{"id":20489,"date":"2023-10-11T18:51:37","date_gmt":"2023-10-11T22:51:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/coolidgefoundation.org\/?p=20489"},"modified":"2023-10-12T15:02:08","modified_gmt":"2023-10-12T19:02:08","slug":"a-supreme-court-justices-private-views-of-coolidge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/coolidgefoundation.org\/blog\/a-supreme-court-justices-private-views-of-coolidge\/","title":{"rendered":"A Supreme Court Justice\u2019s Private Views of Coolidge"},"content":{"rendered":"

By John William Sullivan<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

One of President Calvin Coolidge\u2019s harshest critics\u2014in private, at least\u2014was Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis. Both men had made their names in Massachusetts: Brandeis as a prominent Boston attorney, and Coolidge by rising up the ranks of Bay State politics to become governor. The two did agree on certain principles, most notably on federalism and the vital importance of states\u2019 rights. Over time, however, Brandeis\u2019s assessment of Coolidge grew more severe. Much of Brandeis\u2019s criticism of Coolidge appears to stem from the justice\u2019s overall frustration with the 1920s. The jurist saw it as an age of unparalleled materialism and noted with alarm how the country had pushed back against the march of progressivism. Brandeis blamed Coolidge above all others for this rollback.<\/p>\n

A Progressive Justice <\/strong><\/p>\n

Brandeis\u2019s progressive credentials were well known before he arrived at the Supreme Court. In the early twentieth century, the attorney began devoting much of his time and legal work to progressive reform. Brandeis entered national politics when he became a close adviser to, and a tireless campaigner for, Woodrow Wilson in the 1912 presidential race.[1]<\/sup><\/a> Wilson won the presidency, and in 1916 he appointed Brandeis to the Supreme Court. According to political scientist Bruce Murphy, Brandeis stayed active politically even after his appointment.[2]<\/sup><\/a> As the New York Times<\/em> summarized Murphy\u2019s case, \u201cFor a quarter of a century Brandeis kept his protege and intimate friend Felix Frankfurter on an annual retainer to promote \u2018joint endeavors for the public good\u2019\u2014political, social, and legislative programs the Justice could not ethically espouse on his own.\u201d[3]<\/sup><\/a> With Frankfurter\u2014who would later become a Supreme Court justice himself\u2014Brandeis shared many of his fiercest criticisms of Calvin Coolidge.<\/p>\n

Coolidge emerged as a threat to Brandeis-style progressivism when the Massachusetts governor became the Republicans\u2019 vice presidential nominee in 1920. The GOP ticket advocated a \u201creturn to normalcy\u201d that year. Normalcy was a direct challenge to progressives, who had held the White House since 1901. The Republican presidential nominee, Senator Warren Harding of Ohio, pledged to a weary nation \u201cnot revolution, but restoration\u201d\u2014a return to letting citizens manage their own lives in ways they saw fit.<\/p>\n

Upon the nomination of the Harding-Coolidge ticket in June 1920, Brandeis voiced his displeasure to his brother Alfred. \u201cThe elevation of Harding and Coolidge, and the rejection of [Herbert] Hoover, is a sad story of American political irresponsibility,\u201d he wrote. Hoover, much more a technocrat than Harding, was Brandeis\u2019s friend\u2014at least back then. Brandeis foretold that, eventually, Americans would \u201cawake\u201d and \u201ccast aside in shame our present mistakes.\u201d[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Unfortunately for the justice, Harding and Coolidge won in a landslide, taking 60.4\u00a0percent of the national popular vote. Brandeis responded to this result in a letter to Frankfurter on November 8, less than a week after the election. He wrote that \u201cserious-minded public-spirited men\u201d\u2014a way to say progressives\u2014should \u201cdevote themselves to State, City, municipal & non-political affairs.\u201d Brandeis added, \u201cif we are to attain our national ideals, it must be via the States, etc.\u201d[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

