Brandeis Part 5: Industrial Democracy and the Protocol of Peace

“Sidney Webb is often represented as a descendent of the utilitarians. Social democracy and the welfare state thus stand as the continuing development of Enlightenment rationalism. Alternatively, Webb appears as the representative of a new managerial and administrative class. Social democracy and the welfare state here stand as the elitist and bureaucratic expressions of the power of this class.”

Abstract, Sidney Webb: Utilitarianism, Positivism, and Social Democracy, Mark Bevir. Bevir is Director of the Center for British Studies, and professor in the Department of Political Science, University of California at Berkeley.

“even those who regard our facts as accurate, and accept our economic theory as scientific, will only agree in our judgment of Trade Unionism, and in our conception of its permanent but limited function in the Industrial Democracy of the future.” ix, Preface, Industrial Democracy, Sidney and Beatrice Webb.“

“In our final chapter we even venture upon precept and prophecy; and we consider the exact scope of Trade Unionism in the fully developed democratic state – the industrial democracy of the future.” ix, Preface, Industrial Democracy, Sidney and Beatrice Webb.

“He [Brandeis] spoke before citizen’s groups and legislative bodies, wrote articles for popular magazines, put his ideas about industrial democracy in the briefs he submitted as a lawyer and later in the opinions he wrote as a Supreme Court justice (1916-1938), and advised presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.” KU Scholar Works, Kansas University.

From times long predating both Brandeis and Webb, men have attempted to resolve the human condition through experimental social reform. A century prior to Brandeis and Webb, Robert Owen and the early 19th century cooperative movements were foundational to Henri de Saint Simon, Auguste Comte and the rise of utopian socialism of the mid 19th century on France. And, the more modern, Fabian led ethical socialist movement of the early 20th century, a direct outgrowth of those same utopians.  And when we fully trace back to source the modern ideas found within the Webbs’ very socially pivotal, Industrial Democracy we see a continuity of thought of deeper historical value, as all of these men find brotherhood with the even earlier philosophies of 17th and 18th century thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and David Hume. And here an important observation needs to be made as to set the tone for the remainder of this article and series.

Conventional history places George Bernard Shaw as a prominent playwright, political activist and social critic.  Few will mention his membership in the Fabian Society, and even fewer will tell you of his deepest wishes:

“There is an extraordinary number of people of whom I want to kill.”

It is critical to know here, and worth the digression, that by being identified as a descendent of the utilitarians, Sidney Webb is being immediately associated zero degrees of separation from Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism – or the pragmatic determining of correct action by focusing on outcomes. Like do neoliberal movements who today preach of the greater good and social justice outcomes, yet they know nothing of where this thought originated.  A slight shifting of the goalposts from ‘equality of opportunity’ to ‘equality of outcome’. Two very different approaches to social theory, one concerned with the beginning, one concerned with the end result.  Here again we see the pragmatic approach of ends justifying the means.   

According to Bentham and the utilitarians, the best public utility – the ultimate ends to which any individual within the State could pursue – is that pursuit which brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. An ends sounding a lot more like the future perfect promise of the utopian socialist, or the manufactory owner, or the labour union leader, or the head of Pfizer.

Certainly the subservience of the individual was what was being instituted, an industrial democracy made it a prerequisite. The scientific management now revealing a longview.

Comte widely considered the first philosopher of science, the father of social science, or sociology, and founder of modern positivism. Positivism a great rejection of all ideas that aren’t gathered through experience. Intuition, introspection considered meaningless through the positivist verification principle. Intuition, or the collective perception of all your senses into and formed into a gut feeling are no longer accepted, “burned as if sophistry” is our ability to consider or contemplate as the etymological definition of intuition, intuit, suggests. Neither no longer acceptable is the ability to look within ourselves for answers, to evaluate our own spirit and soul. This rejection of anything outside the realm of acceptable sources sounding a lot like today’s claims of fake news and this blind belief in the scientific expert, or the belief that only the opinions of those experienced in whatever matter being discussed should be considered. The appeal to authority or the argumentum ad auctoritatum. The result, a largely blissfully ignorant population of television watchers.

“In the Anglo-Saxon world of to-day we find that Trade Unions are democracies: that is to say, their internal constitutions are all based on the principle of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Pg. v, vi, Preface, Industrial Democracy.

Sidney and Beatrice Webb wrote in their ‘scientific’ analysis of British industrial relations, The History of Trade Unionism in 1894, that “sociology, like all other sciences, can advance only upon the basis of a precise observation of actual facts.” 

“For the Webbs and their American counterparts, ‘the professional expert, whether civil servant or representative, was of decisive importance’ in bringing about industrial democracy. Americans quickly noticed the idea, as it appealed to their newly found sense of rational or objective science as a means to solve social and economic problems. American adherents to industrial democracy, including future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, saw in it a vehicle to rationalize American industry within a democratic framework.” Pg. 11, Triangle Shirt Waist, the Protocol of Peace and Industrial Democracy in Progressive Era New York, Richard A. Greenwald.

“Many American progressives were keenly aware of European experiences with labor problems. They studied Europe for guidance or a model. Industrial democracy, one such import, is most often associated with Sidney and Beatrice Webb and their circle of British Fabian socialists. The Webbs, in their seminal 1897 book Industrial Democracy, called for a reinvigorated democracy, one where unions played a central role. For the Webbs, modern capitalist industry had put an undue strain on democratic society. Unions could bring democracy to industry … as democratic institutions themselves, they offered the best hope of bringing … democracy to society. 

Brandeis was very familiar with the work of the Fabian Society since as early as the Haymarket Affair on May 4, 1886. His close friends at the House of Truth included Fabian Society members Walter Lippmann and Harold Laski. Laski a Harvard lecturer and professor at the Webb founded, London School of Economics. Lippmann close, personal friends with another Fabian founder, Graham Wallas. Wallas dedicating his, The Great Society to Lippmann in 1914. The Great Society and Industrial Democracy here being synonymous. Brandeis chose, industrial democracy as the future model of America and then manifested it into reality through his nearly omniscient authority.

A young Sidney Webb. Founder of the Fabian Society and London School of Economics. Funder of the National Consumers League.
Sidney and Beatrice Webb, authors of Industrial Democracy, 1897.

Brandeis, chairman of the Arbitration Board of the Protocol of Peace with Walter Weyl and Hamilton Holt. Weyl the author of, The New Democracy (1913) and resident of the House of Truth. A look through the minutes shows Brandeis very much the star witness, or the festival headlining act of the entire proceedings. The last to speak after a role call of progressive efficiency experts. The owner of the House of Truth, Robert Grosvenor Valentine testifies, as does Frederick Winslow Taylor, Henry L. Gantt, Carl G. Barth, and Harrington Emerson. A group of men already controlled by Brandeis.

“If they should fail to agree, then there was recourse to this board of arbitration with Mr. Brandeis as chairman.

THE ACTING CHAIRMAN. Who were the others?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Hamilton Holt and Mr. Walter Weyl of New York.

THE ACTING CHAIRMAN. Not in the industry?

Mr. WILLIAMS. No; I think they were all outside of the industry … I am told that the board of grievances – the commission – did not dispose of the cases fast enough, and it was charged, on the part of the union, that they were allowed to accumulate … and the union became more and more dissatisfied; they demanded there be an umpire, that there should be somebody to cast the deciding vote on that board. That led to a fierce controversy in which several good men went down, and it very nearly ruptured the protocol and cause a general strike; … it was then changed to this plan that I have suggested, and the employers consented to have an impartial man, but with this change, that instead of this impartial man being at the head of the board of grievances that he was only to be one of three, and two clerks and himself, who should act as this committee, so that the board of grievances becomes a consultative body now and is now in active use for the adjustment of grievances.”

The Testimony of Mr. Louis D. Brandeis:

“Mr. CHAIRMAN, my special interest in this subject arises from a conviction that in the first place the workingmen, and in the second the members of the community generally, can attain the ideals of our American democracy only through an immediate increase and perhaps a constant increase in the productivity of man. We hear a great deal about the inequality in the distribution of wealth and in the proceeds and the profits derived from industry. The progress that we have made in improving the condition of the workingmen during the last century, and particularly during the last 50 years, has been largely due to the fact that the intervention or the introduction of machinery has gone so far in increasing the productivity of the individual man. The misfortune in connection with the introduction of machinery and the revolution that came with it is, or was, that when that introduction of a method of increasing the productivity of man was made labor did not get the share to which it was entitled. With the advent of the new science of management has come the next great opportunity for increasing labor’s share in production; and it seems to me, therefore, of the utmost importance not only that the science should be developed and should be applied as far as possible, but that it should be applied in cooperation with the representatives of organized labor in order that labor may now in this new movement get its proper share.” Pg. 991, Efficiency Systems and Labor, Commission on Industrial Relations.


 You can see the making of the social contract built right in Brandeis testimony:

“science of management is nothing more than an organized effort, pursued intensively, to eliminate waste … it is absolutely essential that the unions be represented in the process …  In the next place – the first bears, of course, upon the adopting of what is the standard – but the next thing comes in applying some matter, some incentive, as you may call it, or a reward of a fair division of the profits resulting from the introduction of the new system. Now what is fair? What is the amount which ought to go to labor is a subject which can not be determined by any scientific investigation.

It is a matter for the exercise of judgment, judgment as to what not only shall be the best and the proper incentive but judgment as to what is just, what is consistent with the interests of the community, all of the conditions which surround introduction, and all of the conditions which concern the pursuit of business under these new conditions, just as those concern the conduct of business under the old conditions, demand that labor should have its representatives in the solution of these problems.” Now the George Bernard Shaw video talking about tribunals.

Eliminating waste can have more than one meaning in the same way ameliorating the poor and needy can.

Seems strange that these social science engineers, that despite advocating scientific management as the solution for every problem of labor and capital, when faced with solving the question of fair compensation, it becomes all-of-a-sudden a problem that, “can not be determined by any scientific investigation”. All of a sudden, all the science in the world couldn’t be trusted to find an equitable division of profit as easily as it had or as readily as it was being used by capital to increase the productivity of the labourer and nearly everything else? No, it would be judgment that would determine how much the worker would partake in the profit in labor and leisure. And upon who’s judgment were they to rely, if not the workers?

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Brandeis, I would like to ask whether in your study of this subject you have placed or fixed any time at which labor should cooperate with the employer as to the setting of a time standard and the initiation of a standard?

Mr. BRANDEIS. Yes – all the time … It seems to me it should begin at the time when the plans are being made to introduce the system.

Mr. THOMPSON. Some of the advocates of scientific management, Mr. Brandeis, who have appeared here as witnesses before the commission, while agreeing to the proposition that it would perhaps be beneficial for labor to cooperate or have a voice in cooperating with the employer in the running of the system, felt that at the introduction there should be no cooperation ; that there is so much difficulty in the selection of the system and in the installation of it, that the added element of labor would make it impossible. Do you so conceive it?

Mr. BRANDEIS. I should say quite the contrary. It seems to me that the elements of difficulty in introduction are largely due to the fact that there is hostility. to the introduction, and that if organized labor or the representatives of labor should welcome and cooperate in the introduction a greater part of these difficulties would be removed … The whole of the work, it seems to me, would be greatly aided by a spirit of helpfulness instead of the reverse.” Pg. 992, 993, Report of Commission on Industrial Relations.                                                            ‘DEFENSE IN THE FIELD BEGINS IN THE FACTORY’ 

 “Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Brandeis, some of the representatives of organized labor who have appeared here to testify have concurred in the idea of scientific management which you have elaborated. That is to say, if by studies and by analysis and selection better methods for doing the work could be brought about which would be beneficial to the community and to the worker as well as to the employer, it was a good thing. But they have objected to the stopwatch method of making time studies. People who have represented systems, such as Mr. Taylor and others, have said that the stop-watch method of making time studies is one of the first laws of scientific management. In your opinion, what reasonable objection can there be to the introduction of the stop-watch method of making time studies?

Mr. BRANDEIS. It seems to me there can be no objection except the one as to the way in which it is introduced … But if it is done in the right way, the stop watch can not, it seems to me, be objected to by labor, because it is the greatest possible protection to labor … What labor has suffered from in the past and is constantly suffering from now is the ignoring of facts … There is nothing, as I view it, in the situation, the whole social industrial structure, that labor wants so much as knowledge. It wants not only to know itself but it wants others to know it ; and any means that may be adopted, whether it be the stop watch or the photograph or any other means, that could absolutely establish the fact as to what is being done, how long it takes to do it, what the unit is of doing the particular thing — all those are in the interest of labor, because they are in the interest of truth.”

