On a mountainside in South Dakota, the gifted, yet temperamental
artist and sculptor Gutzon Borglum created the massive presidential monuments of Mount Rushmore. In sculpting the carvings of
Presidents George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and Theodore Roosevelt, Borglum had not only to grapple with
the harsh Dakota environment but also to weather artistic and financial controversies with his sponsors in South Dakota and Congress. Borglum met the rigors of the task and forever linked his name
with the state and the Shrine to Democracy. Yet, Mount Rushmore
was by no means Borglum's first or only involvement with the
Dakotas. In 1922, he played a key role in the political contests of
North Dakota, helping to advance the agrarian reform movement
that has become a hallmark of that state.
In the early 1920s, the multifarious Borglum was living on his estate
in Stamford, Connecticut, and working on war memorials for the
Italian government, but his interests ranged beyond the confines
of the artistic world and geographical boundaries of New England.
Borglum, who considered himself an anti-establishment artist, was
frequently embroiled in artistic and political disputes. A progressive
Republican, he had formed a favorable opinion of North Dakota
farmers supporting the candidacy of Robert LaFollette at the 1916
GOP convention. In 1918, he traveled to North Dakota and established himself as an eastern fund-raiser and promoter for the North
Copyright © 1990 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved.
Artist as Patron 121
Dakota Nonpartisan League. Supporting the 1922 senatorial candidacy of former Nonpartisan League governor Lynn J. Frazier, Borglum suddenly found himself in the conservative mold of the
"patron," which he had so often challenged in the artistic world.
In his History of North Dakota, Elw^n B. Robinson identified six
elements that influenced the historical development of that state:
"remoteness, dependence, economic disadvantage, agrarian radicalism, the 'Too-Much Mistake' {trying to do too much too fast with
too little), and adaptation to environment."' It was from this background that the "political prairie fire" of the Nonpartisan League
emerged to challenge the traditional Republican policies of North
Dakota and the upper Midwest. Borglum, who adhered to the progressive Theodore Roosevelt wing of the Republican party, sought
to contain this prairie fire within the party and work out some type
of accommodation between the league and the administration of
President Warren G. Harding that would result in a more reformminded GOP. Thus, serving as a financial patron for the Frazier challenge to Republican stalwart and incumbent Porter J. McCumber,
Borglum sought to infiuence the direction of the reform sparked
by the harsh realities of North Dakota's geographical location.
Borglum, however, would be no more successful in controlling
the flames of protest than many wealthy patrons of the arts had been
or would be in taming the fiery energies of the maverick sculptor.
Borglum, the artist who made sculptures out of mountains, could
not make over the Republican party of the 1920s. His many artistic
confrontations should have made him aware of the limitations of
the patron, but the sculptor seemed unprepared when Frazier, along
with other midwestern insurgents, bolted the Republican party in
1924 to support third-party presidential candidate Robert LaFollette.
The story of Borglum's 1922 attempt at political patronage begins
with the personalities of Borglum and his "client." To describe Borglum as temperamental is to understate the reality. Howard Shaff
and Audrey Karl Shaff, who have produced the best biography of
the sculptor thus far, used a quotation from Borglum's friend
Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter to best describe the artist.
For Borglum, Frankfurter said, "it was all clear, black and white, passionate, uncompromising." Remarking that Borglum was a "great
admirer" of Theodore Roosevelt, Frankfurter added: "Gutzon was
for war, for all sorts of war, six wars at a time. People weren't wrong;
they were crooked. People didn't disagree with him; they cheated
1. Elwyn B. Robinson, History of North Dakota (Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 1966), p. vii.
Copyright © 1990 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved.
122 South Dakota History
Cutzon Borglum, shown here working on Mount Rushmore, could sculpt mountains but
was less successful in his attempt to shape the Republican party of the 1920s.
Copyright © 1990 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved.
Artist as Patron 123
him."^ The combative Borglum was born 17 March 1867 in Bear Lake,
Idaho. His father, )ames Borglum, was a Danish immigrant and doctor who moved thefamiiy a great deal, finally settling in California.
Cutzon Borglum had a troubled childhood, running away from
home on several occasions. His youthful rebellion may have been
due to the fact that his father was Mormon and had practiced polygamy until harassment by the authorities led to the separation from
the family of Borglum's natural mother, Christina, when the sculptor
was only five years old.'
