James A. Farley

James A. Farley was a highly influential Democratic political adviser whose work connected Franklin D. Roosevelt’s national campaigns with local party organizations. In the book, he appears less through private portraiture than through political transactions: coordinating convention strategy, helping assess Senate votes, and becoming the subject of allegations involving the effort to shield Johnny Lazia from federal investigation. These episodes show how national party leadership and local political power could intersect, while also marking the limits of what the account establishes about Farley personally.

National Strategy and the 1932 Convention

Before the 1932 Democratic National Convention, Thomas J. Pendergast had already made a special trip to confer with Roosevelt in Albany. Farley, then a highly influential political adviser to Roosevelt, had also received a warm welcome from the Kansas City organization at a luncheon at the Muehlebach Hotel. Pendergast publicly announced support for former senator James Reed, but the account describes this as a pose rather than a reliable indication of his preferred outcome. His more consequential maneuver was to coordinate with Roosevelt’s supporters while maintaining that public show of allegiance to Reed.

At the convention in Chicago, Pendergast and the Jackson County delegation initially went through the motions of supporting Reed. Farley’s strategy, as the narrative describes it, was to have votes released to Roosevelt gradually, so the candidate’s total would build with each ballot rather than jump all at once. Pendergast allowed votes to move in this measured way, and the delegation ultimately returned home pleased with the result. The episode casts Farley as a planner of convention tactics and Pendergast as a local power broker able to execute a national strategy without immediately abandoning his public posture.

The account also records Pendergast’s later assessment of Farley’s political ability indirectly through their own dealings. Pendergast understood political situations and how to handle them exceptionally well; in the convention maneuver, that practical expertise met Farley’s plan for steadily accumulating support. The evidence establishes cooperation in this particular contest, not a general account of their private relationship or a claim that Farley controlled the Kansas City organization.

The Lazia Controversy

Farley’s connection to the Kansas City organization became more politically sensitive in 1933, when federal investigators began proceedings against Lazia for income-tax evasion. Pendergast promptly wrote to Farley, who had become Postmaster General and was part of Roosevelt’s inner circle, to emphasize Lazia’s importance to him and his concern for Lazia’s welfare. The letter demonstrates that Pendergast regarded Farley as a consequential national contact. It does not, by itself, establish that Farley intervened in the investigation or secured any result for Lazia.

The controversy grew when Senator Huey Long attacked Farley publicly in the Senate. Long accused Farley’s operations of corruption and inserted into the Congressional Record a newspaper account alleging that Pendergast had arranged with Farley to call off Internal Revenue investigations of Lazia. Long later characterized his intervention to Harry S. Truman as a small piece of politics intended to please his home audience. The book presents this as an accusation circulated by Long and supported by a published report, not as a finding that proves Farley personally arranged or carried out such an intervention.

The sequence nevertheless placed Farley at a politically charged junction: Pendergast’s concern for a lieutenant, Lazia’s federal tax case, and the national party network around Roosevelt. Pendergast’s letter confirms that he appealed to Farley about Lazia’s welfare; Long’s Senate attack transformed the alleged connection into a public political issue. Keeping those two kinds of evidence distinct is essential: the letter records Pendergast’s appeal, while the claim that an investigation was stopped remained an allegation in the material described.

Party Leadership in Philadelphia

Farley’s public role was especially visible at the 1936 Democratic convention in Philadelphia, where Roosevelt was renominated for a second term. Farley, by then chairman of the Democratic National Committee, was among the party leaders gathered around Pendergast on the convention floor. He posed with Pendergast and James A. Aylward as cameras recorded the scene. Pendergast had arrived from New York after returning from Europe, and the gathering placed him alongside national figures who had worked with Roosevelt and benefited from the political strength built during the New Deal years.

The image made the connection between national leadership and city-level party organizations visible. Farley was not simply present as an adviser behind the scenes: as national committee chairman, he appeared publicly with Pendergast at a major party convention. The narrative identifies this as Pendergast’s last major public appearance, giving the photograph an importance beyond the routine business of a political gathering. It captures a moment when the national party’s powerful organizers stood together, even as the period they represented was approaching change.

Senate Calculations and Political Reach

Farley also appears in the account of the 1937 contest to choose a Senate majority leader. A private poll he calculated indicated that Pat Harrison was positioned to win by a single vote. The White House then pressed for Alben Barkley, Roosevelt’s preferred candidate, and the effort involved political persuasion and offers of influence to senators. William H. Dieterich changed his position after Chicago political leader Edward J. Kelly promised him a say in the appointment of two federal judges.

The episode places Farley within the information and strategy surrounding the leadership contest: his poll supplied an assessment of the likely vote margin. The passage does not attribute the subsequent approach to Dieterich or the request made to Pendergast to Farley personally. Truman told Pendergast he had already promised Harrison his support and could not reverse himself, making this an instance in which a senator’s prior commitment limited the effect of pressure from political allies. Farley’s documented role here is narrower but revealing: he helped measure the contest at a moment when national leaders were trying to assemble votes across party networks.

Across these episodes, Farley’s significance lies in his position between electoral organization and governing power. He helped shape the gradual convention strategy that delivered support to Roosevelt, held a senior party and government role when Pendergast appealed on Lazia’s behalf, appeared publicly among the Democratic bosses in 1936, and assessed the arithmetic of a Senate leadership fight. The account offers no sustained personal portrait or definitive resolution of the Lazia allegation; instead, it shows Farley through the political networks and calculations in which his influence operated.