William Eugene Blackstone,

James Hall Brookes 

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.

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.

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 its classic definition, although the main adherents are still widely shared among them including: 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. The Kingdom of Heaven sounding very much like the mid 1800’s vision promised by Henri de Saint-Simon and the utopian socialists, and almost verbatim to Marx’s own theory of the withering away of the capitalist State. An ominous continuity then from Marx and Simon to the early 1900’s ethical socialist movement where we see a natural coming together of the American Progressives, Fabian socialists and the Christian Social Gospel movement. 

William Eugene 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 and Jews held in the United States.

In 1891 Blackstone famously published the Blackstone Memorial Petition in response to what he had apparently 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 in 1916, by Zionist leader Louis Brandeis nearly thirty years later, and presented to US president Woodrow Wilson. This time it gained the necessary traction.

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

Blackstone had sent letters to Wilson as early as November 4^th 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 5^th, 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. 

Brandeis had Blackstone address the Zionist General Congress in Philadelphia (July 2nd – 5^th, 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)

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.

Samuel Zane Batten

“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.” Emphasis added. Pg. 109 Rise of Social Gospel Within the American Protestantism.

Thomas Nixon Carver studying under Progressive father Richard T. Ely and John Bates Clark at Johns Hopkins. Making him the next wave of disciples 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.

“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.

As stated earlier, 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 a generation later. 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.”

A rich collection of communication exists in those archives between Paul and Felix Frankfurter, Tom Corcoran, 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 progressive work started under Woodrow Wilson.

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.

Jacob DeHaas

In August of 1914, Brandeis was elected chairman of the Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs (worldwide Zionism), and attends the first meeting of the American Jewish Congress. In March of 1915, Brandeis, along with Stephen Wise and Julian Mack would establish the Jewish Congress Organization Committee. On April 25, 1915 Brandeis addresses the Eastern Council of Reform Rabbi’s, The Jewish Problem and How to Solve It. In January of 1916, four days before his nomination to the supreme court, he speaks at Carnegie Hall in New York, Jewish Rights and the Congress. On April 23 he meets with Arthur Balfour to discuss British mandate in Palestine, and in 1917, two months after America enters the World War I, Brandeis is elected honourary chairman of the National Executive Committee of the AJC.

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 brought 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 Weizmann’s 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”. (emphasis added)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)

“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 itself, 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.

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.

Below is Felix Frankfurter’s alleged written account of the draft meeting that became Israel’s founding document.  From pages 1276-1278, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939. Brandeis and Balfour, Eustace Percy and Felix Frankfurter are the only four in attendance. 

The three essential conditions set out by ‘the Justice’ show the same disregard then as we see today for the “existing, non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.  Brandeis’ first essential condition was that Palestine be the Jewish homeland and not just a Jewish homeland. He also claimed the need for “economic elbow room” to help establish a “healthy social life” and “not merely a small garden.” That meant “control of the waters” to the North and all territory east to the Hedjaz rail line. His third essential condition was “that the future Jewish Palestine must have control of the land and natural resources which are at the heart of a sound economic life. And Mr. Balfour expressed entire agreement with the three conditions which the Justice laid down.” Balfour stating, “We are dealing not with the wishes of an existing community but are consciously seeking to re-constitute a new community and definitely building for a numerical majority in the future.” 

Balfour listens with much respect, giving the Justice reassurances that he wouldn’t screw it up while Brandeis continued on his European trip to Palestine.

“he [Balfour] understood Justice Brandeis’ request that no decision be taken as to the boundaries and the extent of control over the land in any way counter to his views until his return in about four or five weeks.”

Brandeis, perhaps because of his standing as a most trusted personal advisor to the US president, or perhaps because he was the leader of international Zionism at the time, or maybe because he was a supreme court justice, or maybe because Brandeis was an agent of the House of Rothschild, Balfour was subservient. At least that is how Frankfurter would have us believe.

*Note, Percy and Frankfurter residents of the House of Truth and Brandeis it’s most honoured guest make up three of the four in the room when Israel was founded.

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 ‘cultural pluralism’, or ‘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, 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.

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 dual loyalty on a boat trip from Boston to New York 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 planet around which everyone else orbited. Brandeis, according to Frankfurter was, “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 FAZ/ZOA, the AJC and the Provisional Executive Committee on General Zionist Affairs, among others, to gather massive support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, all while being the most trusted advisor to a US president 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 who Brandeis called, ‘father of Zionism’, William Eugene Blackstone and Brandeis’ son-in-law, the father of the Social Gospel, Walter Rauschenbusch.

Footnotes:

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; see also, Justice Brandeis and Civic Duty In a Pluralistic State, Joel K. Goldstein, Symposium: Justice Brandeis, An Interdisciplinary Retrospective, pg. 112, Tauro Law, Volume 33, Number 1. https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2800&context=lawreview

3. pg. 443, Brandeis: A Free Mans Life.

4. New York Public Library Archives and Manuscripts, Palestine Economic Corporation records 1921-1944, https://archives.nypl.org/mss/2326#:~:text=The%20records%20of%20the%20Palestine,and%20resettlement%20of%20Jewish%20Palestine; see also https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/american-jewish-joint-distribution-committee-and-refugee-aid

5. New York Public Library Archives and Manuscripts, Palestine Economic Corporation records 1921-1944, https://archives.nypl.org/mss/2326#:~:text=The%20records%20of%20the%20Palestine,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:

“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)

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 manufacture 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 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)

“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.

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, Taylorism.” (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.

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.

Footnotes:

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, https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/goldmark-josephine-clara
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.

Louis D. Brandeis

Yaakov Franck

Eva Franck

As we at bulletproofpub.com and The History of Propaganda began our investigation into the life of Louis Dembitz Brandeis, we quickly witnessed emerging from the pages a figure of monumental historical importance, an importance certainly undeserving of his present-day place in near complete dark obscurity.  Herein we submit our report on ‘the peoples attorney’, and ask first of all, how someone with such a radical, degenerate background could even be considered for the Supreme Court – a position presumed to be held only by those men with impeccable moral and ethical standards. 

In respect to both the Brandeis family and you the reader, we at bulletproopub.com 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, close friends and his 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 Brandeis’ personal papers, and as a result, we have catalogued a near library of related material in an effort to gain greater context of both the man and the times in which he lived. 

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, Brandeis’ reputation still stands strong 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 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. 

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.

“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 savings bank life insurance, from antitrust laws to surveillance, from women’s suffrage to conservation, from espionage and privacy law to taxation, Brandeis introducing to America new terms like scientific management, collective bargaining, 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 bureaucratic agencies.

As an attorney, Brandeis established a radical new method of arguing law and, once confirmed, Justice Brandeis 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.

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 in solidarity against. 

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.

Footnotes:

1. Brandeis on the Elbe. The surname Brandeis most likely is derived from this area of Europe. https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/brandys-nad-labem\
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, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Naphtali_Dembitz.

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 https://www.brandeis.edu/near-eastern-judaic/people/faculty/sarna.html

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.