I think it was probably more the 16th Amendment that made the difference in changing the shape of our governance. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government had to beg from the states. The Constitution allowed it to levy excise taxes and tariffs. It could carry its own weight, as could the states. The 16th Amendment allowed the federal government a deep reach into our pockets. Deficit spending, withholding taxes and the end of the gold standard made that reach go even further into our resources. Federal programs and pretentions grew, and states and the rest of society became beggars for federal funds. The 17th couldn't show anything like this effect.
So a question: what would have happened if the 16th Amendment didn't pass, but the problems of the 20th century -- wars, depressions, political conflicts, the needs of economic development -- remained? Would we bow out of some of these difficulties? Would the federal government turn to the states for funding? Would this give the states the upper hand? Or would tax hungry politicians find some other way out? I suspect the money of the millionaires was too tempting a honey pot to keep out of. But what if the amendment had specified a maximum rate of ten or twenty percent? C.N. Parkinson did a tongue in cheek analysis of the question.
I think you are probably right about Archie Butt. April 1912 was probably too late to change anything.
It's also curious how TR's, LaFollette's and Hiram Johnson's radical innovations were those made use of in the late 20th century by conservatives fed up with judicial overreaching and legislative entrenchment. Many a conservative must have been tempted at times by the prospect of recall of judicial decisions. I suspect Jefferson might have salivated at that, were it a power of state legislatures.
Here's a few sites for you:
Theodore Roosevelt Association,
Theodore Roosevelt's Works,
Conservative Reform.
Maybe you could do something for Taft.
Taft.org really doesn't cut it.
Nor does this strange site.
So a question: what would have happened if the 16th Amendment didn't pass, but the problems of the 20th century -- wars, depressions, political conflicts, the needs of economic development -- remained? Would we bow out of some of these difficulties? Would the federal government turn to the states for funding? Would this give the states the upper hand? Or would tax hungry politicians find some other way out? I suspect the money of the millionaires was too tempting a honey pot to keep out of. But what if the amendment had specified a maximum rate of ten or twenty percent? C.N. Parkinson did a tongue in cheek analysis of the question.There is no good tax. There are only worse and worser. Ironically, in 1909, when the 16th Amendment was sent to the States, the tariff accounted for less than 1/2 of Federal revenues. In 1929, the income tax accounted for less than 1/2 of Federal revenue.
[We will note the spike during WWI -- which, like the Civil War income tax, was lowered afterwards]
What gives here is that Federal demands preceded the tax. The difference is that of taxes, only the income tax could produce when Federal demands skyrocketed during the Depression and, more accutely, WWII.
I love to watch the retail tax folk get off on how bad the income tax is. If the income tax was so bad, it wouldn't work. Frankly, and I hate to say it, folks, it's worked. Maybe the retail tax would work, or whatever, maybe a breathing tax, but it'll not change the nature of taxes: the rates follow the demand.
That is, dear x, to say that you are wrong that the income tax caused the growth of the Federal government. You would, however, be correct to say that it enabled it.
I have no illusions that repeal of the 17th amendment will magically resuscitate the 10th Amendment. It won't. I call for its repeal to reconnect that line between the local voter and the local representative, and the House representative with the State house.
The most insidious effect of the 17th amendment is the destruction of representative democracy. As you say, Hiram Johson's greatest victory came in the form of Prop 17, which he would have loathed, poor bastard. This doesn't make me a fan of the initiative. (I love the irony.) The initiative would not be necessary if the people had more interest in and control of their local governments. The 17th is an impediment against it. It was a problem to a solution to a problem.