Mr. THOMPSON. In your study of this subject have you considered ways and means? In other words, have you considered the kind of machinery that might be used in the cooperation of the employer and employee in putting into operation their joint cooperation in the introduction of this system?

Mr. BRANDEIS. Not machinery — and I doubt very much whether there is any machinery, except the tactful and sympathetic man, some one’ who realizes, in the first place, that the greatest gain we are to get from scientific management is advancing the interests of the workingman, and who, recognizing that as a fact, has the tact to bring the workingman and his employer together in the adoption of the means by which the various steps should be taken.

Mr. THOMPSON. Have you considered whether or not it is feasible at the beginning for a representative of the workers and the firm to have a joint voice in the selection of the expert who shall install a system, or would that be impracticable?

Mr. BRANDEIS. Certainly.

Mr. THOMPSON. In such a selection, Mr. Brandeis, of the kind of man you mention, a tactful, diplomatic man, he would then be in a sense the instrument or medium by which this principle of cooperation in scientific management might be brought about?

Mr. BRANDEIS. Certainly.

The following, a conversation between the chairman, Frank Walsh and Mr. A Rosenberg.

Testimony of Mr. Rosenberg, New York City, January 15, 1914, Volume 2.

The CHAIRMAN. How has it [the protocol of peace] affected the shop’s work?

Mr. ROSENBERG. After the signing of the protocol?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, compared with what it was before?

Mr. ROSENBERG – … the agreement says explicitly there shall be no strikes and lockout, and possibly during that time we had a few misunderstandings with shops which did not call strikes, but a stoppage of work; but those stoppages of work have never been ordered by the union or by any official of the union … those stoppages of work have always been ended by the union, as far as my knowledge goes. Of course, in many cases stoppages are avoided for more than an hour or two. To my memory we had only serious stoppages of work where the union had all sorts of trouble before sending the people back to work, in possibly half a dozen shops; those stoppages in half a dozen shops lasted for a day, or possibly two days, or say a week. Even in the independent shops — with those shops we do not have any individual agreement with — we have very few strikes, because the union, as well as the employers, are always trying to get together on some basis to prevent strikes. In other words, as far as strikes are concerned, I believe for the last three years and a half they have been out of existence.

The CHAIRMAN. What has been the result of your adjustment of grievances under this protocol?

Mr. ROSENBERG. We will come to that … For the first couple of months we had no machinery, and we did not know how to set about it. The protocol provided for a board of grievances; the board of grievances was composed of 5 representatives of the union and 5 representatives of the manufacturers’ association; those 10 people used to come together whenever there was any grievance, and we tried to adjust them in the best way we knew how and with the best machinery we had at our disposal. On many occasions, when it was necessary to make an investigation, the board of grievances used to employ one representative of the employers and one representative of the union, and those two used to go up to the shop and investigate, and if they could adjust they did adjust it, and if they could not they brought it to the grievance board, to the board of the grievance committee, and the grievance board acted on the merits of the case, and some decision was made somewhere. But that arrangement was not satisfactory. The board of grievances offhand could not handle so many cases as they had on hand, so there was a whole lot of friction and trouble in the shops, and we finally called upon the board of arbitration to devise ways and means how to adjust grievances in the future quicker than they had been doing, and the board of arbitration got together.

Mr. ROSENBERG … the board of arbitration decided to establish a system of clerks, deputy clerks, and whenever each side should have a sufficient number of complaints, one clerk and one general clerk — the general clerk should appoint the number of deputy clerks, as many as the occasion required; and so they did. That was understood — that whenever the two clerks, one clerk representing the association and the other clerk representing the union, go upon a case and make an investigation, if those two clerks agreed upon some proposition how this case should be disposed of, it is final, and each side must obey the order of the clerks — the manufacturer as well as the union must obey the order of the clerks.

But whenever those two deputy clerks disagreed and could not come to a conclusion, then It was submitted to chief clerks on each side ; each side has a so-called chief clerk — the manufacturers’ association employed one and the union employed one … But whenever those two chief clerks disagreed on a case, then it was brought before the board of grievances, and the board of grievances, sitting as a court, used to hear the case; and whenever necessary they called witnesses to testify, and it was the custom that each side had an equal number of members on that grievance committee, so it required one of each side to decide the case one way or the other; for instance, if the union had a complaint against a certain manufacturer, it required one manufacturer to vote with us; and, on the other hand, whenever the manufacturers brought up one…

The Protocol of Peace

“Industrial Democracy provides an important lens through which to view IR during the Progressive Era. Industrial democracy was one of the handful of ideas that defined Progressive Era reformers. It signaled a new scientific approach to labor in America as well as a fundamental recommitment to democratic principles.” pg. 23, Triangle Shirtwaist, the Protocols of Peace, and Industrial Democracy in Progressive Era New York, Richard A. Greenwald.

“It was the purpose of the Protocol to introduce into the relations of the employer and the employee a whole new element; that is the element of industrial democracy.” Louis Brandeis.

Brandeis was foremost among all in the creation of the Protocol of Peace and it was largely through his efforts that the strike was ended on September 2, 1910. The Protocol provided legislation for a 50 hour, 6 day work week, 10 paid legal holidays a year, time-and-a-half for overtime, an increase in the minimum wage, a regular and prompt cash pay-day, all in shop subcontracting abolished, but most importantly, the agreement was the official acceptance of the union shop. “Each member of the Manufacturers is to maintain a union shop”, and when hiring, “union men are preferred”, and health care only for union men, “the Manufacturers declare their belief in the Union”.  The union as the scientific expert, an absolute necessity for the future international system they would begin constructing a mere two years later under Woodrow Wilson. The alignment first of America, to be compatible, or compliant to the future model of collectivism (globalism or internationalism) a must, a prerequisite to everything. But that story concludes this series, so much more on that later.

One notes how the Protocol is “an arrangement entered into” between the “CLOAK, SUIT AND SKIRT MANUFACTURERS’ PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, hereinafter called the Manufacturer”, and the “INTERNATIONAL LADIES’ GARMENT WORKERS’ UNION.” The workers here not named, only their representative, the union. Note the lack of presence throughout the entire process of the actual worker. The entire system built upon the back of labour yet where is his voice being heard? Certainly not in the testimony of Brandeis or his industrial friends.

Brandeis named chairman of the Arbitration Board to enforce the Protocol, Brandeis having final say in all grievance settlements. He holds the tiebreaker.

CLOAK STRIKE ENDS; AGREEMENT SIGNED; Men Win All Their Demands Except That for the “Closed Shop.” New York Times, September 3, 1910: “The strike of 70,000 cloakmakers which began early in last July ended yesterday with the acceptance by both the strikers and the employers of a peace protocol, based principally upon the agreement suggested by Louis D. Brandeis of Boston in the last days of July, when he conducted a Series of conferences between employers and strikers.”

“SHIFF COMMITTEE STOPS LABOR WAR; Cloak Manufacturers Agree to Its Proposal to Arbitrate Differences with union. SETTLEMENT NOW IN SIGHT 50,000 Workers Were Ready to Strike – Brandeis or Mayor Mitchel May Head Board.” July 3, 1915

 “In New York City’s garment industry, reformers found what was arguably the nation’s most primitive industry. Cutthroat competition, layers of subcontracting, and a poorly paid mass of immigrant workers, among other things, locked garment manufacturing in a nineteenthcentury production model. It therefore offered a perfect laboratory for people such as Louis Brandeis. The ladies’ garment industry had an established, but weak, new union. It had a core of willing industrial democrats within the industry led by Julius Henry Cohen, a noted corporate lawyer. The result, Brandeis’s creation, the Protocol of Peace, was one of the most significant labor-management cooperation schemes of the Pre-New Deal Era. So impressive was the Protocol that when the Wilson Administration created the U.S. Commission on Industrial Relations in 1913, Brandeis was the president’s first choice to chair it4 New York also was the site of the terrible Triangle Factory Fire of March 25, 1911, when 146 mainly young, immigrant women garment workers died. The fire sparked a reform effort that in four years remade New York into the model of a progressive state.” pg. 14, Triangle Shirt Waist.

“The father of the Protocol, Louis Brandeis came to the labor question in 1892.”

“In 1910, while New York was in the heat of the second in a series of general strikes in the garment industry, Brandeis came to the city to bring labor and management together in a novel agreement that became known as the Protocol of Peace.” Pg. 16, Triangle Shirt Waist.

“They decided that if ‘a big man’ made a call for a settlement conference, and if the union and Cohen could set certain preconditions, talks could begin. It was clear to all concerned that they meant a big Jewish man. Both sides were concerned that ‘their’ matters be settled within their community. They did not want an outsider meddling in their affairs. In a July 21 letter to Louis Brandeis, Bloomfield explained how he laid the foundations for talks:

‘there was only one open door – to take a big man like Brandeis and empower him … to confer with both sides and draw up a fair basis of negotiations. Both responded heartily and suggested that I invite Mr. B. and come with him for a private talk’ … That initial meeting set in motion a process that eventually led to the Protocol. On July 22, Brandeis left for New York, taking with him a draft of a proposed labor agreement … After a preliminary meeting between the principal negotiators, Meyer London, noted socialist lawyer who advised the union, and Cohen, a later conference was scheduled with Brandeis as chair. At this first meeting were ten representatives from each side plus Brandeis and his staff. In writing about this meeting, McClure’s Magazine’s Edith Wyatt was struck by similarities on both sides. Both groups were almost identical. They were overwhelmingly Jewish. The union delegation included middle-aged unionists, radical workers, East Side intellectuals, and socialists. And, so did the management group. The mood at that first meeting was hopeful, according to McClure’s. Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), who was an observer at the first meeting was so confident that he returned to Washington on the 29th, telling the New York Times he was sure “that the garment workers’ strike would be settled speedily.” Brandeis set the mood for the conference. He told the twenty men assembled that they were witnessing an important moment in history, the birth of a new system of industrial relations. They would help shape the future:

“Gentlemen,” Brandeis stated “we have come together in a matter which we must all recognize is very serious, and an important business, not only to settle this strike, but to create a relation which will prevent similar strikes in the future. That work is one which it seems to me is approached in a spirit which makes the situation a very hopeful one and I am sure from my conferences with council of both parties, and with individual members whom they represent, that those who are here are all here with that desire. It seems to me … that aid could be effectively and properly given by providing that the manufacturers should, in the employment of labor hereafter, give the preference to union men, where the union men are equal in efficiency to any non-union applicants …” Brandeis opening remarks, Mason, 1946, pp 296, 297.

Brandeis Part 4: Dispensationalism and the Social Gospel

“Socialism offered not only a radical critique of American political and economic institutions; it also offered the seal, symbols, and sense of participation in a world-transforming cause often associated with Christianity itself.” The Social Gospel and Socialism: A Comparison of the Thought of Francis Greenwood Peabody, Washington Gladden, and Walter Rauschenbusch, by Jacob H. Dorn (1)

Blackstone and the Dispensationalists

William Eugene Blackstone was a very well-known evangelical minister of his day, considered today a founder of Dispensationalism along with John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren in the mid 1800’s. Other key names in the foundation of Dispensationalism in America are James Inglis, James Hall Brookes, C. I Scofield, and Dwight L. Moody. Christian Dispensationalists interpret the Bible literally, believing in an approaching cataclysmic event as described in the Book of Revelations.

From out of this group is where they popularized a fear of the future found in the biblical stories of the tribulation, the rapture, millennialism, otherwise known as the second coming of Christ. The movement has also greatly assisted in the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine in that it is primarily centered around the return of God’s chosen people to Israel.

These concepts much to our surprise weren’t established tens of thousands of years ago but a little more than one hundred years before I was born. These men were instrumental in spreading the gospel of a future end times where world wars and social upheavals would lead to a new world order, a new kingdom of God, a heaven on earth. 

Dwight Lyman Moody was the most popular evangelical of the day and is considered the predecessor to televangelism and the likes of Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, Joel Osteen, and Oral Roberts. The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago was the inspired model for many Bible Colleges around America forming a network and helping propagate faith in a literal translation of the Bible. These men all having one thing in common even today in that they all preach end times through a literal translation of the Bible and support the followers of Judaism as God’s chosen people and support emphatically their right to a homeland in Palestine.