Growing up in California, Borglum became interested in art and
displayed considerable talent for which he was able to find patrons
in Jessie Benton Fremont and Lisa Putnam. Although she was almost
twenty years his senior, Borglum married Putnam in 1889. The following year, Borglum and his wife moved to Europe, where he would
achieve considerable fame as an artist until, with his marriage deteriorating, he returned permanently to the United States in 1901.
Establishing a studio in New York City, Borglum proceeded to earn
a considerable reputation in his native land through such works as
the Mares of Diomedes, Sheridan Monument, Abraham Lincoln (for
the Capitol in Washington), and Seated Lincoln (for Newark, New
Jersey). The artist's private life also moved in a positive direction
with his 1909 marriage to Mary Williams Montgomery. The couple
purchased an estate, called Borgland, in Stamford, Connecticut, and
began to raise a family. While Borglum had established an international reputation for his work, he also became controversial as a
result of such issues as the sex of the angels he created for the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine in New York and, later, the aborted
Confederate monument at Stone Mountain, Georgia.*
Ever seeking the center of the storm, the adult Borglum soon
found himself involved in politics, stating, "No individual's life is
worth the immortality he seeks unless he articulates the voice of
2. Felix Frankfurter Reminisces: Recorded in Talks with Dr. Harlan B. Phillips {New
York: Reynal, 1%0), p. 55, quoted in Howard Shaff and Audrey Karl Shaff, Six Wars
at a Time: The Life and Times of Gutzon Borglum, Sculptor of Mount Rushmore (Sioux
Falls, S.Dak.: Genter for Western Studies, Augustana College, 1985), p. 88.
3. Shaff and Shaff, Six Wars at a Time," pp. 17-19.
4. For background information on Borglum, see Shaff and Shaff, Six Wars ai a Time;
Robert |. Casey and Mary Borglum, Give the Man Room: The Story of Gutzon Borglum
(New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1952); Mervyn Davies, The Man Who Stood Alone
(Chester, Conn.: Pequot Press, 1974); Willadene Price, Gutzon Borglum: The Man Who
Carved a Mountain (McClean, Va.: EMP Publications, Hawthorn Books, 1974); and june
Gulp Zeitner and Lincoln Borglum, Borglum's Unfinished Dream: Mount Rushmore
(Aberdeen, S.Dak.: North Plains Press, 1976).
Copyright © 1990 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved.
124 South Dakota History
his tribe."^ A close friend of Theodore Roosevelt, Borglum supported
the Rough Rider when he bolted the Republican party in 1912, forming the Progressive, or Bull Moose, party to challenge President William Howard Taft. Within two years, Borglum had second thoughts
about leaving the party because the desertion had led to the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Thus, in 1914, Borglum advised
Connecticut Progressives not to run a separate slate of candidates,
and in 1916 he was on the floor of the Republican convention again
working for Roosevelt. In 1920, the progressive Borglum was ill at
ease with the normalcy of Warren G. Harding, but he stayed within
the GOP."
By now, the artist had found a new political force upon which
to bestow his enthusiasm, the Nonpartisan League of North Dakota.
The league was formed in 1916 when North Dakota farmers sought
to gain some control over the marketing of their wheat crop. The
essential problem for North Dakota farmers was the fact that no
terminal markets existed within the state. Consequently, North
Dakota agriculturalists were forced to sell to the Minneapolis grain
exchange, which was controlled by a group called the Minneapolis
Chamber of Commerce, an association of big grain traders, terminal
elevators, and commission houses. Farmers insisted that they had
numerous grievances against the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, with the dockage system being a frequent target for complaints. Elevators docked all farmers a fixed amount of weight per
bushel for impurities, but these same impurities were later screened
out and the valuable parts sold as livestock feed, for which the farmers received nothing. Minneapolis elevators graded North Dakota
wheat low, and then sold that same wheat at a higher grade. Moreover, elevator suction fans, which removed dirt from the grain before
weighing, succeeded as well in removing some grain. Thus, the
records of the Minnesota State Railroad Commission show that one
grain elevator shipped out fifty-one thousand more bushels of grain
than it officially took in."'
