English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

unions smacked of fascism and would allow the American Federation of Labor to become a pawn of monopoly capitalists and government in further subjugating labor and reducing living standards of workers. Baldwin, sympathetic to minority unions battling the American Federation of Labor and to the goals but not the policies of the Bolshevic Revolution, believed that labor unions could achieve strength and a position of influence without government assistance of any kind and that the Roosevelt administration was "frankly an ally of business." Daniel devotes only one chapter of this brief book to the ACLU and the Wagner Act. His first 90 pages examine the ACLU's response, orchestrated by Baldwin, to other New Deal labor programs. To be sure, there was opposition from some board members and others to Baldwin, who nevertheless was able to ensure that his views became those of the organization. But in 1935, with the approval by Congress of the National Labor Relations Act, the situation changed. First, the Communist party line shifted from hostility to the New Deal to a move to embrace it as part of a popular front against facism. Second, there was a liberal revolt that forced the ACLU and Baldwin to moderate their previous hostility and, belatedly, to endorse the Wagner Act. Daniel relates this inquiry into what he calls "the depression-era crisis of American liberalism" in a straightforward, concise manner. His research is based chiefly on ACLU files and contemporary articles. His focus is clear and consistent. He discusses the crisis on the ACLU board that led to the removal of Communists only insofar as it impinged on the theme he examines. Baldwin by 1939, following the NaziSoviet pact, finally shifted his views and joined with liberals on the ACLU board in opposing totalitarianism and seeking the removal of Communist board members. But nowhere does Daniel discuss the marked shift in civil liberties that occurred with the creation of the National Labor Relations Board, namely, that for the first ime in American history, instead of being a threat to civil liberties, government became their guarantor in the field of labor relations. Richard Lowitt Chairman Department of History Iowa State University

TUC: The Growth of a Pressure Group 1868-1976, by Ross M. Martin, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1980, 394 pp.