John Nelson Darby is considered the father of dispensationalism, futurism, and pre-millennial tribulation rapture and was much older than the rest, born in 1800. Darby was a pioneer within the Plymouth Brethren and founder of the Exclusive Brethren. The Brethren a network of like-minded Protestant churches. Darby promoted sola scriptura, common to nearly all Protestant denominations, believing the word of the Bible as the one true infallible authority. Darby’s eschatology was then popularized through the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. Today, thanks to Darby and C.I. Scofield we have well over one hundred million American Christians interpreting the Bible literally, fearing the future and believing it is all in God’s hands.

James H. Brookes studied briefly at the Princeton Seminary before moving to Miami University at Oxford Ohio. He was the driving force behind the Niagara Bible Conferences (1875-1897) that introduced Protestants from all over to the fundamental ideas of dispensationalism including the restoration of Israel and a distinction between the saved and the damned.

William Eugene Blackstone,

Dwight Lyman Moody.
John Nelson Darby
James Hall Brookes

Cyrus Ingerson Scofield was a Southern Presbyterian and very influential author of the first modern Bible with “chain references”, The Scofield Reference/Study Bible. Published in 1909, (the same year as Herbert Croly’s Promise of American Life), it was to be the first definitive, scientific interpretation of the word of God, complete with commentary and explanatory notes written in the margins, by Scofield and his team of Consulting Editors (Barrellet, Sayce and Maroliouth of Oxford, Weston, Gray, Erdman of Princeton, Pierson, Moorehead, Harris, Gaebelein, Pettingill). In 1917 it was revised by Scofield in an attempt to attribute exact dates to biblical verse.

“This edition of the Bible had its origin in the increasing conviction of the Editor through thirty years’ study and use of the Scriptures as pastor, teacher, writer, and lecturer upon biblical themes, that all of the many excellent and useful editions of the Word of God left much to be desired.” iii, Introduction

Scofield’s version, containing the entire text of the King James version originally published in 1611, becomes the modern day theological entering wedge, acting as the ultimate authority, impressing both a sense of fear of the future and a state of helplessness into its hundreds of millions of followers.  Scofield an early proponent of gap theory and progressive creationism, the belief in a gradual “unfolding” of life as determined by God, a recognition of intelligent design, and gap theory, a new beginning put between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Gap theory as advocated by Scofield expands Biblical history to millions of years rather than the previously taught thousands of years. A theistic evolution opening the door to Darwinism.

“The Bible is a progressive unfolding of truth.” v, Introduction (emphasis not added)

On page 2 of the 100th Anniversary Edition of the 1917 Scofield Bible, Scofield states the Pentateuch (otherwise known as the Torah), tells “undeniably the order of the experience of the people of God in all ages”, a “revelation of the true history,” and such a history “we find in words of matchless grandeur, and in an order which, rightly understood, is absolutely scientific. In the Pentateuch, therefore, we have a true and logical introduction to the entire Bible.” (emphasis added)

One further note: Woodrow Wilson’s father created the Southern Presbyterian Church and served as its leader for nearly forty years. He was central in organizing the break up of the Presbyterian Church into a north and south.

Cyrus Ingerson Scofield

Also in 1909, Harvard University president Charles W. Eliot (author of the New Education), lectures to the Harvard Summer School of Theology speaking repeatedly of “a new Bible” … “resulting from historical study of its books in the light of recent researches and of new knowledge of the development of the world and mankind.” Eliot stating the importance of this “new religion” in outlining the intellectual progress of the last century.

“The religion of a multitude of humane persons in the twentieth century may, therefore, be called without inexcusable exaggeration a ‘new religion’ – not that a single one of its doctrines and practices is really new in essence, but only that the wider acceptance and better actual application of truths … on a large scale, are new.” pg. 430, The Congregationalist and Christian World, Event and Comment, President Eliot’s New Religion; see also, Harvard Theological Review October 1909.

Today dispensationalism has morphed into a Progressive version that differs slightly from the classic dispensationalists, although the main adherents are still widely shared including: a separation between the fates of the Christian Church and that of Israel, a future pre-tribulation rapture and an eventual kingdom of peace lasting for a thousand years. Sounding very much like the vision promised by utopian, ethical socialists, and almost verbatim to Marx’s own theory of our future and future perfect promised by the technocrats.

Blackstone wrote the very popular, Jesus is Coming: God’s Hope for a Restless World, in 1878 and it became a sort of manifesto for all dispensationalist thought. The book was the movements first bestseller, selling millions of copies over the next fifty years and has been translated into over 40 other languages.

Blackstone travelled to Palestine in 1890-1891 and witnessed Leon Pinsker’s new movement, a Rothschild sponsored development programme of agricultural communities in Rishon LeZion and Nahalat Yehudah. It was during this visit Blackstone had the idea of organizing the first conference between Christian and Jews. Historians regard the Conference of Christians and Jews on the Past, Present , and Future of Israel to be the first interfaith conference between Christians nad Jews held in the United States.

In 1891 Blackstone famously published the Blackstone Memorial Petition in response to what he witnessed in Palestine.  The petition was presented to US President Benjamin Harrison, in an effort to gain American support for the Jewish situation in central Europe and “to secure the holding, at an early date, of an international conference to consider the condition of the Israelites and their claims to Palestine as their ancient home”. (41)

This is a full five years before Theodore Herzl’s Der Judenstaat, and six years before Herzl is named president of the Zionist Organization at the First Zionist Congress in Basel. Harrison acknowledged Blackstone and the memorial but chose not to involve himself and there the petition remained until it was revived by Louis Brandeis in 1916.

Introduced to the petition through his personal confidente Nathan Strauss, Louis Brandeis would then formulate a plan to have the petition presented to Woodrow Wilson and was adamant that he wasn’t mentioned at all. By influencing Wilson strictly from the perspective of a fellow Christian, Brandeis hoped Blackstone’s appeal for Jewish aid would hold more wait with the devoutly Presbyterian Wilson.

Blackstone had sent letters to Wilson as early as November 4th 1914 asking for his assistance in “the coming redemption of Israel”.  He attached a copy of Jesus is Coming.

On November 10th, Wilson thanked Blackstone for his book through his personal secretary, Joseph Tumulty.

On April 5th, 1916, Blackstone sent Wilson his brochure, The Times of the Gentiles and the War in the Light of Prophecy, in which he predicted a return of the Jews to Palestine in 1917 or 1918. (78)

A letter from Nathan Straus to W. E. B. dated May 8, 1916 reads: “It would have done your heart good to have heard (Mr. Brandeis) assert what a valuable contribution to the cause your document is. In fact he agrees with me that you are the Father of Zionism, as your work antedates Herzl.”

Wilson was presented with the 1916 Blackstone Memorial on May 5, 1916, attached was the original Memorial with its 413 signatures. The petition is signed by John D. Rockefeller, William Rockefeller, J. Pierpont Morgan, Russell Sage (Skull and Bones), Chauncey Depew, and nearly four hundred others.

“The principles laid out by Blackstone were remarkably similar to those of the Balfour Declaration and League of Nation’s Mandate for Palestine three decades later. This is why Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, leader of the American Zionist Movement, asked William Blackstone to reissue his Memorial Petition in 1916, believing it incorporated the principles upon which a just and humanitarian Jewish homeland movement could be founded. Brandeis believed that Blackstone’s Petition, ‘ante-dating as it did Theodore Herzl’s own participation in the Zionist movement, [was] destined to become of historical significance’ and called Blackstone ‘the true founder of Zionism’.” (40)

Stephen S. Wise, one of Brandeis’ inner core lieutenants communicated often with Blackstone on several matters concerning the Jew. Wise the Rabbi of the Free Synagogue in New York was an original member and vice-chairman of Brandeis’, Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist.

“May 22, 1916 My Dear Mr. Blackstone: I am very glad to know from your letter of the 15th of the Memorial which you are preparing to present to President Wilson, reviving the Memorial which you presented to President Harrison twenty-five years ago. That document, ante-dating as it did Theodore Herzl’s own participation in the Zionist movement, is destined to become of historical significance: and I trust that you may be as successful in securing support for this new Memorial as you were a quarter of a century ago. In view of the work being directly undertaken by the Jewish Zionist organization, your memorial would presumably be most effective if it derives its support from non-Jews. I hope you will keep me fully informed of the progress that you are making, and will advise me in advance when you are purposing to present the Memorial, so that we may give such aid as may be possible in rendering it effective. With best wishes, Very cordially yours, Louis D. Brandeis.” (75)

Brandeis had Blackstone address the Zionist General Congress in Philadelphia (July 2nd – 5th, 1916). Blackstone spoke in front of four thousand at the Metropolitan Opera House. Brandeis introduced Blackstone as “the most important ally Zionism has outside of its own ranks.” (77)

“William Blackstone made a central contribution to American evangelical Judeo-centrism by offering a nationalist adaptation of Darby’s premillennial dispensationalism. Blackstone crafted a middle path between futurist and historicist prophecy interpretation. His efforts to shape political discourse generated a great deal of intra-Jewish debate.” (74)

There are within the Brandeis papers 47 pages of personal documents regarding the Blackstone Memorial Petition.

Today Blackstone, like the rest of the dispensationalists, occupy an obscure area of history seldom considered. Blackstone helped found Biola University in Los Angeles and was its very first Dean, yet in 2013, during a commemoration of another Biola founder, Reuben A. Torrey, where a bronze plaque was presented upon which it stated Torrey, and not Blackstone, was the first Dean of Biola. Blackstone seemingly erased from the history of the very university he helped found. As of 2015 they’ve named a students residence after him and on the website they do finally acknowledge Blackstone’s importance to the university as it’s first Dean.

“Unfortunately, the plaque included the statement “Biola’s first Dean.” At the time, many old-timers commented, “That’s not correct, William Blackstone was the first dean!” Written communication subsequently corrected this error, but the bronze plaque remains unaltered. Thus, nearly everyone today is unaware that William Blackstone, not R.A. Torrey, was Biola’s first dean.” (73)

The Social Gospel Movement

“The name of Walter Rauschenbusch is synonymous with the Social Gospel.”

“Socialism offered not only a radical critique of American political and economic institutions; it also offered the seal, symbols, and sense of participation in a world-transforming cause often associated with Christianity itself.” The Social Gospel and Socialism: A Comparison of the Thought of Francis Greenwood Peabody, Washington Gladden, and Walter Rauschenbusch, Jacob H. Dorn (1)

Walter Rauschenbusch was born in Rochester New York in 1861 to Karl Augustus Heinrich Rauschenbusch and Caroline Rump. Walter’s father a German Lutheran turned Baptist clergyman, arriving in the US in 1846 after studying at Berlin and Bonn universities. Once arriving in New York he entered the Baptist communion, and in 1858 was head of the German department of the Rochester Theological Seminary where he would remain for thirty years.

Following high school Walter travelled to Germany with his father where he studied for four years (1878-1883) at an Evangelical German prep school in Gutersloh and Berlin University, near where his father was born, and upon returning to the United States, would follow his father to the Rochester Theological Seminary, where he gained a doctorate in divinity in 1886. Walter, the sixth in a succession of ministers, began his pastorate at the Second German Baptist Church in Hell’s Kitchen New York. (3)

Rauschenbusch felt it the responsibility of the Church to improve the deplorable urban conditions in the tenements brought on by industrialization, and along with several others, founded the entire Social Gospel movement through the creation of The Brotherhood of the Kingdom. The Social Gospel movement “was an outgrowth of Christian Socialism” and Christian Socialism a “new religion” first put forth by utopian socialist Henri de Saint-Simon to serve as an authority over the realm of industry and trade.

The Brotherhood of the Kingdom movement started by Rauschenbusch representing to the Christian denominations, what Walter Lippmann proposed to the secular as the Great Society. Christian Socialism looking very much like the religious complement to Progressivism. Brandeis’ daughter Elizabeth married Rauschenbusch’s son Paul in 1925.

Walter Rauschenbusch

August Heinrich Rauschenbusch. One of the earliest Baptist leaders in North America. “No one man exerted a larger influence on the life of our churches than he did through his classroom, preaching, newspaper writing, and books.” (1)

Rauschenbusch’s own shortly lived periodical magazine, For the Right, was created “in the interests of the working people”. “For the Right set out the Declaration of Principles for the Christian Socialist Society of New York City.” Rauschenbusch’s stated goal was, “To apply the ethical principles of Jesus Christ so that our industrial relationships may be humanized, our economic system be moralized – we band together as Christian Socialists.” Pg. 91, Walter Rauschenbusch by Dores Robinson Sharpe.