5. Quoted in Casey and Borglum, Give the Man Room. p. 105.
6. Shaff and Shaff, Six Wars ai a Time, pp. 153-58,184-85, and Casey and Borglum,
Give the Man Room, pp. 109-25.
7. Robert L. Morían, Political Prairie Fire: The Nonpartisan League, 1915-1922 {Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1955), pp. 6-17; Melvin D. Hildreth, "The
Farmers Capture North Dakota," World's Work 32 (Oct. 1916): 687. The Nonpartisan
League has been the subject of considerable contemporary and scholarly debate.
For additional information on the league, see Patrick K. Coleman and Charles R. Lamb,
comps.. The Nonpartisan League, 1915-22: An Annotated Bibliography (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1985); Edward C. Blackorby, Prairie Rebel: The Public
Life of William Lemke (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1963); Larry Remele,
"Power to the People: The Nonpartisan League," in The North Dakota Political TradiCopyright © 1990 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved.
Artist as Patron 125
The frustration of North Dakota farmers had not been alleviated
when Progressives gained control of the state government in 1906
under Governor John Burke. The Burke administration failed to confront agricultural and financial problems, concentrating instead on
such Progressive panaceas as placing hotnest men in office and ending machine control of the government. Accordingly, in his study
of North Dakota Progressivism, Charles N. Glaab has concluded that
the conservative forces of the state, led by railroad magnate Alexander McKenzie, were able to retain economic power by conceding
to the political and social demands of Progressivism.»
Following the failure of the North Dakota Society of Equity to obtain a state-owned elevator from the 1915 session of the state legislature, Arthur C. Townley, a former socialist and disappointed flax
farmer, began to organize the Nonpartisan League. While also appealing to organized labor, league spokesmen urged farmers, who
constituted a majority of the state's population, to assert control
over their own affairs by electing farmers to state offices. The league
proposed to exert its influence through the direct primaries of the
major parties. League-endorsed candidates would run in the two
major party primaries and, if victorious in the primary, could then
count on the support of both league members and traditional party voters in the general election. In North Dakota, where Republicans outnumbered Democrats by a margin of about two to one, the
league would obviously be most active in the Republican primaries.
While many critics claimed the league was undermining the traditions of the GOP, historian Robert Morían asserted, "It was one of
the most striking attempts to use the primary to make an existing
party express the will of the majority of the party voters, however
that will might deviate from past practice, and to secure the benefits
arising from voter habit and tradition as well.""
Beginning with the elections of 1916, the league enjoyed considerable success at the polls, dominating the state legislature as well
tion. ed. Thomas W. Howard (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1981), pp. 66-92;
Remele, "The Immaculate Conception at Deering," North Dakota History 47, no. 1
(Winter 1980): 28-31; Theodore Saloulos, "The Rise of the Nonpartisan League in North
Dakota, 1915-1917," Agricultural History 20 (Jan. 19461: 43-61; Charles Edward Russell,
The Story of the Nonpartisan League: A Chapter in American Evolution (New York:
Harper & Bros., 1920); Herbert E. Gaston, The Nonpartisan League (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Howe, 1920); and Andrew A. Bruce, Non-Partisan League (New York:
MacMillan Co., 1921).
8. Charles N. Glaab, "The Failure ot North Dakota Progressivism," Mid-America
39 (Oct. 1957): 200, 205.
9. Morían, Political Prairie Fire, pp. 358-59. For more on the league's political strategy,
see ibid., pp. 31-34; Saloutos, "Rise of the Nonpartisan League," pp. 49-51; and Remele,
"Immaculate Conception at Deering," pp. 28-31.
Copyright © 1990 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved.
726 South Dakota History
as the governorship in the person of Lynn J. Frazier. By 1919, the major portions of the league program for North Dakota were in place.
The core project was the creation of state-owned mills and elevators
to be managed by the Industrial Commission, consisting of the
governor, attorney general, and secretary of agriculture and labor.
A state bank was established to aid these projects and to extend
credit to farmers. The state government also engaged in the construction of homes, while other legislation of benefit to farmers included the exemption of farm improvements from taxation and the
introduction of a compulsory state hail-insurance system.'"
However, in 1921, league opponents, organized as the Independent Voters Association (IVA), forced a recall election for the Industrial
Commission. Charges of financial mismanagement were leveled
against the commission, alleging that the state had lost $1.5 million
under the league regime and that Attorney General William Lemke
had received home-construction loans exceeding state limitations.