At that point, Brandeis may have harbored some hope about Coolidge. In a letter to Frankfurter, Brandeis called attention to Coolidge\u2019s little-noticed inaugural address as vice president, in which he spoke in his capacity as president of the Senate. \u201cThe N.R. might notice that Coolidge thought of liberty in his first address to the senate,\u201d Brandeis wrote.[6]<\/sup><\/a> Here, \u201cN.R.\u201d refers to the New Republic<\/em>, where Frankfurter was a frequent contributor. Coolidge\u2019s 1921 inaugural speech ran to just 435 words, and his reference to liberty read as follows:<\/p>\n

To [the Senate] is intrusted the duty of review, that to negotiations there may be added ratification, and to appointment approval. But its greatest function of all, too little mentioned and too little understood, whether exercised in legislating or reviewing, is the preservation of liberty. Not merely the rights of the majority, they little need protection, but the rights of the minority, from whatever source they may be assailed.[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One could read a certain progressivism into the sentiments of protecting the rights of a powerless minority. Coolidge himself was proud enough of his speech, or at least of its official significance, that he included it in his second speech compilation book, The Price of Freedom<\/em>, three years later. The New Republic<\/em> made no comment, though.<\/p>\n

In 1923, when President Harding died, Vice President Coolidge acceded to the presidency. Coolidge could have shifted the administration\u2019s course. Instead, he committed further to the party\u2019s counter-progressive 1920 plan. That meant cutting taxes and spending, as well as vetoing proposed spending that he deemed unconstitutional. Congress passed a bonus for veterans in the spring of 1924. What would Coolidge do? Brandeis wrote Frankfurter on May 11, 1924, that \u201cC.C. will be up against vetoing or acquiescing this week & later which will test his mettle & judgment.\u201d[8]<\/sup><\/a> Coolidge vetoed the legislation, but Congress overrode him.<\/p>\n

Finding Common Ground<\/strong><\/p>\n

Despite Brandeis\u2019s misgivings about Republican efforts to roll back progressive reforms, the justice praised Coolidge on occasion. Coolidge, early in his presidency, opposed subsidies to the states because they violated the spirit of both federalism and economy and harmed state governments and the federal government. Brandeis, a committed federalist, commented positively on Coolidge\u2019s speech to the Budget Organization of the Government on January 21, 1924. He sent Frankfurter a copy of the speech, underlined the president\u2019s opposition to increased state subsidies, and wrote \u201cThis of Coolidge deserves honorable mention.\u201d[9]<\/sup><\/a> Both Frankfurter and Coolidge admired Thomas Jefferson and his vision of the importance of states.<\/p>\n

Brandeis found more to praise in Coolidge\u2019s federalism after one of Coolidge\u2019s greatest speeches: \u201cThe Reign of Law.\u201d To mark Memorial Day in 1925, Coolidge spoke at Arlington National Cemetery. He highlighted the role of states as the primary drivers of policy and change. The framers of the Constitution, said Coolidge, established the nation \u201cupon the dual system of State government and Federal Government, each supreme in its own sphere.\u201d[10]<\/sup><\/a> The president continued: \u201cBut they left to the States the main powers and functions of determining the form and course of society. We have demonstrated in the time of war that under the Constitution we possess an indestructible Union. We must not fail to demonstrate in the time of peace that we are likewise determined to possess and maintain indestructible states.\u201d[11]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Brandeis commended Coolidge for his stance in favor of states\u2019 rights, a position in line with the justice\u2019s own aversion to \u201cbigness\u201d in both business and the federal government. \u201cC.C. is doing goodwork for us on state functions,\u201d he wrote to Frankfurter on June 2, 1925.[12]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cWhat poor statesmanship & politics the Democrats have been guilty of, omitting to grasp this issue.\u201d[13]<\/sup><\/a> Brandeis\u2019s frustration that the Democrats were not exploiting the issue makes his praise seem more political than philosophical.<\/p>\n

Coolidge\u2019s Challenge to Progressivism<\/strong><\/p>\n

More often, Brandeis disparaged Coolidge. The justice made clear that he was no admirer of the president even early in Coolidge\u2019s tenure. Days before the 1924 election, he wrote to Frankfurter about a straw poll of college students that showed Coolidge winning them overwhelmingly. This was, Brandeis commented with no small amount of melodrama, \u201cthe most discouraging feature in our life.\u201d[14]<\/sup><\/a> The justice called the 1924 election itself, which Coolidge won handily, \u201ca dismal deluge of surprises.\u201d[15]<\/sup><\/a> Here again, Coolidge\u2019s federalism provided one of the only \u201crays of sunshine.\u201d[16]<\/sup><\/a> At least, Brandeis noted, the \u201cextension of federal functions has rec\u2019d an important check.\u201d[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

