land of the free” and often felt that the “American dream” was a lost and unreachable entity.
 When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected in 1932, millions of starving eyes turned to him as a savior.   Under his wing, the American government had the courage to take an active role in improving the morale and well being of its people in a manner entirely unprecedented.  As Frances Perkins explained, his presence “gave the American people new hope” and his fireside chats “created the impression that the head of a vast and powerful nation had the people’s interest at heart” (qtd. in Davidson and Lytle 598).   Under the Roosevelt administration, Americans found the strength and courage to go on.  Families grew more close-knit, neighbors supported one another, and everyone worked towards the hope of a more prosperous future.
In the winter of 1998, we learned about the “Roaring Twenties” followed by the Great Depression era. The relationship between the two eras instantly became of interest to us; it was a time of revolution and a time of learning for both the American government and its people.  Within a twenty year span, Americans went from being carefree and frivolous to actually”[needing] diversion from daily worries” produced by the hardships and living “in poverty because of forces over which they had no control” {Davidson and Lytle 617).   While it occurred decades before our births, it is a crucial part of our past—a time in which our grandparents grew up.  Now, as we see more and more of these Great Depression survivors getting older, we realize the necessity of preserving the stories of our past before it is too late.   History books tell us facts and figures: voices recreate the era.  Only survivors can paint the extraordinarily vivid pictures of the past.
    Most people know the “history book version” of what the New Deal meant for the American people, but we wanted to know the real deal: what the people themselves perceived about Roosevelt’s unparalleled efforts to help the people.  But what did citizens in our area really think about the New Deal programs while they were in effect? Did they respect the government for its innovative reform of social welfare? To find the answers to these questions, we scheduled interviews with New Jersey residents that lived during the Depression era.  We asked them about their lives, their thoughts on the government, and how they perceived the time American historians refer to as “Hard Times.”  While we were only able to interview a handful of individuals, we got a broad range of responses and interpretations, indicating that Roosevelt’s administration helped people in very different ways.
    To try to discover changes in people’s perceptions of Roosevelt’s programs, we compared the results of our interviews to editorials and news briefs in local publications from the time of the Depression.  We also did a general study of the Great Depression itself—its society, culture, politics, technology, and economics—enabling us to ask more specific questions of our interviewees and allowing us to examine the various controversies and issues surrounding the implementation of Roosevelt’s relief programs.  (See Appendix).