What league critics failed to point out was that many of the state's
financial institutions had boycotted the purchase of the bonds
necessary to finance the league program. In 1921, the farmers of
North Dakota were also beginning to feel the effects of the postwar
depression in agriculture as wheat declined from a selling price of
$2.41 a bushel in 1919 to $0.85 a bushel in December 1921." The
results of the 1921 recall election, therefore, were rather ironic. The
more conservative Republican Ragnvold A. Nestos forced Frazier
out of the governor's office, but six initiated measures put forward
by league opponents to destroy the development of state enterprises
begun under the Frazier administration were all defeated at the
polls. North Dakota historian Lewis Crawford concluded: "The result
was that the people put a new set of officials in charge of the industrial program, while at the same time they continued the mandate that this industrial program should be carried out. Thus
10. Robinson, History of North Dakota, pp. 342-43; Morían, Political Prairie Fire, pp.
229-30.
11. William C. Gregg, "The Political Storm in North Dakota," Outlook 129 (12 Oct.
1921): 220-23; Oliver S. Morris, "The Vote oí the North Dakota Farmers," Nation 113
(9 Nov. 1921): 535-36; "North Dakota Wins Her Fight," Nation 113 (19 Oct. 1921): 438;
and "North Dakota's 'Recall' Puzzle," Literary Digest 71 (19 Nov. 1921): 10; Robinson,
History of North Dakota, pp. 343-50; U.S., Department of Agriculture, Yearbook, 1922
(Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 1923), p. 595. League opponents
formed the IVA in 1916, selling ten-dollar memberships just as the league did. With
the intent of defeating the league's program, the IVA published its own newspaper,
provided speakers and publicity, and found its chief strength in the towns and cities
of North Dakota. For more information, see D. Jerome Tweton, "The Anti-League Movement: The IVA," in North Dakota Political Tradition, ed. Howard, pp. 93-122.
Copyright © 1990 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved.
Artist as Patron 127
Covernor Nestos was assigned the difficult task of administering
a program which his party had aimed to curtail."'^
The mixed results of the recall campaign and the persistence of
the agricultural depression left the Nonpartisan League spoiling for
a fight in 1922 when deposed governor Frazier sought to unseat
United States Senate incumbent Porter J. McCumber. It was this 1922
Senate campaign that captured the attention of Gutzon Borglum.
Viewing agriculture as the foundation of the American economy and
perceiving himself as a champion of the oppressed, Borglum had
campaigned and raised money for the league since its inception
in 1916. Perhaps reflecting his own ambiguities regarding the role
of artistic patrons, Borglum also shared with many league members
a distrust of eastern financial institutions.'^ In 1922, however, Borglum did not assume the pose of the outsider raving against the
injustices of the system (a stance he often occupied in the world
of art). Instead, the artist assumed the role of the patron who would
seek to influence and tame the passion of North Dakota radicalism.
Borglum's experience in bolting the Republican party in 1912 and
his more recent dealings with candidate Harding in the 1920 election governed his attitude toward the 1922 election. The artist believed that Roosevelt's third-party candidacy had been a mistake and
had weakened the cause of Progressivism within the GOP. The best
way to further the cause of reform, Borglum reasoned, would be
to purge the Republican party of reactionaries and restore it to the
principles of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. With this
strategy in mind, throughout the spring and summer of 1920 Borglum wrote to presidential candidate Warren G. Harding and Republican party national chairman Will Hays, proposing that the
national party organization give support to Nonpartisan League candidates campaigning under the banner of the GOP. By including
12. Lewis F. Crawford, History of North Dakota. 3 vols. (Chicago: American Historical
Association, 1931), 1:447.
13. Many scholars have noted that agrarian protest movements had their dark side,
in which the rhetoric against banking practices crossed ihe boundary into antiSemitism. Borglum was certainly no stranger to this side of agrarian discontent, for
he professed anti-Semitic beliefs and viewed Ihe Ku Klux Klan a.ç a legitimate voice
for agrarian interests in America. Borglum's anti-Semitism and flirtations with the
Klan are explored in Shaff and Shaff, Six Wars at a Time, pp. 103-9, 145-51. For the
connection between agrarian discontent and nativism or anti-Semitism, see Victor
C. Ferkiss, "Populist Influences on American Fascism," Western Political Quarterly
10 (June 1957): 350-73; Richard Hofstadler, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F. D. R.
(NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955), pp. 77-81; and Dale Baum, "The New Day in North
Dakota: The Nonpartisan League and the Politics of Negative Revolution," North Dakota
History 40, no. 2 (Spring 1973): 5-18.
Copyright © 1990 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved.
128 South Dakota History
the league within its ranks, the Republican party would be moved
in a more Progressive direction. Apparently, both Borglum and
William Lemke, a key advisor to Townley and chairman of the North
Dakota Republican party, thought something could come from such
negotiations.'^ Harding also believed that accommodation with the
North Dakota insurgents was worth pursuing. After speaking with
Borglum, Harding wrote Hays that Republicans should "seek the
aspirations of the Non-Partisan League groups, and the affiliated agricultural world." The Ohio senator insisted that such efforts should
be "done sincerely" and that Governor Frazier of "South Dakota"
be included in the consultations.'^ Harding had his Dakotas confused, and nothing really came from these overtures. The national
party failed to endorse league candidates, but, nevertheless, the Re14. Shaff and Shaff, Six Wars at a Time. pp. 184-86.
15. Warren C. Harding to Will Hays, 26 May 1920, Culzon Borglum Papers, Library
of Congress, Washington, D.C.
Uke Borglum, North Dakota Republican party
chair William Lemke
believed that national
GOP support for Nonpartisan League candidates could move the
party toward Progressivism.
Copyright © 1990 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved.
Artist as Patron 129
publican landslide of 1920 had the ironic impact of keeping Governor Frazier and other league candidates in the Republican column.'*
Following the disappointment of the 1920 campaign, Borglum approached the election of 1922 a bit more warily. Yet he continued
to seek a role for agrarian insurgency within the party of Lincoln,
persisting in his efforts despite the fact that many traditional
Republicans agreed with former President William Howard Taft who,
before being appointed chief justice in 1921, had labeled the Nonpartisan League as "socialist, unpatriotic, anti-American, despotic,
and dishonest in Its methods."'^ Taft endorsed the IVA, the league's
North Dakota opposition, and encouraged a fusion of Democrats
and loyal Republicans to defeat league candidates and policies. In
effect, Taft denied the Nonpartisan League any position within the
GOP.'" However, Borglum the artist and the political patron was stubborn, and he sought a rejuvenated Republican party through league
involvement despite evidence that it was not going to happen.
After the death of his brother and fellow artist Solon Borglum on
30 January 1922, Borglum took little interest in politics during the
early months of the year. But by 1 March, friend and attorney Joseph
Coghlan of Bismarck was asking Borglum to become more involved
in North Dakota affairs. After expressing his condolences regarding
Solon, Coghlan updated Borglum on the political situation, insisting
that incumbent Porter J. McCumber "is bound to be defeated this
year and has no possible chance of getting back to the United States
Senate." While expressing some misgivings about Townley's proposal that the league resort to a "balance of power" voting bloc
and not endorse candidates in the primaries, Coghlan said he believed the league would run a full slate of state officers, as well as
former governor Lynn Frazier for the Senate. Coghlan concluded
by voicing his support for Borglum, asserting, "The progressive people of North Dakota certainly appreciate all you have done in the
past, and I think will always be glad to have you come out and help
in the fight."'**
In response to Coghlan, Borglum agreed that he also had reservations regarding Townley's balance of power, but he still had the
utmost respect for Townley, and, he added, "I have had some pretty
bitter fights in Washington with no less a person than the President
16. Blackorby, Prairie Rebel, pp. 113-14.
17. Quoted in James F. Vivian, " 'Not a Patriotic American Party': William Howard
Taft's Campaign against the Nonpartisan League, 1920-1921," North Dakota History
50, no. 4 (Fall 1983): 5.
18. Ibid., pp. 4-10.
19. Joseph Coghian to Borglum, 1 Mar. 1922, Borglum Papers.
Copyright © 1990 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved.
730 South Dakota History
himself over my support of Mr. Townley." However, Borglum was not
quite prepared to endorse Frazier for the North Dakota Senate seat.
