I. America in Crisis: 1933 and the Birth of an Alleged Conspiracy
To understand the Business Plot, one must first understand the turbulent year in which it allegedly unfolded. In 1933, the United States was deep in the Great Depression. Unemployment was staggeringly high, industrial output had collapsed, and millions of Americans were impoverished, homeless, or desperate. The laissez‑faire economic policies of the 1920s were widely perceived as having failed, and even more dramatic interventions such as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s sweeping New Deal were met with both praise and fierce criticism. For many Americans, this was a time of intense political and economic upheaval; old certainties about the stability of markets, the role of government, and the unity of the nation had fractured.
In this environment, ideological extremes found fertile ground. Many on the left looked toward socialism or even communism as solutions to systemic economic failure. Many on the right, alarmed by the growing power of government and the perceived threat of socialism, entertained authoritarian models observed abroad. Across Europe, fascism had already taken hold in Italy, and Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party was accelerating its rise in Germany. For some business and political elites, such movements – however controversial – seemed to offer the promise of order, stability, and protection of property and wealth at a time when democratic politics appeared chaotic and unpredictable.
At the same time, millions of Americans were veteran World War I soldiers who had returned from the war to find a nation that often seemed indifferent to their sacrifices. In 1932, frustrated by long-delayed promised bonuses meant to compensate them for their service, tens of thousands of these veterans converged in Washington, D.C., to demand immediate payment. This protest, known as the Bonus Army, was forcefully dispersed by the U.S. Army under President Herbert Hoover, a moment that further intensified public resentment and political division.
Against this fractious backdrop, a retired military hero re‑entered the national conversation – Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, one of the most decorated officers in the history of the United States Marine Corps. Butler had a complex personal and professional history: once an outspoken supporter of American military and commercial interests abroad, he had grown increasingly critical of what he saw as the marriage of economic power and military force. After retiring from active duty, he authored War Is a Racket, a famous critique of militarism and corporate influence.
II. Smedley Butler: The Chosen Man and Reluctant Witness
The central figure in the Business Plot narrative is Smedley Butler — not because he was alleged to be a conspirator, but precisely because he wasn’t one. In late 1933, Butler was approached by intermediaries — principally a bond salesman named Gerald C. MacGuire — who reportedly represented wealthy businessmen and financiers with deep grievances about Roosevelt’s policies. These men allegedly offered Butler a remarkable proposal: to lead a massive veteran force to Washington, D.C., ostensibly to demand political change, but in reality to supplant the existing government and reconstitute it under a new authoritarian structure with Butler at its helm.
According to Butler’s later testimony before the McCormack–Dickstein Committee, a special investigative committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, MacGuire enticed him with the promise of financial backing — including large sums of money and political support — sufficient to raise and mobilize an army of perhaps 500,000 veterans, drawn from the American Legion and other veteran groups. The plotters suggested they would plant stories in the press about President Roosevelt’s declining health and incapacity, and then engineer a march on the capital that would compel the president to cede real executive authority to a new “Secretary of General Affairs,” effectively installing a fascist dictatorship.
The plan was as audacious as it was bizarre. Its architects allegedly viewed Butler as the ideal leader not because of his ideological alignment, but because of his enormous popularity with veterans and the wider public. By the early 1930s, Butler was widely recognized as a national hero with a reputation for integrity, having served bravely in conflicts from the Caribbean to China. His public criticisms of corporate greed and military adventurism had also imbued him with an unexpected credibility among more populist audiences, including working‑class Americans and World War I veterans. In mobilizing such support, the conspirators reportedly believed they could transcend traditional political divisions and unite disparate factions under a new, authoritarian regime loyal to business interests.
Butler was initially cautious and uncertain how to assess the motives of MacGuire and his associates. As his testimony later revealed, he cooperated enough to gather details — even as he grew increasingly skeptical of the true intent behind the conversations. MacGuire’s overtures, including bank deposit slips and other ostensible evidence of financial commitment, gave the veneer of authenticity. But for Butler, whose lifelong patriotism ran deep, there was something fundamentally troubling about the proposal. He sensed that the aims of these wealthy backers were not merely to pressure the government but to control it. What’s more, Butler had become increasingly critical of the very forces that once championed him — corporate financiers, Wall Street bankers, and industrial monopolists — and the radical shift they appeared to seek would require him to betray both his oath of service and his conscience.
Ultimately, Butler’s decision was clear: he would not lead a coup against the democratically elected president of the United States. Instead, he resolved to expose the plot — however serious it might or might not be — and to do so publicly and under oath.
III. From Backroom Conversations to Congressional Hearings
In November 1934, Smedley Butler appeared before the United States House of Representatives Special Committee on Un‑American Activities, better known as the McCormack–Dickstein Committee, to give his sworn testimony about the alleged conspiracy. The committee had been convened to investigate “Nazi propaganda and certain other propaganda activities” in the United States, but proceedings quickly turned to Butler’s extraordinary allegations.
Butler laid out a detailed account, describing multiple meetings with MacGuire — and perhaps a few others — in which the idea of establishing a veterans’ army with paramilitary capabilities was discussed. He testified that MacGuire told him the plotters were prepared to spend significant sums — allegedly up to $300 million, a staggering amount in 1933 dollars — to fund the operation. He also described plans to use factions within the American Legion and sympathetic veteran groups to recruit and mobilize thousands of former soldiers, many of whom were struggling economically and politically disillusioned.