Return to Top

Part I: The Role of Government and the New Deal

    While popular analysis of the Great Depression attempts to give an objective account of the 1930s, it generally overlooks a key source: the American people who were there to experience it firsthand.  Were the programs indeed worthwhile? Was government intervention constitutional?  And how have the answers to these questions by the American public changed or evolved over the passage of time?  Textbooks can present the basic facts, but cannot provide insight and understanding of everyday life during the New Deal era.  Only through interviews, editorials, and other primary source documentation can the attitudes of local New Jersey residents be revealed and thus preserved
    As New Deal programs and policies gained prominence, Roosevelt’s administration strengthened its grasp on the everyday lives of the American people and the level of federal interference was questioned.  In a time when communism was viewed as a threat to democracy and the American way of life, many people worried that Roosevelt was losing sight of the values instilled by our forefathers in the Constitution, functioning more as a despot than a Democrat.
    With a deep-rooted fear that extensive government intervention could lead to the espousing of socialist or communist beliefs, some people viewed the New Deal with considerable hesitation and distrust.  Systematically “putting millions on the Federal payroll [is] paternalistic, even socialistic” explained Byron Price, a columnist for the Hunterdon County Democrat (Price 1).   Many Republican politicians agreed.  In 1933, they attacked the existence of the National Recovery Administration, an organization aiming to provide long-term solutions to industrial problems caused by the Depression.  Deeming it  “unconstitutional and un-American,” they believed it would do more harm than good (Price 1).  In 1934, two Democrats founded the American Liberty League on the premise that Roosevelt’s administration was neglecting its duty to not only support, but to promote private enterprise (Davidson and Lytle 602).  This was only the beginning.  Considered “beyond the limits of constitutional authority” the National Recovery Administration was deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, followed by the Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1936 (Davidson and Lytle 603).    In 1938 and 1939, more accusations were arbitrarily thrown at projects and programs of the New Deal. By the end of the era, it had been charged that communistic statements were present in the Federal Writer’s Project’s state guides and in plays produced by the Federal Theater Project (Meltzer 138).
    Moreover, small businesses complained that New Deal programs, such as the NRA, gave power to large corporations, allowing them to exploit labor and eliminate business competition. Local businessmen felt that these programs threatened local, private employment conditions, undermining what was felt to be “the American way.”  One 1934 PWA project required skilled laborers to have membership in a labor union.  Hunterdon County, an agriculturally-based society, did not have any such unions.  As a result, 1,130 men in the county currently looking for a job were excluded from possible government employment (“Hopes Slight”…1).  In 1936, Herbert Hoover, Roosevelt’s predecessor, wrote that Roosevelt’s “national plans to put the government into business in competition” were “born of Karl Marx” and that the government needed to be stopped from “defeating free men and free enterprise” (Hoover 203-5).  In May 1935, the Supreme Court struck down the NRA, declaring it unconstitutional (Nishi 21).   Mixed reactions resulted.  “Here we have Senators and Congressmen being paid $10,000 each a year to…ruin the life savings of an untold number of small investors.  When will people begin to think and insist that the government take care of the government matters only?” wrote an anonymous resident of Elmhurst, New York, to the New York Times in July 1935 (Victim 9).  He signed his letter simply “Victim.” While owners of small businesses tended to agree with these accusations, those employed often felt grateful for the rights and protections assured by the NRA.  To them, the provision of basic needs was far more important than any issues of constitutionality. Charles O’Neill, a resident of Washington, DC, told The New York Times: “Congress never intended to base its constitutionality on the interstate commerce clause but on the inherent power of every sovereign government to provide for the general welfare of its people”  (O’Neill 9).   It was a matter of what was necessary for the welfare of thousands of destitute American people, not a matter of whether a person agreed with his programs or not. “You had to [participate]—either that or go out and steal” (Otte).
    Today, some historians still question whether Roosevelt’s programs undermined the principles of American democracy and capitalism. “[He was] a con man,” Doc Graham told his interviewer.  “[He took] advantage of poor, misguided people who believed in his fairy tales” (Graham 186).  Others take a different side. “It was a desperate time; people were hurting, and this man held out hope.   I think people voted for hope,” Ron Roth reported when asked about Roosevelt’s role in revamping the American economy (Roth).  August Otte did not discuss the unconstitutionality of the labor codes created by the NRA.  Instead, he recalled his happiness in being “taken care of” by the government.  “I worked 68 hours a week; I was making $12 a week in the National Grocery Company, and [Roosevelt] cut it down so we could work 40 hours a week and get the same pay,” he reported, remembering the freedom the NRA gave back to him. Extra time and money brought families together or gave them further opportunities to enjoy the leisure afforded by life. It was accepted because it was needed; not because it was moral (Otte).
    While many worried about communism, still other residents were wary of borrowing money.  They worried about Roosevelt’s ease in “undermining the national budget” (Price).   Relief programs, they felt, would inflate the national debt to an insurmountable level-- and after all, hadn’t they lost too much already?  In 1936, a worried resident of Hunterdon County told the Democrat that it would cost $415 per  American to pay off “his share of the public debt—that is, municipal, county, state and national debt” (“Can You Spare…” 9).  Similar statistics led citizens to question whether the growing debt could ever be repaid.  “Hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost beyond any hope of recovery” Senator Daniel Hastings exclaimed in 1934 (Hastings 195).
    Nevertheless, others defended the government, advocating that the New Deal programs were well worth the cost and that such spending of government funds was by no means excessive or unfounded. An editorial in The Dawn, a journal published by the New Jersey Works Progress Administration presented support for this view.

