Garland Tucker: Hall of fame

In February we honor two very famous Americans, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, but many largely forgotten ones defended constitutional government at crucial moments during the 19th and 20th centuries. Businessman and historian Garland Tucker’s new book—Conservative Heroes: Fourteen Leaders Who Shaped America, from Jefferson to Reagan—includes chapters on some who fought for limited, decentralized government.

How many of you Patrick Henry students have heard of the “Tertium Quids”? One over there. Who were the Tertium Quids? It’s remarkable that someone could raise his hand: They were a little group of Jeffersonians mostly elected in 1800 along with Thomas Jefferson, but they became increasingly concerned that Jefferson and then James Madison had a more expansive view of the federal government’s role.

What worried them most about Jefferson? The Louisiana Purchase—not in the Constitution. They were reluctant to spend money on anything.

One of their leaders, Virginia’s John Randolph, chaired the House Ways and Means Committee. Russell Kirk said some of Randolph’s speeches were probably the greatest an American ever gave. He was very flamboyant; he would stride into the House with his riding boots on, his hounds trailing behind him, and cause a stir.

You write about Grover Cleveland. A lot of homeschoolers who memorized the list of U.S. presidents remember that he messed them up by being both the 22nd and the 24th. He was the last conservative Democrat. He wanted a substantial reduction of the federal government and still holds the record for the number of vetoes by any president—over 500. He took on his own party, the press, the Republicans, whatever, when he thought he was right. If somebody would come to him and say, “You need to move toward the center,” he’d beat his fist on the table and say, “What good is it to be elected if you don’t stand for anything?”

Some hated him. “Pitchfork Ben” Tillman, the South Carolina governor and senator, got his name in part by saying he wanted to prod Grover Cleveland’s 300 pounds with a pitchfork. These were not the good old days of everyone being sweet campaigners. Tell us about the 1887 Texas Seed Bill, and what that says about Cleveland’s understanding of how to fight poverty. Texas had a drought and farmers needed seeds so they could plant next year’s crop—the whole appropriation was $10,000 [the equivalent of $250,000 today]. Cleveland vetoed it and said no matter how worthy the cause we should not do what the Constitution doesn’t prescribe. He also said the problem would be better handled by charitable gifts, and within 30 days of his veto the charitable gifts had come in, 50 percent more money than farmers were going to get from the government bill. If you go back and read Cleveland’s short veto messages, just a couple of paragraphs, you’d have a hard time imagining any politician today uttering those words, particularly for something like seed bills.

Tell us about John W. Davis and North Carolina Sen. Josiah Bailey. Absolutely forgotten people in American history, and very sadly. Davis was the Democratic nominee in 1924, ran against Calvin Coolidge, and was soundly defeated. My chapter about him focuses on his contribution in the 1930s and 1940s when he challenged New Deal legislation before the Supreme Court and got the court to overturn many of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s pet New Deal projects. He argued 142 cases before the Supreme Court, more than any American other than Daniel Webster. Bailey was the prime mover in the Senate when it blocked Roosevelt’s court-packing scheme: FDR wanted to appoint six new justices to the Supreme Court. It was the first time that Congress really pushed back on Roosevelt on any major legislation.

What about the dark side of American conservatism, the alliance with segregationists? When Davis was in his 80s, wasn’t case #142 Brown v. Board of Education, which began the process of ending school segregation? Davis’ position was not that segregation should be upheld, but that it end by a constitutional amendment or be left to the states to work out, which he was convinced would come sooner rather than later. It’s good that segregation is gone, but the court bought into a sociological argument.

You write about a well-known magazine editor, William F. Buckley Jr. Buckley decided very early on that he wanted to become the voice for what he called “responsible conservatism.” He was very good at pulling together in National Review what had been disparate strands of the conservative movement. By the early 1950s the consensus of American intellectuals was declaring that liberalism had won, that you couldn’t be intelligent and be a conservative. Buckley turned that on end with his brilliance as a debater and by starting National Review.

Which led to the well-remembered Ronald Reagan. The three most successful conservative presidents were Cleveland, Coolidge, and Reagan. None was elected with a great expectation from the public that they were going to be great presidents. Cleveland was not very well-known; Coolidge was an accidental president, who came in when Warren Harding died. There was just a deep-seated feeling, particularly among liberal Democrats, that Reagan was not very smart, just a B-grade actor, wasn’t up to the job. Right up until Election Day liberals couldn’t imagine he’d even be elected.

My favorite Reagan quotation—I’m paraphrasing—is that you can accomplish an amazing amount if you don’t care who gets the credit. Late in his second term he commented that he had never thought of himself as a great man, but rather as a man who’s committed to great principles.

Are those principles based on a realistic view of human nature? That’s the starting point. Liberals believe, or seem to believe, that human nature is perfectible, that government is the best means of securing that perfection. Conservatives don’t think it’s perfectible and wouldn’t think the government is the best means to perfect it.

We are fallen creatures in need of redemption by God. That’s right.

When you have conservatism without that Christian base, what happens to it? Any society or government—and the American government’s no exception—needs an undergirding of personal virtues that people believe, or buy into. In our case, it has always been, and hopefully still is, the Judeo-Christian heritage. If you don’t have that common denominator, then you don’t have a cohesive worldview among the population, and if you’re a democracy and everybody votes based on some alternative worldview, that doesn’t bode well. A‘[Grover Cleveland] wanted a substantial reduction of the federal government and still holds the record for the number of vetoes by any president—over 500.’