In the summer of 1926, President Coolidge delivered a speech likely to trigger a response from Brandeis and anyone who claimed to be progressive. Marking the sesquicentennial of American independence, Coolidge attacked the idea that any progress could be made beyond the principles of the Declaration:<\/p>\n

It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Coolidge went on to debunk the great marketing point of the progressives in his day: that progressivism was the best path to the future. Referring to the rights recognized in the Declaration, the president said:<\/p>\n

If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Brandeis soon escalated his private attacks on Coolidge. Within a few months, the justice remarked of the Coolidge administration that \u201cit is in some ways worse than Harding\u2019s.\u201d[20]<\/sup><\/a> He noted that Coolidge\u2019s enforcement of Prohibition \u201cis said to be more corrupt, and all with CC\u2019s connivance.\u201d[21]<\/sup><\/a> Brandeis criticized Coolidge for acting as a \u201csteamroller\u201d in favor of the World Court, which Congress opposed.[22]<\/sup><\/a> The jurist observed a \u201ctendency to repress congress\u201d that he rated both \u201cserious and stupid.\u201d[23]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The justice reserved special criticism for Coolidge\u2019s judicial appointments. Brandeis wrote to Frankfurter in 1926 that \u201cC.C. is doing quite as badly as Harding in the gradual process of undermining the Federal Courts.\u201d[24]<\/sup><\/a> When Coolidge\u2019s nominees were thwarted, Brandeis noted \u201cCanny Cal\u2019s\u201d failures with evident pleasure.[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Brandeis openly celebrated the 1926 midterm results, which were a disappointment to Republicans, as a political black eye for Coolidge. \u201cI think,\u201d he conjectured, \u201cthat there is many a Republican who feels malicious joy & will begin to talk that C.C. is a liability instead of an asset.\u201d[26]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

By 1928, his tone on the judiciary had become seething: \u201cThis Administration is debauching the judiciary with inexcusable political appointments.\u201d[27]<\/sup><\/a> Brandeis said that in the interest of the law, as well as of soon-to-be Democratic presidential nominee Al Smith, someone \u201cought to make a study of Cal\u2019s enormities in this line\u2014a long one.\u201d[28]<\/sup><\/a> Merely a week later, he again simmered: \u201cThe Coolidge debauch of the Judiciary continues apace.\u201d[29]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Brandeis also implicitly criticized Coolidge\u2019s warmth toward the advertising industry. He sarcastically wrote to Frankfurter that Mrs. Frankfurter\u2014a known opponent of advertising\u2014would have liked a Coolidge speech in which he praised the lobby.[30]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Brandeis deplored Coolidge\u2019s foreign policy, saying that Coolidge\u2019s stances toward Nicaragua and Mexico\u2014intervention in the former, threatening intervention in the latter\u2014could be \u201cthe most shameful episode in our history.\u201d[31]<\/sup><\/a> The same month, January 1927, the justice wrote that the State Department and Coolidge \u201care behaving as badly as man could conceive\u2013it is amazing to me that Congress lets them.\u201d[32]<\/sup><\/a> Brandeis even worked directly with Senator Robert La\u00a0Follette, the leader of the Progressive Party, to place an editorial critical of the administration in the Congressional Record<\/em>.[33]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

When Brandeis spoke well of Coolidge\u2019s foreign policy, his words were double-edged. Coolidge\u2019s appointment of Henry Stimson as governor general of the Philippines prompted Brandeis to remark that \u201cC.C. did the best of its kind\u2026but I grow less patient with the kind.\u201d[34]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Escalating Hostility<\/strong><\/p>\n