When this nation spent $11,174 per person for a war that destroyed human lives, and brought unhappiness to millions of its citizens, the critics uttered not one word nor wrote a single line criticizing the expenditure of the War, but instead, stood on the side lines and waved the flag.  Today, when the nation spends but a small fraction of the amount it expended in 1917-1918, there is weeping and wailing by the very same crew who were foremost in the line of flag wavers (“Dollars versus Men…”).

 These people felt that money should not be the downfall of New Deal programs.  “You know the unjust criticisms being put forth,” wrote J. Francis O’Toole, “but you also know the worthwhile work being done, the progress that is being made but, as in all great undertakings, time alone will show the result; the great benefits” (O’Toole 13).
    Some felt that the monetary cost of relief programs was menial compared to the possible deterioration of the moral fiber of the nation. In 1935, Mary Anderson, a resident of Chalfont, Pennsylvania, told the New York Times that the establishment of such programs only taught people to become lazy and to abandon the traditional work ethic.  “The best of us are but human and it is so much easier to lean than to stand erect,” she wrote (Anderson 9).  Ronald Roth, then a resident of Nazareth, Pennsylvania, reported that people “looked down” upon those people involved in New Deal programs.   He remembered hearing comments that the WPA’s programs gave money to people regardless of how much work they actually completed in a single day.  “We’d see those crews [of WPA workers]: mostly they were standing.  There’d be five guys with shovels: one would be shoveling and four would be leaning on their shovels” (Roth).  Thus, it was assumed to be a dishonorable occupation: one for people who weren’t disciplined enough to work hard.  “It makes the blood boil to see an able bodied man being made a loafer,” an outraged New Jersey resident told The Pleasantville Press and The Ventnor News (O’Toole 13).
    Opponents of this viewpoint argued that such accusations of moral damage were entirely unwarranted.  Nat Frank, an assistant supervisor for the New Jersey WPA and a resident of Ridgewood, New Jersey, told the Bergen Record, “one has only to visit [a WPA] office and observe the workers in action to become firmly impressed by the very evident zealousness, devotion, and loyalty to duty manifested by the workers of the whole” (Frank 22).  Furthermore, defenders asserted that works projects gave a great deal to the societies in which they were active.  One resident of Newark, New Jersey, wrote that after observing the contributions of the WPA in his hometown, there could be no doubt that works projects should be encouraged to continue (Decker 22).
    Thus, after searching various primary sources, we were able to conclude one thing for certain: opinions of the New Deal were varied.  While some people were chiefly concerned with the New Deal in terms of business, others were worried that the moral and ethical values of the nation were being corrupted by what critics labeled “communist” welfare programs. While urban communities were strongly impacted by government intervention such as the Works Progress Administration, the agricultural communities had fewer needs for such programs in their lives.  Therefore, they were often less fervent in their opinions of the New Deal.  In general, however, regardless of their impact upon a person’s life, New Deal programs were accepted because their benefits seemed to outweigh their drawbacks.