Instead, he once again sought to play the role of the patron who
would bring the league and Republicans together. Thus, Borglum
informed Coghlan that the league should not oppose McCumber's
reelection, "provided the Republican party recognizes the Nonpartisan League which has control of the Republican machinery of
the State of North Dakota, recognizes them as the independent
Republicans of North Dakota, supports them in the campaign and
helps them recover the State.''^"
In pursuit of this idea, on 15 March Borglum telegraphed McCumber proposing an alliance with the league. McCumber's reply was
noncommittal, stating: "As I have tried at all times to do everything
in my power, so far as national politics could benefit the farmer,
to stand steadfastly for his interest, I would naturally hope that I
might have the support in the future as I have had it in the past
of the farmer element of the State. But of course I must accept
whatever these factions see fit to do."^' Borglum, angered by
McCumber's rebuff, which apparently reminded him of Harding's
attitude in 1920, made it clear that he could no longer support the
senator. Borglum advised McCumber that he had long struggled
with stemming revolts within Republican ranks and had souglit to
reform the party by liberalizing it and helping it keep up with the
times. However, Borglum said, he now despaired of these efforts.
He believed McCumber sympathized with many of the goals sought
by the farmers of North Dakota but lacked the political courage to
openly state his views. Borglum concluded, "I regret to have to state
that I shall never again advocate the support of any party or individual that does not openly and honestly publicly declare itself
or himself to the immediate public advocacy of specific laws and
procedures."^^
Having written off McCumber, Borglum fired off a telegram to the
Nonpartisan League convention in Fargo, arguing that the league
20. Borglum to Coghlan, 11 Mar. 1922, Borglum Papers.
21. McCumber to Borglum, 16 Mar. 1922, Borglum Papers. McCumber had previously
benefited from league actions without having to take a stand. In 1916, the league
had not campaigned against McCumber because they were only contesting state
offices that year. William Lemke, a key league planner, was also state chairman of
the Republican party and supported McCumber in his capacity as chairman As a
result, many league members apparently viewed McCumber as a league-endorsed
candidate. The 1916 senatorial campaign is analyzed in Blackorby, Prairie Rebel, pp.
52-53.
22. Borglum to McCumber, 21 Mar. 1922, Borglum F^pers.
Copyright © 1990 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved.
Artist as Patron 131
should reject Townley's balance of power plan and present a full
slate of candidates for the primary, or North Dakota's struggle against
corrupt politicians would go by the wayside." Borglum's desires were
met when on 25 March the convention endorsed a full ticket of candidates, including Frazier for the Senate. Townley acknowledged that
Arthur C. Townley headed the Nonpartisan
League, which championed the cause of farmers and received the
support of Borglum.
Borglum's telegram was a factor in his decision not to insist on the
balance of power plan, as he did not want "to risk being misunderstood by the progressive people of the country." He also stated that
23. Borglum lo F. W. Cathro, 20 Mar. 1922, Borglum Papers.
Copyright © 1990 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved.
732 South Dakota History
he would soon be traveling to the East to confer with Borglum and
seek his aid in the upcoming campaign.^* Borglum replied in a fighting mood, asserting that he had "practically broken with Harding"
and that the 1922 campaign would be "a fight to a finish." In his
role of patron, Borglum insisted that he was willing to meet with
Townley and help raise funds for the league, but he observed, in
a somewhat condescending manner, that the league must deal with
internal matters of dissension, organization, and record keeping
before outside assistance could be of much effect.^'^
With Townley resigning his official position in the league and temporarily leaving the state, former state attorney general William
Lemke was emerging as the dominant figure in league affairs and
joined the chorus calling for Borglum's assistance. Borglum indicated that he was willing to help with fund raising and organizing
a half dozen prominent speakers for the campaign, provided the
North Dakota forces would listen to their eastern patrons and benefactors. Thus, Borglum called for a complete auditing of league
finances and insisted on a willingness to accept help and a promise
not to engage in lone-wolf tactics.^'' Borglum, who was often resentful of patrons dictating to him regarding artistic choices and financial matters, could in turn be quite demanding of those whom he
perceived as his clients.