By far Brandeis\u2019s most hostile statement about Coolidge came in reference to the president\u2019s 1927 speech marking George Washington\u2019s birthday. Coolidge emphasized the more practical aspects of Washington\u2019s character\u2014namely, his appreciation for thrift and sound economic policy, and his effective management of both the public purse and his personal finance. \u201cHe was an idealist\u2026he was a prophet\u2026but, essentially, he was a very practical man,\u201d Coolidge said.[35]<\/sup><\/a> Brandeis wrote to his brother the next day, saying that \u201cthe President\u2019s address yesterday, which I attended reluctantly (in robes) was one of the most painful experiences of a lifetime.\u201d[36]<\/sup><\/a> In an agitated letter to Frankfurter four days later, Brandeis expanded: \u201cYou cannot conceive how painful, distressing & depressing it was to listen (officially) to Cal\u2019s Washington\u2019s Birthday address.\u201d[37]<\/sup><\/a> This stylistic echo, mentioning that he attended the speech \u201c(in robes)\u201d in his letter to his brother and \u201c(officially)\u201d in his letter to Frankfurter, demonstrates his insistence that he never would have attended such a speech but for his office.<\/p>\n

Brandeis wrote that his sources \u201cfrom all high\u201d told him that \u201cthe purpose of the talk\u2026was to set the \u2018key note for the next five years of talk.\u2019\u201d[38]<\/sup><\/a> So the justice expressed alarm at the idea that Coolidge would \u201cconfiscate the whole of G.W.\u2019s good will for Big Business.\u201d[39]<\/sup><\/a> Coolidge did this, Brandeis said, \u201cby showing that we owe everything we value to the qualities of business efficiency, commercial courage & vision & thrift & that these were G.W.\u2019s dominating qualities fitting him for the greatest of the World\u2019s achievements.\u201d[40]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

A particular gripe of Brandeis involved Coolidge\u2019s assessment of Washington\u2019s religious views. \u201cEven his religion,\u201d Brandeis wrote, \u201cwas of the efficient business type, as described.\u201d[41]<\/sup><\/a> Mixing potentially valid criticism with ad hominem invective, the justice skewered both speech and man. \u201cThere is no man in {the} U.S.,\u201d he contended, \u201c{who} could have so perfectly\u2014by looks, voice & action\u2014have {sic<\/em>} deprived G.W. of every idealistic aim or emotion.\u201d[42]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Brandeis concluded with a grim analogy. The last time he felt so poorly was when he \u201cwent to Long Island (Boston Harbor) Poor-House hospital & passed through the syphilitic ward,\u201d he wrote.[43]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cI had a like sense of uncleanliness.\u201d[44]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The Justice\u2019s View of the Coolidge Legacy<\/strong><\/p>\n

Brandeis dropped another comment the same year. Writing to his brother, the justice suggested that Coolidge\u2019s reputation for silence enabled him to appear wiser than he really was: \u201cHe was on safe ground when \u2018tun nichts, sag nichts\u2019 [\u2018do nothing, say nothing\u2019] was his practice. He was of those \u2018that therefore only are reputed wise for saying nothing\u2019\u201d\u2014the last words being a quotation from Shakespeare\u2019s Merchant of Venice<\/em>.[45]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