Return to Top

Part II: A Government of the People

     The government of the 1930s was a revolution in social welfare; the government was more proactive than it had been in the past, taking a far greater responsibility for the well being of each American citizen.  Never before had work relief programs like the Works Progress Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, or the Public Works Administration been established.  This change brought about opposition, approval, and a shift in the way the people defined respect for the government and its officials.
    During the thirties, many people critically claimed that New Deal programs established by the government “handed out” money to people, devaluing the work ethic that was the pride of America.  But while they would have preferred that the government stay out of the business of the people, they clung to the faint understanding that those programs were necessary: that they provided salvation to the masses of people left penniless during the Depression.  This “flicker of recognition” has very clearly survived the test of time.
    After Hoover’s laissez faire policy (1928-1932) during some of the hardest times in American history, people viewed Roosevelt as a savior because he was unwilling to assume that the “hard times” would disappear by themselves. In Roosevelt’s 1932 inaugural address, he “voiced confidence, optimism, and promise for the country” unlike his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, who declared “there is nothing more we can do” (qtd. in Davidson and Lytle 594).  Eager to make change, Roosevelt advocated helping the people who needed it the most.  He made promises to people before he was elected to which he committed himself.  “The nation asks for action and action now. We must act and act quickly,” he said in his inauguration speech (qtd. in Davidson and Lytle 594).   In 1936, one WPA worker wrote of his certainty that “if it wasn’t for our President making possible these [programs], we would no doubt have a civil war on our hands”  (WPA Taxpayer).   Today, survivors remember that “[Roosevelt] made promises and he tried to go through with the promises, not like nowadays- they make promises and as soon as they get into office, forget [them]” (Otte).
    Many people respected Roosevelt for his efforts to make them feel as though they were important in running the country.  When he addressed the country over the radio, in what were known as his “Fireside Chats”, millions tuned in.  Never before had a president taken such a personal approach to governing his people.  Even children sat still and listened to what Roosevelt had to say, regardless of whether they understood the policies and laws to which he referred.  Sunday nights were considered “sacred” to  millions of Americans.  “You didn’t watch cartoons or anything in those days.  When he came on, we sat with our hands folded and didn’t move for one hour while we listened to him” (Galaskas).  In some areas, people couldn’t afford radios or had no electricity.  Thus, if someone nearby had a radio, neighbors gathered at that house Sunday night. Together, they crowded around the set, listening to what the President had to say (Higgins; Galaskas).   Because he was the president, his words were taken seriously; people trusted him because he kept his word (Otte; Roth).
    One’s perceptions of the New Deal itself often varied in accordance with where the individual lived during the time and the economic stability one felt based on his occupation or the occupations of his parents.  While New Deal Programs were readily available in urban areas like Bayonne and New York City, smaller, farming communities like Flemington, New Jersey saw little of such relief. “I never knew anyone who worked for any New Deal programs,” lifetime resident of Flemington Laura Higgins told us.  People in such rural areas felt isolated from government-sponsored programs as well as some of the effects of the Depression itself; the New Deal was “far away” (Higgins).   Farms in the Northeast were self-sufficient and self-reliant; they grew their own produce and harbored their own livestock.  Here, the Depression did not strike hard. “My grandparents had some money [because] they lived on a farm, so therefore they didn’t lose as much during the Depression as a lot of other people.  The people who had bought businesses or were in industrial things, they really took it,” explained Ronald Roth, a resident of Nazareth, Pennsylvania (Roth).  People in rural areas like Flemington and its surrounding communities were very aware of the actions of the government, but they simply did not give them much thought because of the lack of need (Higgins).
    Though New Deal programs were often regarded negatively or indifferently it was understood that these programs were a life staple to thousands of Americans—a fact simply too bold to be covered-up or ignored.  In the more industrialized areas of the tri-state area, people generally accepted the works relief programs.  August Otte, a resident of Bayonne, reported that his father worked for the WPA “because he had kids, four kids.  He didn’t say if he liked it or not.  He just…wanted to survive” (Otte).  It wasn’t a matter of worrying about communism or excessive government intervention but about survival. For this reason, many people never thought to question the existence of such programs.  “There were thousands of people that [were] in the same predicament we were,” Mr.  Otte explained. As for handouts, even if people considered themselves “respectable”, sometimes they needed help and besides the government, “there was nowhere else” to turn (Otte).
    Even when a person’s family was not affected by government-sponsored programs in his own household, he still believed the government was doing what was right for its people, regardless of whether or not it had a direct impact on his own life.   Today, when asked about the New Deal programs, survivors tell of the great work that these programs did for the country.  “We sort of looked down on the WPA,” Ron Roth confessed—“…[But] they did do wonderful things for the community.” Gloria Galaskas, a Brooklyn resident, while never affiliated with any work relief programs herself, reported remembering her friends’ fathers trying to find work and the subsequent feelings of relief that New Deal programs provided.    “There wasn’t that much work around except for the people who went off with the WPA and worked for them, and the CCC,” she told us. There was nothing else to be done.  Residents like Ron Roth and Gloria Galaskas who were not involved in government-sponsored employment can still vividly remember the hope that was provided by those government opportunities.   They remember who erected the thousands of roads, bridges, and dams that did not exist before their generation, giving them a unique appreciation for the government’s ability to do what is best for its people.  “I grew up eighteen miles from the huge Fort Peck Dam project in Montana in the 1930s, and it is accurate to say that ordinary people there loved Franklin Roosevelt for making the dam possible.  It provided the first hope for a decent life many of them had ever had,” a reader told Mother Jones magazine (Gilluly 16).
    During the Great Depression, many were wary of Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, especially if they were not directly impacted by them.  Over time, however, Roosevelt’s actions and commitments to his people have become more appreciated, respected, and honored. Whether their lives were changed or unchanged by Roosevelt’s policies, people have come to understand that Roosevelt did what was right for the people of the time.  He took an active role in supporting the needs of his people in a way that was unheard of, and was thus questioned.  But as time has passed, respect for Roosevelt’s commitment to the common good fostered his relationship of faith and trust with the American people that has very clearly withstood the span of seventy years.  Today, he is not only remembered as the man that changed the face of social welfare: he is remembered as a true champion of the American people.