Despite the seriousness of his testimony, reactions to Butler’s claims were deeply mixed. Some members of Congress were sympathetic — or at least intrigued — and pressed further for details. Others were skeptical, or openly derisive. Major news outlets initially mocked Butler, with one high‑profile editorial dismissing his account as a “gigantic hoax” and an “unconvincing narrative.” But by the time the committee issued its final report in early 1935, it had concluded that there was at least some substance to Butler’s testimony. The report declared that “there is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient.” Yet despite this acknowledgment, no criminal prosecutions followed, and many leading figures mentioned in the allegations denied any wrongdoing.
The committee’s findings stopped far short of establishing that a full-blown coup was imminent — or that the American government was ever genuinely at risk of being overthrown. But the fact that a decorated general’s allegations could be taken seriously enough to warrant a formal congressional investigation, and that portions of his story were corroborated, suggests that the Business Plot was not entirely reducible to fantasy.
IV. Who Were the Alleged Plotters, and What Did They Want?
One of the greatest areas of historical debate surrounding the Business Plot lies in who — if anyone — was involved in planning or financing it, and why. Smedley Butler’s testimony implicated intermediaries such as Gerald C. MacGuire and hinted at the involvement of wealthy business leaders connected to major financial and industrial interests. Some retrospective accounts have suggested that figures associated with firms like Grayson Murphy & Company and even prominent political families might have been in the orbit of those discussions.
Of course, without criminal prosecutions, exhaustive documentation, or confessions by alleged conspirators, much of this remains speculative. Many of the individuals and institutions said to have been associated with the plot either denied involvement or were never formally accused. Critics of Butler’s testimony at the time — and historians since — argued that the evidence was too thin to support anything like a real coup conspiracy. Some have suggested that MacGuire acted independently, without the backing of a broader cabal, and that the narrative was blown out of proportion by eager legislators or journalists. Others propose that Butler genuinely misunderstood the intentions of those he met. Still others suggest that elite business figures might have discussed opposition strategies informally — perhaps trying to influence political outcomes through means that, while ethically dubious, were not criminal in the sense of planning an insurrection.
Yet even if the plotters were few and their plans little more than fanciful or preliminary, the contextual motivations behind such discussions are historically meaningful. Roosevelt’s early New Deal reforms — which expanded federal power, regulated financial institutions, introduced social welfare programs, and challenged entrenched corporate prerogatives — were deeply unpopular among many business elites. Some saw these reforms not simply as misguided but as existential threats to the capitalist system itself. To such critics, Roosevelt’s agenda represented a dangerous slide toward collectivism or socialism, threatening private property, free markets, and established hierarchies of wealth and influence. In an era when alternative political systems, including fascism and authoritarian corporatism, seemed to offer stability and order elsewhere in the world, some business leaders may have convened private discussions about radical contingencies. Whether any of these discussions amounted to a coordinated coup is debated, but the motivations behind them were rooted in real economic and ideological conflict.
V. Public Reaction: From Mockery to Unease
When Butler’s testimony became public, the reaction was mixed and often polarized. Some newspapers and commentators ridiculed him, framing the Business Plot as an implausible tale fueled by a disgruntled retired general. Others dismissed it as political theater or sensationalism. Still others expressed genuine concern about the implications of wealthy businessmen allegedly engaging in discussions about overturning democratic governance by force.
This ambivalence reflected broader tensions in American society. The nation was struggling with economic despair, political fragmentation, and fears of ideological extremism both at home and abroad. To many observers, the notion of a fascist coup in the United States sounded alarmist — something more at home in the troubled democracies of Weimar Germany than in the United States. Yet for others, the plot underscored a sobering reality: that American democracy might be vulnerable, not from foreign powers, but from internal fissures and the ambitions of elites alarmed by populist reforms. The idea that wealthy interests might see authoritarianism as a preferable alternative to regulatory democracy revealed deep anxieties about the resilience of the American political system during times of crisis.
VI. Historical Interpretations and Legacy
In the decades since the Business Plot was revealed, historians have debated its significance. Some see it as a real, albeit half-formed conspiracy that was thwarted primarily by Butler’s refusal to cooperate. Others view it as an exaggerated or misunderstood episode, perhaps inflated by anti-business sentiment or by the dramatic personalities involved. The lack of definitive documentation, prosecutions, or transparent records complicates any definitive conclusion.
Yet even where scholars diverge, there is broad agreement on key points: that Butler’s testimony was sincere in its assertion that he was approached about leading a paramilitary force; that some discussions about veterans’ organizations and political activism did take place; and that elements within American business circles were deeply anxious about the direction of Roosevelt’s policies. Whether these anxieties translated into an organized, ready-to-execute plot remains contested, but the very discussion of such ideas is historically significant.
In some respects, the Business Plot feels eerily resonant in modern times. Debates about the influence of wealthy elites on democratic processes, anxieties about the stability of democratic institutions, and fears of political polarization and fringe movements have resurfaced in various forms in subsequent eras. The Business Plot – whether as conspiracy, cautionary tale, or misunderstood political moment – serves as a reminder that even well-established democracies can be shaken by internal tensions in times of profound crisis.
In a broader cultural sense, the plot has also inspired fiction and interpretation. Elements of the story have appeared in novels, films, and documentaries exploring alternative histories or dramatizing the precariousness of democratic governance. These retellings, while sometimes sensationalized, underscore the enduring intrigue of a narrative in which the fabric of American democracy was – at least for a moment – perceived as vulnerable to forces within its own elite.
The Knowledge Base 
Leave a comment