As Coolidge\u2019s administration came to a close, Brandeis took another shot at the president in his summary of the 1928 election. Democrat Al Smith carried only eight states against Coolidge\u2019s Republican successor, Hoover. Among the eight states was Brandeis\u2019s\u2014and Coolidge\u2019s\u2014home state, Massachusetts. \u201cMassachusetts,\u201d remarked Brandeis, \u201chas redeemed herself.\u201d[46]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The snipes continued after Coolidge left office. In 1930, Brandeis even accused Coolidge of anti-Semitism for failing to select Benjamin Cardozo for the Supreme Court. Brandeis said he had heard from Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, Coolidge\u2019s Amherst College classmate, that \u201cCoolidge objected to appointing Cardoza [sic<\/em>] (whom S. as Atty [General] proposed) because he didn\u2019t want two Jews on the bench.\u201d[47]<\/sup><\/a> Stone, Brandeis claimed, added that \u201cH.H. [President Hoover] would not be swayed by that, but might object to putting on another from N.Y.\u201d[48]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Brandeis\u2019s Coolidge anxiety remained. On January 28, 1930, the justice reported to Frankfurter, \u201cThere is a persistently recurrent rumor\u2026that there is a danger that Calvin Coolidge may be appointed to our Court.\u201d[49]<\/sup><\/a> Skeptical of the likelihood of this event but unnerved by its possibility, he concluded by wondering: \u201cI can\u2019t believe that there is any danger, but should anything be done about it?\u201d[50]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a> Melvin I. Urofsky, Louis D. Brandeis: A Life <\/em>(New York: Schocken Books, 2009), chs. 14 and 15.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a> Bruce Allen Murphy, The Brandeis-Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices<\/em> (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cJudging Judges, and History\u201d New York Times<\/em>, February 18, 1982, https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/1982\/02\/18\/opinion\/judging-judges-and-history.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/sup><\/a> Louis D. Brandeis, Letters of Louis D. Brandeis, Volume IV (1916-1921): Mr. Justice Brandeis<\/em>, ed. Melvin I. Urofsky and David W. Levy (State University of New York Press: Albany, 1975), p. 470.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/sup><\/a> Louis D. Brandeis, \u201cHalf Brother, Half Son\u201d: The Letters of Louis D. Brandeis to Felix Frankfurter<\/em>, ed. Melvin I. Urofsky and David W. Levy (Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), p. 47.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 68.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/sup><\/a> Calvin Coolidge, The Price of Freedom<\/em> (New York and London: Charles Scribner\u2019s Sons, 1924), p. 33-34.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cHalf Brother, Half Son\u201d<\/em>, p. 167,<\/p>\n

[9]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 155.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/sup><\/a> Calvin Coolidge, Foundations of the Republic<\/em> (New York and London: Charles Scribner\u2019s Sons, 1926), p. 233.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cHalf Brother, Half Son\u201d<\/em>, p. 203.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/sup><\/a> Louis D. Brandeis, Letters of Louis D. Brandeis, <\/em>Volume V (1921-1941): Elder Statesman<\/em>, ed. Melvin Urofsky and David W. Levy (State University of New York Press: Albany, 1978), p. 151.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/sup><\/a> Coolidge, Foundations of the Republic<\/em>, p. 451.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., pp. 451-452.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cHalf Brother, Half Son\u201d<\/em>, p. 257.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 229.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 230.<\/p>\n

[24]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 315.<\/p>\n

[25]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 236.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 260.<\/p>\n

[27]<\/sup><\/a> Elder Statesman<\/em>, p. 324.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 325.<\/p>\n

[29]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 326.<\/p>\n

[30]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cHalf Brother, Half Son\u201d<\/em>, p. 258-59.<\/p>\n

[31]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 271.<\/p>\n

[32]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[33]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[34]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 314.<\/p>\n

[35]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cFull Text of President Coolidge\u2019s Eulogy of Washington\u201d, New York Times<\/em>, February 23rd, 1923, https:\/\/timesmachine.nytimes.com\/timesmachine\/1927\/02\/23\/issue.html<\/a><\/p>\n

[36]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cHalf Brother, Half Son\u201d<\/em>, p. 276.<\/p>\n

[37]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 275<\/p>\n

[38]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[39]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[40]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[41]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[42]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[43]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 275-76.<\/p>\n

[44]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 276.<\/p>\n

[45]<\/sup><\/a> Elder Statesman<\/em>, p. 270.<\/p>\n

[46]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cHalf Brother, Half Son\u201d<\/em>, p. 352.<\/p>\n

[47]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid, p. 406.<\/p>\n

[48]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[49]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., p. 408.<\/p>\n

[50]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By John William Sullivan   One of President Calvin Coolidge\u2019s harshest critics\u2014in private, at least\u2014was Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis. Both men had made their names in Massachusetts: Brandeis as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":34991,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/coolidgefoundation.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20489"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/coolidgefoundation.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/coolidgefoundation.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/coolidgefoundation.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/34991"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/coolidgefoundation.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20489"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/coolidgefoundation.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20489\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20502,"href":"https:\/\/coolidgefoundation.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20489\/revisions\/20502"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/coolidgefoundation.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20489"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/coolidgefoundation.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20489"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/coolidgefoundation.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20489"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}