Return to Top

Afterword: Authors’ Perspective

    At the completion of our field research, we came to several conclusions about the American response to the New Deal.  Upon asking people if nominating Roosevelt for “person of the millennium” was justified, most replied affirmatively.  Furthermore, on several occasions people mentioned programs in their hometowns that had provided relief either to their families or to people they knew.  They remembered these programs being beneficial to their entire community.  Often these organizations provided much more than employment.  Ron Roth mentioned an enormous park and a community swimming pool built by the WPA during his youth.  Gloria Galaskas recalled the feelings of hope restored to her childhood friends after their fathers received New Deal employment opportunities.  The New Deal also left us a legacy of material benefits including bridges, roadways and parks.
     When we began our study, we already had a basic understanding of what happened during the Great Depression.  We were entirely unprepared, however, for the amount of criticism we encountered.  Looking back upon the programs that Roosevelt created, we thought they must have been very helpful to both the people employed and the community served.  In a naïve way, we assumed that if Roosevelt had been elected four times, it must have been the will of the people.  If the public had been really unhappy with Roosevelt’s programs and administration, they would not have reelected him after his first term in office.
     Our discovery of the criticism was shocking.  We had assumed that most everyone loved and revered Roosevelt for his efforts.  Instead we found dissension concerning Roosevelt’s actions.  Work programs that we thought gave money to people in a non-charitable way were effectively criticized for being handouts to lazy individuals who didn’t work as hard as other Americans.  These policies were further criticized because they went against the social mores of a capitalist society where everyone is expected to make his own mark.
    The debt incurred by the New Deal was also a concern of American taxpayers. Here, we spot a significant parallel between our generation and the 1930s.  Today, Republican President George W. Bush advocates that social welfare should be the responsibility of private organizations in order to both minimize government intervention in affairs of the public and to lessen the government debts incurred by government-sponsored programs.  But as they did in the thirties, Democratic opponents argue that such a transfer of responsibility would represent the government’s abandonment of its advocacy of the common good.  Clearly, the thirties have remained a revolutionary period in social welfare, as Roosevelt’s New Deal remains a bulwark for government intervention in the lives of its citizens.
    Not only have Roosevelt’s philosophies withstood the test of time; additionally, some of the programs established during the Roosevelt administration still exist today.  Welfare systems such as Social Security are here today because of the blueprints created in the 1930s. Likewise, wildlife and natural habitats first preserved by the CCC and thousands of roads and bridges built throughout the countryside are still in use today.  The results of all of these programs proved that when the American people worked together, they not only created a better place to live, but built a stronger faith in themselves and their country’s future.