Rauschenbusch much like Brandeis was bringing together capital and labour. The Social Gospel movement an extension of the efficiency movement Brandeis was spearheading at the same time. Just as the Taylor Society was preaching ‘scientific management’ of society, so too were the leaders of the Social Gospel.

“The Christian socialism that Rauschenbusch embraced stood aloof not only from Marxian doctrine, but also from any socialist party. We are concerned with principles, not with methods … We are evolutionists, not revolutionists … In this sense we are Socialist, Socialist in the spirit rather than the letter.” pg. 91, Walter Rauschenbusch, Dores Sharpe.

“The motivation for this distinctly religious movement was supplied chiefly by the ethical impulses flowing from a progressive theology. Of the many perplexing issues growing out of industrialism those that concerned the relations of labor and capital and their interpretation by socialism so largely dominated the interests of socially minded clergymen in this decade that the social gospel may without question be described historically as the response of Protestantism to those specific situations. The centrality of the labor problem in all realistic discussions of urban religious conditions adds further weight to this definition. The problems of an industrial civilization remained the central interest of social Christianity.” Pg. 117, Rise of Social Gospel Within American Protestantism.

Francis Greenwood Peabody, professor of ethics and theology at Harvard from 1880 until his retirement in 1913, the Unitarian studied at Heidelberg, and then Leipzig and Halle universities.

Charles Richmond Henderson, Baptist minister, BA and MA, Bachelor of Divinity. In 1892, he was asked by William Rainey Harper, president of University of Chicago, a devout Baptist himself, to join the newly formed faculty of “social science” at the University of Chicago as a professor of sociology. This the first independent sociology department in the United States founded the same year Henderson arrived by Albion Woodbury Small. Small one of the very founders of sociology also studied at Leipzig and Berlin and then Johns Hopkins before moving to Chicago University, but more on him in Brandeis Part 6: The Science and Philosophy of Law. Henderson a member of the American Economic Association and the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

William Rainey Harper also a Professor of Semitic Languages at Yale in 1886, and named Woolsey Professorship of Biblical Literature in 1889, “principal of the Chautauqua College of Liberal Arts and later of the entire Chautauqua movement.” He was a key member of the organizational committee that created the University of Chicago, and was elected its first president. The American Baptist Education Society donated $400,000 to the university’s founding, and John D. Rockefeller donated $600,000. The land was donated by Jekyll Island Club member Marshall Field.(2)

Washington Gladden, pastor of the First Congregational Church of Columbus, Ohio. Pragmatist.

William Newton Clark also an ordained Baptist minister (1856). He received a BA (1861) and BD (1863) at Colgate Seminary (Hamilton Theological Seminary), lectured at Johns Hopkins (1899), Oberlin (1901), Harvard (1903), and Yale (1905). He wrote, An Outline of Christian Theology: For the Use of Students in Hamilton Theological Seminary in 1894, which was then  published in 1898 by Charles Scribner’s Sons. In 1903 he wrote Huxley and Phillips Brooks.

Samuel Zane Batten wrote, The New Citizenship, and The New World Order. Established the Commission on Social Service of the American Baptist Association.

Francis Greenwood Peabody
Charles Richmond Henderson

Samuel Zane Batten

William Newton Clark
Thomas Nixon Carver

“Salvation was expressed in social-ethical terms by these leaders of Protestant social thought … A social salvation was really included within the broad universalism of the kingdom of heaven on earth, a conception now beginning to emerge definitely as the ideal of a perfected human society.” Pg. 109 Rise of Social Gospel Within the American Protestantism.

Thomas Nixon Carver studying under Richard T. Ely and John Bates Clark at Johns Hopkins. Making him a disciple of Knies and the German Historical School. Carver the treasurer secretary of the American Economic Association. Ely a world-renowned economist, founder and first secretary of the American Economic Association, and leader of the Progressive movement. Ely also just happens to be the founder of the Christian Social Union and wrote extensively on organized labour movements. His father a devout Presbyterian. Both Ely and Clark studying directly under Karl Knies at the University of Heidelberg. Ely also studying under Johann Kaspar Bluntschli, the man who created one of the first codes of international law and war and is a cofounder of the Institute of International Law. Bluntschli heavily influenced by Hegelian ethical social theory we see popularized in both Germany and the United States.

“Professor Ely, who was perhaps the leading spirit in the group, found generous support for his new historical school of economics among the clergy who as we know had joined the ‘revolt against laissez-faire theory’ – in which attitude the Association found its chief raison d’etre.” Pg. 116, The Rise of the Social Gospel Within American Protestantism, Hopkins.

“the expert, the social scientist in the middle, emerges in much of Henderson’s work as the arbiter of social life.” Pg. , Social Science History, Volume 34, No. 3, pg. 337-371, Pragmatic Sociology and the Public Sphere, The Case of Charles Richmond Henderson, Andrew Abbott.

“He [Charles Richmond Henderson] closed Citizens in Industry with a note that churches – like the great trusts – were amalgamating and that Protestant ecumenical was beginning to echo Roman Catholicism, which he called “an international trust of religious forces.” Pg. , Social Science History, Volume 34, No. 3, pg. 337-371, Pragmatic Sociology and the Public Sphere, The Case of Charles Richmond Henderson, Andrew Abbott.

“A ‘social policy’ implies and assumes a certain philosophy of life and … a certain religious faith. This faith proves its worth and reasonableness by its works. It is living and it is prophetic and creative. To us who believe in a progressive social policy, the world is not merely pushed forward by blind physical forces; it moves onward toward aims clearly set before the human will and realized gradually by concerted labours directed by science. This policy is, root and branch, ethical; it is morality organized, vivified, guided by growing knowledge, and inspired by faith.” Pg. 15, Programmes in Economic Facts and In Ideals.

 “in late nineteenth century America the new science of sociology … suddenly found itself the handmaiden and ready instrument of a somewhat distinct strain of ideas; ideas which, begin religious and to an extent liberally progressive, were acceptable to the entrenched powers of university governors and presidents.” Pg. 42, The Development of Sociology and the Social Gospel in America, J. Graham Morgan, Sociological Analysis Volume 30, No. 1 (Spring 1969). Pp. 42-53.

“it is virtually impossible to extricate sociology and the Social Gospel in many instances, and to a large extent sociology in America may be seen as an outgrowth of the Social Gospel.” Pg. 42, The Development of Sociology and the Social Gospel in America.

The fellowship’s wide range of interests was well exemplified in the program for the conference of 1898, at which three series of papers were presented. “The Prophets of Israel as Social Leaders,” “The Rural Population and the Social Movement,” trade unions in New York, the social work of the church, a review of Sidney and Beatrice Webb’s Industrial Democracy” pg. 7 Walter Rauschenbusch and the Brotherhood of the Kingdom, C. Howard Hopkins, Mount Hermon School, Mount Hermon, Mass.

“No aspect of the thought of social gospellers as a whole more effectively describes them as children of their age than does the word ‘progressive. Applied first to advancing theological views, … ‘progressive’ later became a political catch-word representative of a particular reform philosophy popularized by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. That the kingdom should be progressively realized – by evolution – indicates the close relation of social gospel thought to the intellectual and social ideology of the times.” Pg. 150, Church History, Vol. 7, No. 2 (June, 1938) pp. 138-156; see also pg. 13, Walter Rauschenbausch and the Brotherhood of the Kingdom; see also Batten, op. cit., pp. 129-130.

“But by all odds the most important writings by members of the Brotherhood were those of Walter Rauschenbusch, whose epochal book, Christianity and the Social Crisis, appearing in 1907, made its author at once the acknowledged leader of the American social Christianity and soon acquainted the Protestant world with the basic tenets for which the Brotherhood had long labored.” Pg. 153, Walter Rauschenbusch and the Brotherhood of the Kingdom.

A Theology for the Social Gospel, regarded by many as his greatest, set the doctrine of the kingdom of God at the heart of social Christianity.” Pg. 156, Walter Rauschenbusch and the Brotherhood of the Kingdom.

Walter’s son Paul Arthur Raushenbush would marry Louis D. Brandeis’ daughter Elizabeth in 1925 and boxes of correspondence between the three found at the Wisconsin Historical Society within the UW Madison digital archives indicate quite clearly that the same interests in labour, social justice, and reform that stirred Louis in the first third of the 20th century also stirred his daughter and son-in-law. The “husband and wife team of economists … best known for their work with Harold Groves … developing and securing the passage of Wisconsin’s unemployment compensation legislation, the first such legislation in the nation.” (4)

A rich collection of communication exists in those archives between Paul and Felix Frankfurter, Tom Corcoran, and Thomas H. Eliot and other federal officials that shows an important involvement within Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s brain trust. Brandeis and Frankfurter most influential here again, consulting and advising US presidents in the completion of much of the work started under Woodrow Wilson.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

Brandeis Part 3: American Zionism and the Making of Israel

Brandeis Part 3: American Zionism and the Making of Israel

Brandeis and the American Zionist Movement

“A nonpracticing Jew who did not believe in religion, he became head of the American Zionist movement in his sixth decade and transformed it from a moribund sideshow into a powerful component of American Jewish life.” (1)

Brandeis met with Woodrow Wilson for the very first time on August 28, 1912, at Sea Girt, New Jersey, to discuss Brandeis’ reform ideas. meaning Brandeis met both Wilson and de Haas in the same month just prior to Wilson’s election to president. Seemingly coordinated, both the rise of Wilson to the White House and Brandeis to the head of the Zionist Organization of America. DeHaas proves to be a very able director and executive secretary for Brandeis interests moving forward.

Brandeis’ sudden interest in Zionism, according to the mainstream, was sparked by his first meeting with Jacob DeHaas August 13, 1912. DeHaas was personal secretary to the man mainstream will tell you is the father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl. DeHaas moving to America on Herzl’s suggestion, eventually settling in Boston near Brandeis around 1902.

And while it is true that De Haas, the editor of the Boston Jewish Advocate and the Boston Jewish Chronicle newspapers, did inspire Brandeis with heroing tales of both Louis’ Zionist uncle (Lewis Naphtali Dembitz) and Theodore Herzl, Brandeis had long before been introduced to the Jewish problem. As early as November 28th 1905, five years before his meeting with DeHaas, we see Brandeis expressing sympathy for Zionism in a speech he made at the New Century Club in Boston commemorating the 250th anniversary of Jewish settlement entitled What Loyalty Demands. (2)  

Brandeis had also publicly announced his sympathy for Zionism at least two years prior to his train station conversation with deHaas, in an interview with The American Hebrew on December 2, 1910, and a similar one on December 9 in DeHaas’ the Jewish Chronicle, and when asked whether he had interest in those working for a Jewish revival in Palestine, Brandeis replied, “I have a great deal of sympathy with the Zionists. The movement is an exceedingly deserving one. These so-called dreamers are entitled to the respect and appreciation of the entire Jewish people.” (3)

Brandeis joined the Federation of American Zionism and it’s also here during this time, while he was nearing his sixties, that Brandeis changes his middle name, in honour of his Zionist uncle, from David to Dembitz.


Jacob DeHaas

Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise

On July 18, 1913 Brandeis joined the executive committee August 30, 1914, Brandeis was elected chairman of the Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs, once again finding himself, as if by divine intervention, the face of yet another movement, this time American Zionism. 1914 also the year Brandeis leads the Zionist Organization of America. In March of 1915, Brandeis, along with Stephen Wise and Julian Mack would establish the Jewish Congress Organization Committee and in 1917, two months after America enters the First World War, Brandeis was elected honourary chair of the National Executive Committee that was the precursor to the American Jewish Congress.

Brandeis and his lieutenants willingly involved themselves in many other lesser known, but no less important Jewish organizations like the Jewish Agricultural Experiment Station. Brandeis, along with Mack, Marshall, Schiff, and Wise were all members of the Advisory Board of the Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Society. To raise funding for the creation of Israel, Brandeis, Bernard Flexner and Robert Szold helped bring together the Palestine Cooperative Company Inc., with the Reconstruction Committee of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee to form the Palestine Economic Corporation.