In compliance with Borglum's suggestions, F. W. Cathro of the
league's auditing committee wrote Borglum explaining that the
league was now unified but that immediate funds were necessary
from outside donors to continue publication of the league's CourierNews. He further observed that the League Exchange held more than
$299,000 in unpaid postdated checks, multiplying the organization's
financial difficulties. With the postwar deflation, farmers could not
pay these checks, at least not until the next crop.^^ Apparently, Borglum was reassured, for he soon threw himself into fund raising
for the league in the primaries, promising his North Dakota beneficiaries seven to eight thousand dollars, but hoping to solicit twelve
thousand. In his fund-raising efforts, Borglum portrayed North
Dakota farmers as the economic backbone of the country whose
interest had suffered at the hands of manufacturing concerns both
24. A. C. Townley to Borglum, 26 Mar. 1922, Borglum Papers. Some newspapers,
such as Ihe Grand Forks Herald and Mew York Times, viewed the "balance of power"
plan as a maneuver by Townley to endorse McCumber, but historians Blackorby and
Morían have found little evidence (or this assertion.
25. Borglum to Townley, 7 Apr. 1922, Borglum Papers.
26. Borglum to William Lemke, 7 Apr. 1922, Borglum Papers.
27. F. W. Cathro to Borglum, 15 Apr. 1922, Borglum Papers.
Copyright © 1990 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved.
Artist as Patron 133
during and after the war. It was time, Borglum argued, for the voice
of the agrarian West to be heard, and it was best heard if contained
within the Republican party. He sought to alleviate the fears of
wealthy donors, downplaying the radicalism of the Nonpartisan
League. "They are the Republican party in fact," he wrote to a potential patron, "and control the Republican machinery [of North
Dakota]; the powerful, virile, self-reliant and self-protective movement that should not be lost to the Republican party, hence my interest from the beginning."^"
Borglum, continuing to seek a reformed Republican party with
a strong Progressive wing, had formed the American Committee,
a fund-raising organization dedicated to restoring the Republican
party to the principles of Lincoln, which the artist believed the
policies of the Harding administration had undermined. To further
this cause, Borglum now requested that Senator William Borah of
Idaho go to North Dakota to campaign for Frazier and the league.
Borah was just the type of independent political model that Borglum
hoped to utilize in restructuring the Republicans. Borglum's rhetoric
intensified as he described the campaign to Borah. It was once again
the struggle of good versus evil for the soul of the Republican party.
Where he had once offered to make a deal with McCumber, Borglum now described the North Dakota senator as the personification of evil. He was a too! of the corrupt McKenzie machine and
a symbol of Harding's normalcy. McCumber, who had served in the
Senate since 1899, was in fact a powerful figure within the institution, serving as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and
sponsor of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff. Borglum, a combative individual who enjoyed nothing better than a good fight, informed
Borah, "I know in fighting McCumber what I'm fighting and I also
know that if we can defeat him, no single blow will complete the
present madness in tariff greed and [Attorney General Harry M.]
Daugherty insolence to so full a realization that an awakened nation is stalking them and that a full accounting must be made."^^
As Borglum's rhetoric and activities became more strident, so did
the campaign in North Dakota. McCumber realized that his national
reputation would count for little with the disgruntled farmers of
the state. Therefore, in his opening statement of the campaign,
McCumber sought to portray himself as an advocate of the farmers'
cause in Washington. He stated that he supported reduced railroad
28. Borglum to Edgar B. Davis, 20 May 1922, Borglum Papers.
29. Borglum to William Borah, 9 lune 1922, Borglum Papers. For information on
the American Committee, see the flyers on it in the Borglum Papers.
Copyright © 1990 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved.
134 South Dakota History
freight rates on agricultural products, reduced interest rates on farm
credits, a comprehensive system of cooperative marketing, and the
establishment of a protective tariff for agriculture as well as industry.^" Such prominent Republicans associated with agriculture as
farm-bloc senator Arthur Capper of Kansas lauded McCumber as
"one of the strongest and most influential representatives of the
farmer in Congress."" McCumber attempted to identify himself with
the farm bloc, which claimed credit for a number of measures enacted in the 1921-1922 congressional sessions, including the CapperVolstead Act to aid cooperative marketing, the Grain Futures Bill to
prevent speculation in grain futures, an amendment to include a
representative for agriculture on the Federal Reserve Board, increased protection for agriculture in the Fordney-McCumber Tariff,
the Packers and Stockyards Act to provide regulation under the Department of Agriculture, and an amendment to the War Finance Corporation Act to establish additional agricultural credits