Return to Top

http://www.geocities.com/lil_miss_iss/Depression

Return to Top

Anderson, Mary.  “Moral Damage.” New York Times.  21 July 1935, late edition: sec. E, editorial desk, 9.

“Can you spare $415?”  Hunterdon Country Democrat.  25 June 1936: editorial page, 9.

Decker, Chris. “WPA Projects.” The Dawn: New Jersey Works Progress Administration. June 1936: vol. 1, no. 6: 22.

Davidson, James West and Lytle, Mark H. The United States: A History of the Republic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,
    1988.

“Dollars Versus Men.” The Dawn: New Jersey Works Progress Administration. Feb. 1936: vol. 1, no. 2: 4.

Frank, Nat. “Truth about W.P.A.” The Dawn: New Jersey Works Progress Administration. June 1936: vol. 1, no. 6: 22.

Galaskas, Gloria.  Personal interview. 19 March 2001.

Gilluly, Dick.  “This Dam is Your Dam.”  Mother Jones.  May/June 2001: 16.

Gonzalez, Cambell. Personal interview. 26 March 2001.

Graham, Doc.  “High Life.” Hard Times: An Oral History of the Great Depression. Ed. Studs Terkel.  New York, NY:
    Pantheon Books, 1986.  180-188.

Hastings, Daniel O. “The Republican Creed.” The New Deal:  A Documentary History.  Ed. William E. Leuchtenburg.
    Columbia, South Carolina:  University of SC Press, 1968.  193-197.

Higgins, Laura. Personal interview. 23 March 2001.

Hoover, Herbert. “Herbert Hoover Indicts the  New Deal.” The New Deal:  A Documentary History.  Ed. William E.
    Leuchtenburg. Columbia, South Carolina:  University of SC Press, 1968.  203-205.

“Hopes Slight For Share of PWA in Hunterdon County.” Hunterdon Country Democrat. 22 Nov. 1934:  2.

Meltzer, Milton. Violins & Shovels. New York: Delacorte Press, 1976.

Nishi, Dennis. Life During the Great Depression.  San Diego, CA: Lucent Books, 1998.

O’Neill, Charles.  “New Basis for NRA.”  New York Times. 21 July 1935, late edition: sec. E, editorial desk, 9

Otte, August. Personal interview. 18 March 2001.

Price, Byron.  “Politics at Random.” Hunterdon Country Democrat.  18 Oct. 1932:
    editorial page, 1+.

Roth, Ronald. Personal interview. 24 March 2001.

Victim.  “Government in Business.” New York Times.  21 July 1935, late edition: sec. E, editorial desk, 9.

WPA Taxpayer. “To the Editor.” The Dawn: New Jersey Works Progress Administration. April 1936: vol. 1, no. 4: 13.
 
Return to Top

American Heritage History of the 20’s and 30’s. New York, NY: American Heritage
    Publishing Co. Inc., 1970.

Anderson, Mary.  “Moral Damage.” New York Times.  July 21, 1935, late edition.

Boardman, Fon W., Jr. The Thirties: America and the Great Depression.  New York, NY:

Burg, David F. The Great Depression: An Eyewitness History. New York, NY: Facts on File, Inc., 1996.

“Can you spare $415?”  Hunterdon Country Democrat.  June 25, 1936.

Chase, Alex. Technology in the 20th Century. San Mateo, CA: Bluewood Books, 1997.

Congdon, Don. Editor. The ‘30s: A Time to Remember.  New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1962.

Davidson, James West and Lytle, Mark H. The United States: A History of the Republic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,
    1988.

Decker, Chris. “WPA Projects.” The Dawn: New Jersey Works Progress Administration. June 1936: vol. 1, no. 6: 22.

DeNoon, Christopher.  Posters of the WPA.  Los Angeles, CA: Wheatley Press, 1987.

Depression America.  Danbury, CT: Grolier Educational, 2001.