July 10, 1918 meeting of the Joint Distribution Committee and the executives of the American Jewish Relief Committee at 52 William Street, New York. First is the actual photograph, the second a painting commemorating the moment with the key addition of Louis Marshall (behind Warburg) and a globe for some reason now prominently displayed in the immediate foreground. Along with several other alterations. Brandeis resigned from both of these committees by personal letter to Warburg once confirmed as Supreme Court associate justice.

From left to right: Felix M. Warburg, Chairman; Aaron Teitelbaum; Albert Lucas, Secretary; F. Friedman, official stenographer; Boris D. Bogen, Executive Director; Leon J. Sanders; Harry Fischel; Scholem Asch; Alexander Kahn; Jacob Milch; Harriet B. Lowenstein, controller, Moses Schoenberg; M.S. Margolies; Israel Friedlander; Paul Baerwald, Associate Treasurer; Julius Levy; Peter Wiernik; Meyer Gillis; Harry Cutler; Cyrus Adler; Arthur Lehman, Treasurer; Jacob H. Schiff. Standing: A. Zucker; Isidore Hershfield; Meyer Berlin; Stanley Berow; Lewis Topkis; Morris Engelman.

“The JDC distributed tens of millions to the early construction efforts in Palestine through the war time donations of three distinct communities to “supply capital and credit, assuming a credit structure where none had existed before. Its first prospectus stated that the company ‘recognized that the extension of credit facilities was a first vital necessity in Palestine and of the utmost consequence in its economic up building.'”(4)

The American Jewish Committee targeted for funds already settled American Jews while the Central Relief Committee looked to the new Jewish immigrant and the Union of Jewish Orthodox Congregations for funding, and the People’s Relief Committee solicited Jewish Labour and Socialist groups like the Amalgamated Clothing Workers or the Federation of Jewish Farmers etc. (5)

Brandeis created the Palestine Economic Corporation with Bernard Flexner, Julius Simon, Robert Szold, Jacob Schiff, Felix M. Warburg and other wealthy New York German Jews. Within that corporation were formed the necessary institutions and utilities to begin establishing the necessary infrastructure for a working Jewish community in Palestine: the Central Bank of Cooperative Institutions in Palestine Ltd.; the Economic Board for Palestine of London; the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association; and Palestine Mortgage and Credit Bank Ltd. The PEC working in conjunction with both Baron de Rothschild’s PICA and the Jewish Agency constructed modern methods of agriculture at a time when industry was largely non-existent in the area. The PEC grew their “pioneering country, in such fields as credit for agricultural and industrial enterprise, housing provision, town planning, and water supply.” (6)

Through their various subsidiaries the PEC facilitated growth through credit programs, “loans for low-cost housing in rural and urban areas”, the PEC was “deeply involved in questions regarding the country’s water supply” making significant contributions to the supply problem by implementing “improved technical methods, and the establishment of centralized and systematic irrigation plants.” (7)

“The colony had been carefully planned by PICA in cooperation with the Palestine Economic Corporation (PEC) and the Jewish Agency”. pg. 284, Two Rothschilds and the Land of Palestine, Simon Shama

“the historiography of American Zionism until 1930 may well be called ‘Brandeiscentric.’ Brandeis – the man his ideas, and his achievements – are presented as the pinnacle of American Zionist realization during the first part of its history. It is generally accepted that there was no organized Zionism in the United States until Brandeis assumed leadership in 1914 and that his hold on the movement continued at least until the beginning of 1921.” (8)

After being nominated to the US Supreme Court in 1916, Brandeis wrote to Felix Warburg at the New York offices of the American Jewish Relief Committee, “I regret that I feel compelled to resign from the Executive Committee of the American Jewish Relief Committee, and of course also from the Joint Distribution Committee”, to avoid negative public perception yet Brandeis still very much wielded authority from ‘behind-the-scenes’, with an ‘invisible leadership’. (9)

“Through his closest lieutenants, Julian W. Mack, Stephen S. Wise, Bernard Flexner, Jacob de Haas, Felix Frankfurter, and Robert Szold, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Brandeis Group’, this inner ‘hard core’ group were all, “American-educated, a majority being also American-born. All were university educated, most were lawyers, and most of the lawyers had attended Harvard. A majority also became Zionists after 1914.” (10):

Brandeis “stepped down from all of his positions in Zionist and Jewish organizations to avoid embarrassing the Supreme Court, of which he had just become a member. He continued however, to serve in an honorary capacity and henceforward exercised overall authority from behind-the-scenes.” (11)

“As head of the American Zionist movement, Brandeis did not and could not act alone, especially after his nomination to the Supreme Court in 1916, when for technical reasons as well as matters of principle his personal participation in the movement was limited.” (12)

“The Brandeis group led the American Zionist movement and made the major decisions, always in contact with Brandeis.” (13)

“Through his associates, Brandeis held the Zionist organization in a tight grip.” (14)

“From Louis Brandeis around World War I to Abba Hillel Silver after World War II, Zionism has been defined as a form of American liberalism.”(15)

Balfour met with Brandeis on at least two occasions during his Washington visit (May 7th and 11th), and a large stack of contemporary scholarship concurs, as substantiated above by Ben Halpern, professor of Near East Studies at Brandeis University, that these meetings between Brandeis and Balfour were critical, and served as a major coming together of Anglo-American relations. Brandeis and Balfour were careful not to debate first rights to self-determination between the Jew and Arab on numerical grounds, as the Hebrew then, as now, grossly outnumbered in the region by his fellow Arab Semite. This centuries old tradition of calling anyone critical of Israel or Zionism anti-Semitic a tired misnomer in that there are over 70 languages associated on the Semitic branch, the largest spoken language Arabic, Amharic, Tigrinya, and then Hebrew. 

Brandeis also one of the earliest to actively promote dual loyalty between Israel and the United States through a shared nationalism. and was very influential on Balfour, wielding all the authority vested within him Brandeis an essential figure in the conception, promotion, and especially the consummation of the document most responsible for securing a final homeland for the Jew, the Balfour Declaration.

By the time Brandeis was confirmed US Supreme Court Justice spring of 1916, he had been the leader of the American Zionist movement for two years and a longtime intimate adviser to US president Woodrow Wilson. As you would expect Brandeis’ words carried much weight in many circles, Brandeis inside a three circle Venn diagram uniquely positioned to press for a Jewish homeland.

“It is social justice which Zionism represents, and every bit of that is the American ideals of the twentieth century.” Louis Brandeis, (16)

Immediately following Wilson’s declaration of war on April 6, 1917, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour led a diplomatic mission to Washington, landing on April 22, 1917.

Officially the Balfour Mission was to ‘promote wartime cooperation’, but Balfour’s visit was primarily financial. The true intentions of Balfour and the rest of his entourage, including the governor of the Bank of England, Walter Cunliffe, was to bring the Americans up-to-speed on the lucrative past of British imperialism. With the United States now a committed belligerent in the Great War, previous treaties and agreements made by the French and British in Italy, Africa, the Near East, and other areas around the world, had to be laid on the table. And it is in this light we see the depth to Brandeis’ influence.

Brandeis the eminent insider while Chaim Weizmann was very much considered the outsider to Wilson’s circle. Where Weizmann struggled to get access (even by repeated cable), Brandeis arrived as an invited and eminent guest. Where Weizmann, because of his personality hit serious diplomatic roadblocks, “the peoples attorney” smoothed political and personal tensions.

Clearly, it is because of Brandeis’ influence on the American Zionist movement and American Jewry in general, groups whos blessings Weizmann desperately needed, that Brandeis became an integral figure, “the sage adviser to all”, even more so than Weizmann, in the final drafting of the Declaration.

“Brandeis’s personal influence was doubly important, for he combined the roles of a Jewish leader and a close adviser of President Wilson. When Balfour came to the United States to consult his new allies shortly after America entered the war, the new British Foreign Minister made a point of meeting Brandeis. All contemporaries agree in regarding these meetings as being critical in opening up the last phase of the negotiations for a British pro-Zionist policy declaration.” pg. 71, Brandeis and the Origins of the Balfour Declaration, Ben Halpern.

“Dr. Weizmann gladly assented to the Brandeis project. He expressed his gratitude by impulsively kissing Brandeis’ hand.” Pg. 133, Brandeis: A Biographical Sketch, DeHaas.

“Weizmann launched a series of urgent pleas to his American contacts, and to Brandeis in particular, for their aid in a situation in which the future prospects of Zionism were critically involved … Weizmann pinned his hopes on Louis Brandeis as the person most capable of influencing President Wilson.” (17)

“When Balfour came to the United States to consult his new allies shortly after America entered the war, the new British Foreign Minister made a point of meeting Brandeis. All contemporaries agree in regarding these meetings as being critical in opening up the last phase of the negotiations for a British pro-Zionist policy declaration.” (18) 

Balfour met with Brandeis on at least two occasions during his Washington visit (May 7th and 11th), and a large stack of contemporary scholarship concurs, as substantiated above by Ben Halpern, professor of Near East Studies at Brandeis University, that these meetings between Brandeis and Balfour were critical, and served as a major coming together of Anglo-American relations. 

Brandeis and Balfour were careful not to debate first rights to self-determination between the Jew and Arab, especially on numerical grounds, as the Hebrew then as now grossly outnumbered by his fellow Arab Semite. Brandeis, one of the first to actively promote dual loyalty between the US and a Jewish homeland was very influential on Balfour, wielding all the authority vested within him Brandeis an essential figure in the conception, promotion, and especially the consummation of the document most responsible for securing a final homeland for the Jew:

“Balfour and Louis Brandeis, a Supreme Court justice and the leading American Zionist, came up with an ingenious solution. It was wrong to use mere ‘numerical self-determination’: a great many potential inhabitants of the Jewish home in Palestine still lived outside its borders. ‘And Zionism,’ said Balfour, ‘be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.’” (19)

The many drafts of the Balfour Declaration were made in London and passed back and forth between the British and American War office channels and Brandeis was central to its final drafting.

The draft cabled from government to government, was handed to the Brandeis regime for its approval. After a most necessary revision, President Wilson, acting through Colonel House who was in full sympathy with the Zionist aims, authorized cabling to the British government the version that was published, and to which all the allied governments in turn gave their approval.” (20) 

Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919- 1939. A documented conversation between Brandeis and Balfour that took place with Eustace Percy and Felix Frankfurter. Three of the four men involved in this historic conversation were House of Truth residents.

The night before Brandeis’ election to the chair of the Provisional Executive Committee on General Zionist affairs, he travels by boat with Horace W. Kallen who introduces Brandeis to the idea of ‘dual loyalty’. Brandeis previously wrote disparagingly of “hyphenated Americans” who chose not to assimilate completely to American life, but now, realizing their usefulness in supporting a Jewish homeland in Israel, he completely flipped his viewpoint.

Brandeis immediately began writing about how every American Jew must become a Zionist:

“Let no American imagine that Zionism is inconsistent with Patriotism.” – Brandeis.

“there is no inconsistency between loyalty to America and loyalty to Jewry.” – Brandeis.

Horace W. Kallen the one who came up with the idea of cultural plurality in the first place. Kallen and Brandeis together establish the Parushim and Menorah Societies at Harvard. Brandeis here prominent in the creation of two Zionist secret societies on the university campus(!) A US Supreme Court justice? As odd as it sounds, its true. In Kallen, we see one of the main influencers of Brandeis. Kallen the one who introduced Brandeis to cultural plurality, or, dual loyalty the night before Brandeis was elected chairman of the Executive Provisional Committee on General Zionist Affairs.  

We conclude here that Louis D. Brandeis is the most influential historical figure in the creation of the country of Israel. His influence in both drafting the Balfour Declaration and founding the Palestine Economic Corporation, show Brandeis as the hub around which everyone else orbited. Brandeis, “the sage advisor to all”. 

Brandeis’ ability to establish the necessary official documentation while also applying the real, tangible infrastructure for the creation of Israel, and his use of the ZOA to gather massive support, while being the US presidents most trusted advisor places Brandeis’ influence even beyond that of the House of Rothschild. His use of dual loyalty as a persuasion tactic still exists today and in our follow-up article, Brandeis Part 4: Christian Dispensationalism and the Social Gospel, we introduce you to the real ‘father of Zionism’ and tell the story of how Brandeis influenced American Christians to support the Zionist cause of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.


1. xi, Brandeis: A Life, Urofsky.