“Dollars Versus Men.” The Dawn: New Jersey Works Progress Administration. Feb.1936: vol. 1, no. 2: 4.

Frank, Nat. “Truth about W.P.A.” The Dawn: New Jersey Works Progress Administration. June 1936: vol. 1, no. 6: 22.

Galaskas, Gloria.  Personal Interview. 19 March 2001.

Galbraith, John Kenneth. The Great Crash: 1929. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company,  1988.

Gerdes, Louise I.  The 1930s.  San Diego, CA:  Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2000.

Gilluly, Dick.  “This Dam is Your Dam.”  Mother Jones.  May/June 2001: 16.

Glassman, Bruce.  The Crash of ’29 and the New Deal.  Morristown, NJ: Silver Burdett Company, 1986.

Gonzalez, Cambell. Personal Interview. 26 March 2001.

Graham, Doc.  “High Life.” Hard Times: An Oral History of the Great Depression. Ed. Studs Terkel.  New York, NY:
    Pantheon Books, 1986.  180-188.

Gregory, Ross. Modern America: 1914 to 1945.  New York, NY: Facts On File, Inc.,1995.

Hastings, Daniel O. “The Republican Creed.” The New Deal:  A Documentary History.  Ed. William E. Leuchtenburg.
    Columbia, South Carolina:  University of SC Press, 1968.  193-197.

Higgins, Laura. Personal Interview. 23 March 2001.

Hoover, Herbert. “Herbert Hoover Indicts the  New Deal.” The New Deal:  A Documentary History.  Ed. William E.
    Leuchtenburg. Columbia, South Carolina:  University of SC Press, 1968.  203-205.

“Hopes Slight For Share of PWA in Hunterdon County.” Hunterdon Country Democrat. 22 Nov. 1934:  2.

Katz, William Loren. The New Freedom to the New Deal. Austin, TX: Raintree Steck-Vaughn Publishers, 1993.

Leuchtenburg, William E. New Deal and War. New York, NY: Time Life Books, 1964.

McElvaine, Robert S. The Depression and New Deal: A History in Documents. New York, NY: Oxford University Press,
    2000.

Meltzer, Milton. Violins & Shovels. New York: Delacorte Press, 1976.

Nishi, Dennis. Life During the Great Depression.  San Diego, CA: Lucent Books, 1998.

O’Neill, Charles.  “New Basis for NRA.”  New York Times. 21 July 1935, late edition.

O’Toole, J. Francis.   “Defends WPA Workers.” The Dawn: New Jersey Works Progress Administration. April 1936: vol. 1,
    no. 4: 13.

Otte, August. Personal Interview. 18 March 2001.

Press, Petra. A Cultural History of the United States Through the Decades: The 1930s. San Diego, CA: Lucent Books, 1998.

Price, Byron.  “Politics at Random.” Hunterdon Country Democrat.  18 Oct. 1932.

Roth, Ronald. Personal Interview. 24 March 2001.

Smith, Gene. The Shattered Dream. New York, NY: William Morrow & Company, Inc.,
1970.

Stein, R. Conrad. The Story of the Great Depression. Chicago, IL: Regensteiner Publishing Enterprises, Inc., 1985.

Stewart, Gail B.  The New Deal. New York, NY: New Discovery Books, 1993.

Victim.  “Government in Business.” New York Times.  21 July 1935, late edition.

Watkins, T.H. The Hunger Years: A Narrative History of the Great Depression in America. New York, NY: Henry Holy and
    Company, 1999.

Wattenberg, Ben J.  The Statistical History of the United States, from Colonial Times to the Present.  New York, NY: Basic
    Books, 1976.

Woog, Adam. Roosevelt and the New Deal.  San Diego, CA: Lucent Books, 1998.

Wormser, Richard.  Growing Up in the Great Depression.  New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1994.

WPA Taxpayer. “To the Editor.” The Dawn: New Jersey Works Progress Administration. April 1936: vol. 1, no. 4: 13.

Return to Top