2. In Search of a New Zion: New Light on Brandeis’ Road to Zionism, Allon Gal. Gal Professor Emeritus, Ben-Gurion Institute for the Study of Israel and Zionism, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Sede Boquer Campus.

3. pg. 443, Brandeis: A Free Mans Life.4. New York Public Library Archives and Manuscripts, Palestine Economic Corporation records 1921-1944,,and%20resettlement%20of%20Jewish%20Palestine5. New York Public Library Archives and Manuscripts, Palestine Economic Corporation records 1921-1944,,and%20resettlement%20of%20Jewish%20Palestine6. Two Rothschilds and the Land of Israel.

7. Two Rothschilds and the Land of Israel.

8. pg. 34 American Jewish History Volume 69 No. 1 September 1979, pg. 34-59 Johns Hopkins University Press; Brandeis’ Role in American Zionism, Historically Reconsidered, Evyatar Friesel. Friesel professor Emeritus of Modern Jewish History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He’s previously held academic positions at Ben Gurion University Department of Jewish History and Department of History, Friedrich Schiller University Jena Germany.

9. Brandeis personal letter to Felix Warburg Esq., Treasurer, American Jewish Relief Committee, July 21, 1916.

10. pg. 46,47 Brandeis’ Role in Zionism Reconsidered.

11. pg. 23, Louis D Brandeis Zionist Leader, Jonathan D. Sarna.

12. pg. 46, Brandeis’ Role in Zionism Reconsidered.

13. Ibid pg. 46.

14. Ibid pg. 46, 47.

15. pg. 35 The Crisis of Zionism, Peter Beinart.

16. Ibid pg. 34.

17. pg. 471, The Journal of Modern History, Volume 64. No 3, September 1992, pg. 455-499, The Balfour Declaration and Its Maker: A Reassessment, Jehuda Reinharz, Brandeis University.

18. Studies in Zionism, No. 7, 1983, Ben Halpern, Brandeis and the Origins of the Balfour Declaration; Ben Halpern was a professor of Near Eastern studies at Brandeis University, retiring in 1981 and a member of the Jewish Agency Executive from 1968 to 1972. His numerous publications, many of which were published in Jewish Frontier and Midstream magazines, deal chiefly with problems of Zionism, Israeli society, and the role of the Jews in U.S. society. Halpern’s publications include The Idea of the Jewish State(1969) and a Clash of Heroes: Brandeis, Weizmann, and American Zionism (1987).

19. pg. 422, Paris 1919, Six Months That Changed the World, Margaret McMillan.

20. pg. 92, Louis D. Brandeis, A Biographical Sketch, Jacob DeHaas; see also, pg. 1276, Documents on British Foreign Policy, First Series, Volume 4, 1919. Edited by E.L. Woodward.

Appendix, Additional, Supplementary Content:

Brandeis Part 2: Scientific Management

Brandeis Part 2: Scientific Management

“Wilson found the judicial outlook of Louis D. Brandeis, Harvard Law School professor, highly congenial. Brandeis was the author of the historic ‘Brandeis Brief,’ which ushered in a whole new phase of constitutional law based more on sociological than legal interpretation.” (1)

Florence Kelley, founder National Consumers League.

Josephine Goldmark.

Brandeis home at 6 Otis Place.

Overlooking the Charles River from the Brandeis home, Boston.

Brandeis and the National Consumer’s League

The Brandeis Brief was submitted to Judge Brewer during the landmark 1908 Supreme Court case, Muller v. Oregon, where the court was considering the constitutionality of limiting women’s working hours. Brandeis hired by the National Consumers League to counsel in behalf of the State of Oregon. Brandeis was hired personally by two of its most influential leaders, the NCL’s chairman of publications committee Josephine Goldmark, and its executive director and co-founder, Florence Kelley. Josephine happens to be the sister of Brandeis’ wife Alice, which under normal circumstances makes her his sister-in-law, except Alice, Josephine and Louis were all second cousins.

Kelley along with Jane Addams and Josephine Lowell created the League to correct through acts of reform legislation the unsatisfactory working conditions inherent to unregulated industry. What they were really doing was establishing the framework to a new international system of manufacturing and trade.  

“The National Consumers League was founded in 1899 by Jane Addams [ and Florence Kelley, and Josephine Lowell ] as a social reform movement concerned with the conditions under which goods were manufactured and distributed … The League promoted the creation of administrative agencies to enforce protective legislation and played a major role in defending reform measures in court.” (emphasis added) National Consumers’ League Records, Library of Congress, Washington D.C.

Brandeis famously introduced to the courtroom an as-of-yet-never-before-seen technique in arguing case law giving birth to a revolutionary new sociological jurisprudence covered in more depth in a later, two-part article we named, Brandeis Part 6: the Science and Philosophy of Law. Simply put, it was the combining of sociology, “the science of social order and progress”, with law, “the most specialized engine of social control.” The insertion of the scientific expert.

The law an underappreciated aspect to the social control of society despite it being the most obvious. Having already spoken of Brandeis’ influence on Wilson and the executive branch of the US government in, Brandeis Part 1: Architect of the New Freedom, we now tell of the events that led to Brandeis’ transformation of the judicial and legislative branches, first as a nationally known radical reform attorney and then as a confirmed member of the highest legal seat in America, the US Supreme Court.

The meeting at Brandeis’ Boston home between he and the founders of the NCL marks the beginning of a legislative altering relationship that would last at least another decade. Once Brandeis was confirmed as a justice of the supreme court, his responsibilities as legal counsel to the NCL were taken over by his young protege Felix Frankfurter.

Josephine Goldmark describes the nascent moments of the Brandeis brief:

“On November 14, 1907, Florence Kelley and I were actors in a little scene which, though of course we did not realize it then, marked a turning point in American social and legal history. We had come to Boston to see my brother-in-law, Louis D. Brandeis, then a practicing attorney in Boston, and we sat in the back library of his home on a little street called Otis Place. We had come to ask Mr. Brandeis to appear in the Supreme Court of the United States to defend the Oregon ten-hour law for women, attacked as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Brandeis, looked thoughtfully out over the Charles River and accepted, “thus began a collaboration between Mr. Brandeis and the Consumers League which gave a revolutionary new direction to judicial thinking, indeed to the judicial process itself.”(2)

“He [Brandeis] then outlined what he would need for a brief: namely facts, published by anyone with expert knowledge of industry in its relation to women’s hours of labor, such as factory inspectors, physicians, trade unions, economists, social workers. If I could return to Boston within a fortnight with such printed matter, sufficiently authoritative to pass muster, we would then work up the material in the form of a brief.” (3)

 “Josephine Goldmark’s work as a reformer in the Progressive Era did much to redesign the American social contract.” (4)

The Brandeis Brief set the method of argument for other landmark minimum hour cases in 1909, 1912, and 1914, as well as minimum wage cases in 1913 and 1914, Brandeis was assisted greatly in the collection of material by Josephine Goldmark and the NCL, and the entire scheme heavily funded by Dorothy Paine Whitney, the Russell Sage Foundation, and the Fabian Society. The series of groundbreaking cases in which Brandeis was counsel, won by way of scientific expert opinion, set the foundation for a new scientific philosophy of law for the 20th century.

Consisting of over one hundred pages of sociological data, Brandeis’ brief devoted only two pages to legal argument.  Largely due to the efforts of Brandeis, working with Goldmark, Kelley and the National Consumer’s League at the height of the Progressive Era, we see the pioneering moments of arguing US case law using facts and statistics – two things susceptible to a wide array of subjective opinion.

By getting law to change with a progressive society they created a new living law steered by social science research data, turning the feedback loop into a social reform perpetual motion machine. This shaping of society using critical observation and applied scientific experimentation  the primary method and meaning of social sciences from its inception.

The opinion of soft social science experts now presided over the court room just as in the oval office, traditional legal precedent and the US Constitution were deemed out-of-date and promptly tossed out of court. Just as Brandeis used Harvard social scientists to infiltrate the executive branch of the US government, he did the same to the judicial and legislative branches. 

“Miss [Josephine] Goldmark states: “The Brandeis Brief in the Muller case, reprinted together with Judge Brewer’s opinion, was in great demand from law schools and universities as well as from labor unions and libraries .. Gone was the deadening weight of legal precedent.” (5)

Judge Brewer stating in his final assessment, “before examining the Constitutional question, to notice the course of legislation as well as expressions of opinions from other than judicial sources … the brief filed by Mr. Louis D. Brandeis … is a very copious collection of these matters”, but in regards to the facts found within the brief, Brewer admitted, “may not be, technically speaking, authorities, and in them there is little or no discussion of the constitutional question.” (6)

Brewer admitting rightfully that facts aren’t the truth, and quantitative evidence is not necessarily qualitative.

In the “new precedent”, the judge himself becomes witness to the settling of law through “copious” collections of facts and statistics, Brewer noting they were not “technically speaking, authorities” in themselves, adding for the record that there was “little or no discussion” to the negative effect the attorney’s radical method might have on the US constitution.

According to David Bernstein, law professor at George Mason University School of Law, much of the information found in the brief was of a dubious nature, calling the collection of facts “nonsensical” and “miscellany” and “hardly definitive”.

Owen Fiss, Sterling Professor Emeritus of Law, Yale University and author of The Troubled Beginnings of the Modern State in 1993 concluded Goldmark’s collection of evidence as a “hodgepodge” pg. 175.

In 1914 Goldmark was sponsored by the Russell Sage Foundation to write, Fatigue and Efficiency, once again demonstrating the direct involvement of Skull and Bones. Both The New Republic and the Russell Sage Foundation donated both manpower and money to many NCL causes during this time. Dorothy Paine Whitney, the wife of JP Morgan financier Willard Straight, “paid in full all the cost of printing all the briefs” dating back to the very first, the Brandeis Brief in 1908.

Massive amounts of private money poured into the progressive legislative reform effort, thousands of copies of a thousand reports were published and circulated through the necessary intellectual channels while editor friends of Brandeis sympathetic to the progressive cause, like Norman Hapgood, editor of Harper’s Weekly, wrote a thousand stories in a thousands newspapers, magazines, and journals advocating both Brandeis and his progressive ideals.  

Remembering here that Whitney and Straight funded the founding of The New Republic in 1914 with Brandeis, Walter Lippmann, Herbert Croly, and Felix Frankfurter. Other progressive magazines were: American Magazine, Collier’s, Cosmopolitan, McClure’s, Munsey’s, and the Independent. “These magazines sold for ten or fifteen cents a copy, instead of the twenty-five and thirty-five cents charged by the older magazines.” pg. 32, The AFL in the Progressive Era, 1910-1915, Philip S. Foner.

Once they could get constitutional law to change with the times it no longer possessed its timeless, inherent value. The foundational nature of the US Constitution being its most enduring and important quality, was the largest deterrent for the authors of all forms of social control and here we see the onset of a deliberate undermining of the foundation of America. Judge Brewer felt it necessary to state officially for the record in his court’s opinion, that it is the “value of a written constitution that it places in unchanging form limitations upon legislative action, and thus gives a permanence and stability to popular government” yet Brewer still ruled in Brandeis’ favour, and the sociological school of thought first put into practice by Brandeis, spread across the country eventually evolving into the dominant philosophy of law in America for the remainder of the 20th century.

Goldmark would continue her legislative activism mostly with Frankfurter following Brandeis’ election to the Supreme Court in 1916 but by then Brandeis had established much of the foundational framework, much of our modern day social contract, from the hours we work, to how we work, to where we work, all formed, not surprisingly, during these critical peak Progressive Era years.

Frederick Winslow Taylor

1911 edition, only distributed to engineers and shop managers. Note the fasces on the front cover.

The Taylor Society

“Scientific Management demands preparedness. The results attained through scientific management depend on universal preparedness. The same preparedness is invoked for industry which is secured to Prussia in her victory over France.” Louis Brandeis, Scientific Management and the Railroads.

This idea of a scientifically governed society not original to our modern times but Brandeis an undeniable central figure in its modern incarnation. Brandeis most responsible with coining the term ‘scientific management’  and popularizing “what many argue today is the most important ‘ism’ of the twentieth century”, Frederick Winslow Taylor’s, The Principles of Scientific Management. (7)

“The whole country at once recognized the importance of conserving our material resources and a large movement has been started which will be effective in accomplishing this object. As yet, however, we have but vaguely appreciated the importance of “the larger question of increasing our national efficiency.” Introduction, The Principles of Scientific Management.

Taylor’s major contribution towards our present day industrial democracy largely goes unnoticed by a disinterested public until now.

Taylorism, as it is known today, was a revolutionary new approach to workshop efficiency. Taylorism driving the Efficiency movement that introduced to the world entirely new concepts like: organized labor, industrial management, industrial relations, and scientific management.  

“By the election of 1912, Brandeis counted some of the nation’s leading engineers (such as Frederick Taylor, Henry Gantt, Harrington Emerson, and F. Lincoln Hutchins) among his most trusted advisers.” Pg. 47, Louis Brandeis: The Making of Regulated Competition, Berk

Brandeis took a very hands on approach, “marshalling publicity” by exploiting his many very influential contacts within the political circles and press clubs of New York, Boston, and Washington, Brandeis organizing the meetings with the leaders of the newly formed Taylor Society, writing out the method of argument for everyone to follow, coordinating, collecting and coaching witnesses.  Here again we see Brandeis gaining influence over a group of important people possessing important technology.

“In October, Brandeis met at Gantt’s apartment in New York with Frank Gilbreth, Jim Dodge, and others.” (8)

Other management pioneers such as Henry Gantt, known for his Gantt Chart, and Frank Gilbreth, known for his motion studies, Morris Llewellyn Cooke for rural electrification, Carl George Barth for his speed-and-feed compound slide rule, all collaborated with Brandeis in bringing scientific management to life. Brandeis even writing the foreword to Gilbreths, Primer of Scientific Management in 1914. They would famously combine Gilbreth’s motion studies with Taylor’s time studies forming an entirely new discipline, time-motion study. This collection of men early pioneers of the cybernetic, eugenic and later technocracy movements.

Brandeis described scientific management as “a revolution in industry comparable only to that effected in the transition from hand labor to machinery.” (9)

Henry Gantt
Frank Gilbreth

Taylor to Brandeis “Please let me congratulate you most warmly upon the masterly way in which you marshalled your forces and presented your testimony, and also upon the publicity which your testimony has received and the interest by the papers all over the country.” (10)

The large stumbling block was presenting to the labor unions an agreement the workers would accept. Nearly to a man, labor revolted at the thought of being scientifically micro-managed.

“Labor was readily able to understand and agree with Brandeis that employers would, without involving large capital expenditure, gain greater productivity from labor, reduced labor costs, more efficient use of plant and equipment, lower interest and  taxes, lesser depreciation charges, reduced stock of raw and process materials, and lessened strain on credit. However, they could not understand or agree with Brandeis as to what employees would gain from scientific management.” (11)

“In studying the resistance of organized labor to scientific management, Valentine came to see that the objection lay not so much in the thing itself as in the fact that it was introduced by the employer and for his own advantage.” (11) 

“The substitute of machinery for unaided human labor was the great industrial achievement of the nineteenth century. The new achievement to which Dr. Taylor points the way consists in elevating human labor itself to a higher plane of efficiency and of earning power.” Henry R. Towne, president American Society of Mechanical Engineers, foreword to Taylor’s, Shop Management (1910). 

The Protocol of Peace

“he [Brandeis] described the protocol system as “a large step toward industrial democracy.” (12)

Eventually came the Protocol of Peace, a revolutionary new industry-wide labor standard, bringing together Valentine’s industrial relations with Taylor’s principles of scientific management, forming Sidney Webb’s industrial democracy. It was the long anticipated partnership between capital and labour, a sort of syndicalism of shared responsibility and shared compensation. The labor unions and their leaders were the scientific entering wedge between man and his own labor. New York City, the center of American industry, was the proving ground, and the Lower East Side became their laboratory. It was in many ways the domestication of the human being. And once standards and protocols were established in NYC, they quickly spread across the entire country and adopted industry wide.

“INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY was a term that before 1909 had significant relevance only for reformers and intellectuals. Events in Progressive Era New York grounded this abstract theory into the streets of the Lower East Side. The conflicts of the ladies’ garment industry provided a ready-made laboratory. The Protocol of Peace, a radical trade agreement in New York City’s ladies’ garment industry, ushered in a new experiment with industrial democracy.” (13)

When the Protocol of Peace was signed on September 2, 1910 it “ushered in a new era of industrial labor relations.” American Jewish archives, Protocol of Peace.

“The strikes …. set the stage and organized both workers and owners into powerful groups necessary for an industry-wide agreement. Industrial democrats used this canvas as provided by workers to paint a new picture. Men ….such as Louis Brandeis … and others marshaled the power of social science and used their influence to broker deals to gain a seat at the industrial relations table.” (14)

“Industrial Democracy provides an important lens through which to view IR during the Progressive Era. Industrial democracy was one of the handful of ideas that defined Progressive Era reformers. It signaled a new scientific approach to labor in America as well as a fundamental recommitment to democratic principles.” (15)

“The Protocol of Peace fashioned by Brandeis to settle the second strike, was a unique and revolutionary institution. It gave workers collective bargaining and brought about improved conditions, better wages and hours, safer and cleaner work places, and a host of other important reforms.” (16)

“The Cloakmakers’ Strike of 1910, to use Samuel Gompers’s apt phrase, was ‘more than a strike, [it was] … an industrial revolution’ because it created a new system of IR, finishing what started in 1909. ‘The signing of the Protocol,’ as the contract that ended the strike was called, as historian Louis Levine has noted, ‘ushered in a new period of constructive experimentation in collective bargaining.’ Benjamin Stolberg, another earlier historian of the union, believed that ‘the Protocol of Peace marked a decisive turning point [in part because] … its basic idea was later copied by the other needle trades …. And in time its influence spread throughout American industry.” (17)

The Haymarket Affair of 1886, the Homestead Strike of 1892, the Uprising of Twenty Thousand of 1909, the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire of 1911, the Cloakmakers’ Strike of 1910, the 1913 Phelps Dodge Mining Explosion, the 1914 Ludlow Massacre, were just some among many high profile labor wars that erupted out of the industrial revolution, all served as a catalyst for a radical reform of industry relations that led to a complete overhaul of American life. A separation of history into a before and after. These labour wars part of the Great Revolt in the US that coincided with the Great Unrest in Britain and the Great Labour Revolt in Canada.

As you could imagine, labour revolted at the idea of such control measures we find normal today, the workers saw no advantage for them in their being managed scientifically, they saw only in the scheme what we witness as undeniably true today, that the worker was never meant to share in neither profit nor leisure. The manufactory exploited the human being to its own advantage and today we bare witness to a system ridding itself of labour entirely, as was the plan from the beginning. Brandeis helped force into reality an entirely new promise of American life. The Progressive plan pushed through sparing no expense, we see the breaking of the old American spirit, the first staggered steps of the rugged individual. And just as today (perhaps the most reformatory period since the Progressive Era), change, and moving forward are all done in the name of efficiency and preparedness.


  1. pg. 150, The Fabian Freeway.
  2. pg. 143, The Impatient Crusader, Josephine Goldmark.
  3. pg. 155, Josephine Goldmark, Impatient Crusader: Florence Kelley’s Life Story.
  4. Jewish Women’s Archive, Josephine Goldmark,
  5. pg. 150, The Fabian Freeway
  6. pg. 218, Brandeis: A Life, Urofsky.
  7. Peter Jennings, ABC Nightly News, The Century, Taylorism.
  8. pg. 431, One Best Way, Robert Kanigel 
  9. pg. 43, Brandeis Beyond Progressivism
  10. pg. 434, One Best Way, Robert Kanigel.
  11. pg. 57, Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, Volume 41, No. 1, September, 1951, pg. 41-60, Brandeis and Scientific Management, Oscar Kraines. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  12. Citation needed.
  13. pg. 40, Brandeis, Beyond Progressivism
  14. pg. 23, Triangle Shirtwaist, the Protocols of Peace, and Industrial Democracy in Progressive Era New York, Richard A. Greenwald. Greenwald professor of history and Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Fairfield University, Connecticut, on the board of the Journal of Planning History.
  15. pg. 23, 24, Triangle Shirtwaist.
  16. pg. 10, The Triangle Shirtwaist.
  17. Citation needed.
  18. Citation needed.

Brandeis Part 1: The Architect of the New Freedom

Brandeis Part 1: The Architect of the New Freedom


Louis Dembitz Brandeis was born on November 13, 1856, in Louisville Kentucky to Adolph Brandeis and Frederika Dembitz. The Brandeis family originating from a small city on the river near Prague, Czech Republic called Brandeis on the Elbe. Louis grew up one of four children in a family of followers of the radical Yaakov Franck (Jacob Frank). Frankism a sort of degenerate antinomianism, or a rejection of all moral and social norms. (1)

The Brandeis family part of a long Rabbinical line of social reformers, Adolph himself a liberal revolutionary who moved his young family to the States, narrowly escaping the fallout of the 1848 Austrian Revolutions.

It was in 1848 that Adolph was chosen as a representative by the oldest members of the Brandeis, Dembitz, and Wehle families, to travel to North America as an envoy or scout to “study American conditions and select a location”. pg. 15, Brandeis: A Free Man’s Life, Alpheus Thomas Mason, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus at Princeton University.

“Adolph arrived in New York, traveled for a while in the East, and then went on to the agricultural Middle West, visiting farms and villages along the way. Young Brandeis’s pleasure and facility in travel were greatly enhanced by the companionship of a young friend of the Wehles then on a business trip to the Unites States to secure information about American investments for the House of Rothschild.” pg. 15 Brandeis: A Free Mans Life.

This all amounting to a strange chapter in the biography of an eventual member of the US Supreme Court and advisor to the US president, and despite many efforts to suppress his upbringing, it remains after all these years still true, and the present-day narrative surrounding Brandeis remains largely apologetic, if not completely dismissive of his many obvious and concerning conflicts of both interest and character. 

“Brandeis’ grandfather and great-grandfather in Prague had been leaders in the Frankist cult that swept Central Europe in the late eighteenth century.” (2)

“He [Jacob Frank] slept with his followers, and maybe even his daughter. He preached a nihilistic doctrine that saw this world as intrinsically corrupt, and believed that the best way to imitate God was to cross every boundary, transgress every taboo, and mix the sacred with the profane.” Rabbi Jay Michaelson, PhD in Jewish Thought Hebrew University; JD Yale Law School; assistance professor at Chicago Theological Seminary; visiting scholar at the Center for LGBTQ and Gender Studies in Religion; and contributor to CNN, MSNBC, and Meet the Press.

“Louis Brandeis had a portrait of Frank’s daughter Eva on his desk at the Supreme Court, an heirloom he received from his Dembitz relatives, whose ancestors were followers of Frank.” Brandeis, eventually marrying, Alice Goldmark, his second cousin and daughter of prominent Austrian chemist the discoverer of red phosphorous, Joseph Goldmark. (3)(4) 

Despite his family not being able to afford it, young Louis somehow entered Harvard Law School in the fall of 1875, Brandeis walking the hallowed halls of the Ivy League just shy of his nineteenth birthday, graduating in 1877 class valedictorian, cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa Society – at the age of twenty. Brandeis recorded the highest-grade scores in the history of Harvard Law School, setting an academic standard that stood for eighty years.

Brandeis recognized even by academic historians as a radical social reformer and a highly contentious nomination to the Supreme Court. The fight for confirmation lasted nearly a half year, from late January to early June of 1916. A nomination rightly contested more heavily than any other in American history. By 1916, Brandeis’ many conflicting political interests were seen by many as problematic for a Supreme Court Justice. Brandeis largely deemed by public opinion unfit for public office yet once confirmed, he sat on the Supreme Court for nearly twenty-five years.

As we at and The History of Propaganda began our investigation into the life of Louis Dembitz Brandeis, we quickly realized we were witnessing emerging from the pages a figure of monumental historical importance, an importance certainly undeserving of his present-day place in near complete obscurity.  Herein we submit our report on ‘the peoples attorney’, and ask first of all, how a man on such a radical social reforming bender could have been even considered for associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.  

Louis D. Brandeis

Yaakov Franck

Eva Franck

Harvard Law School, Class of 1877. Brandeis circled.

 “He [Brandeis] was the forerunner of other social activist lawyers who were later appointed to the Court, such as Thurgood Marshall and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.” (5)

Today in American academia, it seems strange that Brandeis’ reputation still stands strong some 80+ years after his passing in 1941.  It’s almost as if people have been deliberately kept from looking deeper into the man. Brandeis remains a respected and revered beacon of modern social justice movements and Brandeis University stands today as an institution  to Brandeis’ radical, Progressive ideals. When a critical analysis of Brandeis is honestly undertaken, this humanitarian, man-of-the-people persona quickly becomes a contrived and disingenuous cover story for a man with many faces who is only now being burdened with the appropriate historical weight earned from such a prolonged and prolific career of anti-Constitutional, anti-American radical social reform. 

In respect to both the Brandeis family and you the reader, we at recognize the large responsibility that comes with exposing past lies agreed upon and have painstakingly searched out and procured a collection of the most legitimate and trusted source material, extracting primary and secondary artifacts from the personal writings of Brandeis, his family, his close friends and his many, many business associates. We’ve borrowed vigorously from the archives of several prestigious universities including Brandeis’ very own, compiling dozens of doctoral dissertations from recognized and award-winning authors who were given unfettered access to the Brandeis personal papers, and as a result, we have compiled and catalogued a near library of related material in an effort to gain greater context of the both the man and the times in which he lived. Without any further delay, the story of Louis D. Brandeis begins with his friendship with Woodrow Wilson.

Brandeis: Architect of the New Freedom

“At the end of August, Wilson sought one contributor in particular, but not for his money … Wilson needed somebody to sharpen his message … he wanted to discuss the issue with the most incisive mind on the subject. Fortunately, that man had already expressed an interest in his campaign, though when he shuttled from Boston to New York by night boat August 27, Louis D. Brandeis could not have known that he, as much as anybody, would shape the future of Woodrow Wilsons campaign and career.” (6)

Brandeis was thought of by Wilson as his obvious pick for Attorney General or Secretary of Commerce. Wilson telling Rabbi Stephen Wise he “needed Brandeis everywhere.”  Brandeis is today touted as the very “architect of the New Freedom”, Wilson’s 1912 Progressive platform. We argue when Brandeis travelled to meet the president he had already formulated his progressive plan and knew exactly what he was doing. From that initial, introductory meeting at Sea Girt, Wilson leaned heavily on the expertise of Brandeis – “who’s opinions on economic questions he respected above all others”. (7)

“Because Brandeis understood the problem thoroughly, because he was ready with a definite plan for the bridling of monopoly, he became the chief architect of the New Freedom.” Pg. 110, Prophets of Regulation, Thomas K. McCraw.

ON AUGUST 28, 1912, Louis D. Brandeis, the nationally known Boston attorney, and Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic presidential nominee then serving as New Jersey governor, met secretly over lunch in Sea Girt, New Jersey, the coastal town where the governor summered.” (8)

“Louis D. Brandeis, the chief architect of the New Freedom” (9)

The centerpieces of this New Freedom were the creation of the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve Board. The Fed a centralized banking scheme independent of the government based on lending money at interest that has led to a collective debt so large and crippling as to render an entire nation paralyzed by a forever growing debt clock. The Federal Trade Commission, a regulatory institution that has since its benevolent inception expanded into a vast network of surveillance and monitoring well beyond its original publicly stated intentions. 

The many committees, commissions, and councils created by Brandeis during the Wilson administration’s first term representing the actual manifestation of Lippmann’s proposed “intelligence bureaus”, an essential part of Graham Wallas’ futuristic utopian Great Society or Sidney Webb’s scientifically governed, Industrial Democracy.  Through the founding first of these regulatory agencies led by Brandeis we see the very first glimpses into the administrative state. Lester Frank Ward’s, Welfare State.

“For Attorney General, Wilson first thought of Louis D. Brandeis, the chief architect of the New Freedom.” (10)

“Wilson had intended his Secretary of Commerce to be one of America’s staunchest Progressives, his advisor Louis D. Brandeis. Earliest mention of his name, however, incited considerable protest. Politicians, businessmen, and attorney’s denounced him as a radical – a reckless meddler.” (11)

 “The New Freedom called for a ‘new declaration of independence’.” (12)

“We all know Louis Brandeis is one of the most influential Justices on the Supreme Court. But fewer of you may know that he was also the person who conceived the Federal Trade Commission.” Julie Brill, Commissioner, United States Federal Trade Commission, Privacy: From the Woods to the Weeds, September 15, 2011, An Address before the International Association of Privacy Professionals. Brill served as Commissioner of the FTC from 2010 to 2016 and is now Chief Privacy Officer and Corporate Vice President for Global Privacy, Safety and Regulatory Affairs at Microsoft.

Brill fits the pattern of everyone else in this story, after graduating magna cum laude with a BA in economics from Ivy League (Princeton), she then goes back and forth between public duty as Commissioner of the FTC and Chief Privacy Officer at Microsoft. Here Brill exhibiting a conflict of interest through public-private partnerships made commonplace during Brandeis’ time.

“After Woodrow Wilson won the 1912 election, he asked Brandeis to recommend specifically how to solve the problem of the trusts. Brandeis conceived the Federal Trade Commission, which, at Brandeis’s urging, Congress empowered to investigate and prohibit
unfair methods of competition with a “broad and flexible mandate, wide-ranging powers, and the ability, at its best, to respond to the needs of changing times”. (13) 

“[T]he proper role of the government is to encourage not combination, but co-operation.”
— Louis D. Brandeis to Richard Crane, November 11, 1911; in 2 Letters of Louis Brandeis pg. 511,512.

“A SOLICITOR GENERAL once told the lawyer George Farnum that ‘when Mr. Brandeis writes an opinion dealing with a question of federal practice, the law is settled for fifty years to come’. While this may be somewhat exaggerated, Brandeis did have a great impact not only on jurisdictional matters but on commercial law, antitrust, administrative law, utility regulation, federalism, and individual liberties”. (14)

“the Federal Trade Commission is the brainchild of Louis D. Brandeis” pg. 1, Privacy: From the Woods to the Weeds, FTC Commissioner, Julie Brill

“When the FTC opened its doors in March 1915, it had become the surprising centerpiece of Wilson’s antitrust program. During the 1912 campaign, Theodore Roosevelt had been the advocate for a strong commission; Roosevelt, who launched a short-lived Progressive Party, would even have allowed an agency to set prices. Wilson was skeptical of a Commission in 1912, and remained skeptical when he launched his antitrust initiative in January 1914; he proposed a purely investigatory body. But when the initiative bogged down, he was persuaded by Louis Brandeis and George Rublee, a friend to Brandeis and a former Roosevelt adviser, to embrace part of the Progressive program: Section 5’s administratively enforced prohibition of ‘unfair methods of competition.’” (15)

As a presidential advisor, Brandeis convinced the president, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the American people to accept radical new approaches to everything from labor legislation and trade unionism to life insurance and public utility, from trust-busting and women’s suffrage to conservation. Brandeis introducing to America new terms like scientific management, regulated competition, industrial relations, standard cost accounting, trade agreement monitoring, resale price maintenance, interlocking directorates, and so on. Brandeis more than anyone else is responsible for placing the first, foundational building blocks of our modern surveillance state through his introduction of a vast network of regulatory agencies.

As an attorney, Brandeis established a radical new method of arguing law and once confirmed Justice, transferred this method to the Supreme Court – making even our Supreme Court Justices social activists. He opened the door to an entirely new interpretation of US law through sociological jurisprudence and, as a concerned Jewish-American, Brandeis almost unfathomably, rises through the rank and file to lead American Zionism to their ultimate goal of gaining a homeland in Palestine. Brandeis crucial in persuading the Christian Evangelical movement, now numbering over one hundred million, to offer its support for a new Zion by befriending key founders of Dispensationalism and the Christian fundamental movement.

Brandeis and the famous ‘trust busting’ investigations initiated on August 27, 1912 helped further establish Brandeis’ reputation as the peoples attorney and allowed him to expand on his idea of regulatory competition, something most assuredly discussed at Sea Girt that same day. In fact the date significant here in that Brandeis meets Wilson for the first time on the very same day the Commission on Industrial Relations (Walsh Commission) began its investigation into industrial working conditions. This really the opportunity to initiate federally a method bringing together the employer and the employee through the creation of industrial relations and scientific management, a perfecting of the manufacturing processes that organized labor stood for obvious reasons solidly in opposition of.  In the end the investigation did little to curb monopolization yet set in place a framework for labor still dominant in our world today.

As a mediator in the creation of labor law Brandeis combined scientific management with industrial relations in bringing together employee and employer, Brandeis surrounding himself with key members of the Taylor Society in directing the nascent moments of our modern day Industrial Democracy. Brandeis here displaying a pattern we see repeated in each of the stories to follow, by gaining influence over and then becoming the guiding hand to a newly discovered technology and the small but very influential group of men that created it, Brandeis radically altered the old traditional definitions of American life in ways we are only now coming to terms with. 

“Louis Brandeis conceptualized regulated competition and introduced it into public debate. Political entrepreneurs in Congress enacted many of Brandeis’s proposals into law.” (16)

“Brandeis formulated a blueprint for a federal trade commission from his experience with railroad regulation.” (17)

“When Woodrow Wilson (as Theodore Roosevelt had done) was looking to promote his agenda, on the counsel of Brandeis he opted for commissions. Commissions had the power and the merit of regulating industry and avoiding the need for direct legislative intervention.” (18)

“Brandeis decomposed scientific management and nineteenth-century common law, and recombined their parts in a syncretic blueprint for a federal trade commission.” Pg. 20, Brandeis and the Making of Regulated Competition

“Insofar as the career of a single person illustrates both the problems that led to the FTC’s creation and the reasons for its subsequent failure, that person is Louis D. Brandeis. The most influential critic of trusts during his generation, Brandeis served from 1912 until 1916 as Woodrow Wilson’s chief economic adviser and was regarded as one of the architects of the FTC.” Pg. 81, 82, Prophets of Regulation.


1. Brandeis on the Elbe. The surname Brandeis most likely is derived from this area of Europe.\
2. pg. 28, Arthur S Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era.

3. His uncle Lewis Naphtali Dembitz was an early Zionist and involved in the 1960 Republican National Convention that elected Abraham Lincoln; see also,

4. Jay Michaelson Heretic of the Month; Sarna the Director, Schusterman Center for Israel Studies. He is also University Professor, Joseph H. and Belle R. Braun Professor of American Jewish History, and has many impressive degrees: PhD Yale, MPhil Yale, MA Yale, MA Brandeis, BA Brandeis BHL Hebrew College; see also

5. The Brandeis Confirmation a Century Later, Oxford University Press. Paul Finkelman and Lance J. Sussman.

6. pg. 239 Wilson, A. Scott Berg. Andrew Scott Berg an internationally known, New York Times bestselling author whos other works include Lindbergh (1998), a biography of Charles Lindbergh and Making Love. Steven Spielberg purchased the movie rights before the book was published. A Scott Berg a Princeton graduate. Guggenheim Fellowship 1982. Member of the Triangle Club.

7. pg. 48, Arthur S. Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era.

8. pg. 22-44, Jewish Justices of the Supreme Court: From Brandeis to Kagan, Brandeis University Press; see also, LOUIS D. BRANDEIS “People’s Attorney,” Presidential Adviser, and Zionist.

9. pg. 28, Arthur S. Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era.

10. pg. 28, Arthur S. Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era.

11. Pg. 264, Wilson, A. Scott Berg.  

12. pg. 150 The Fabian Freeway, Rose L. Martin.

13. Brandeis to Charles Richard Crane, Nov. 11, 1911, in 2 Letters of Louis Brandeis, 511, 512 (Melvin I. Urofsky & David W. Levy eds.) [hereinafter LBL]; see also, pg. 4, The Origins of the FTC: Concentration, Cooperation, Control, and Competition, Marc Winerman. Winerman a former attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission. The views expressed herein are the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission or any Commissioner.

14. pg. 610, Alpheus Thomas Mason, Louis D Brandeis: A Life.

15. pg. 873, 874, Antitrust Law Journal, Volume 71, No. 1 (2003), pp. 1-97, The FTC at Ninety: History Through Headlines, Marc Winerman.

16. Introduction, Louis Brandeis and the Making of Regulated Competition, 1900-1932, Gerald Berk, professor of political science University of Oregon.

17. pg. 68, Louis Brandeis and the Making of Regulated Competition.

18. The Origin and Development of the Interstate Commerce Commission, David Zucker Master of Liberal Arts thesis, Harvard University.