Thursday, June 15, 2017

Review of Chester Alan Arthur by Zachary Karabell


Chester Arthur, writes historian Zachary Karabell, “remains a cypher, one of those late-nineteenth-century inhabitants of the White House whose echo has been muffled by more memorable individuals and whose footprint…has been trampled on and all but erased” (2). In Chester Alan Arthur, Karabell attempts to bring Arthur to life for a new generation.  In so doing, he presents a sympathetic and compelling portrait of our mostly-forgotten 21st president.

Many historians have considered Arthur to be largely a “place holder” president who made few contributions to the nation he briefly led.  Karabell argues just the opposite, claiming that “unexpectedly, the presidency of Chester Alan Arthur was a tipping point” (9) due to his signing the 1883 Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act.  This act, which required that certain positions in the federal government should be awarded on the basis of merit rather than political affiliation, marked the beginning of the end of the so-called “Spoils System,” in which these positions were given to political cronies regardless of their qualifications.  Arthur’s decision to sign the bill is especially surprising, given that he had made a career as the embodiment of the Spoils System, having grown wealthy as Collector of the Port of New York prior to becoming Garfield’s vice president.  Although the Pendleton Act applied to very few positions at first, over time, its standards were applied to increasingly more government jobs.  Karabell summarizes the act’s importance:

The Pendleton Act was a vital step toward a new view of government.  No longer would it be seen primarily as an adjunct of business or the tool of elites.  Instead, government became the protector of the common good…[The act] put the old spoils system on a path to obsolescence and it was a necessary prelude to the government-led reforms of the Progressive era and beyond. (109,111).
In addition to praising Arthur for signing the Pendleton Act, Karabell commends him for vetoing the first Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (although, under the threat of a veto override, he signed a second, less harsh act later that year), for vetoing a major “pork barrel” spending bill, and for beginning the process of modernizing the U. S Navy.  Karabell especially praises the latter accomplishment, arguing that “without Arthur, Roosevelt and McKinley might not have had a navy capable of annihilating the Spanish in 1898” (118).

Karabell’s summary of Arthur’s presidency is excellent:
In everything he did, Chester Alan Arthur was a gentleman, and that is rare and precious.  It reminds us that adversaries can be treated with respect, that democracy can survive differences, and that leadership isn’t just great words and deeds.  Arthur managed to be a decent man and a decent president in an era when decency was in short supply. (143)

Chester Alan Arthur is marred by two major flaws.  The first of these is his omission of the fascinating story of Julia Sand, a bedridden single woman who wrote Arthur a series of 23 letters between 1881 and 1883 and gave the president encouragement and advice.  Arthur was so impressed with Sands’ counsel that he saved all her letters and even once paid her a surprise visit.  Sands’ letters to Arthur influenced him greatly and thus must be given at least brief mention in an Arthur biography, no matter how brief it is.

The second major flaw of Karabell’s biography is the casual, almost chatty style in which it is written.  The author’s constant use of contractions in particular, will be annoying to readers who expect authors of formal historical works to use standard written English.  Despite these flaws, however, this biography is a solid introduction to Arthur’s life and times (in fact, Karabell includes some of the best summaries of Gilded Age life and politics I have ever seen in such a short work).  Chester Alan Arthur would be an excellent first step for anyone who seeks an introduction to our 21st president.

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Review of James A. Garfield by Ira Rutkow


Most Americans who have heard of James Garfield are likely to remember him as the U. S. president with the second-shortest term due to his having been mortally wounded by an assassin’s bullet only four months into his presidency.  In James A. Garfield, part of the “American Presidents” series of short biographies, scholar Ira Rutkow brings Garfield to life, arguing that as a Civil War general and as a congressman, Garfield made a significant contribution to American history even though he was a lackluster president.

Unlike the other authors in the “American Presidents” series, Rutkow is not an expert on the president whose biography he was assigned.  Rutkow’s area of expertise, rather, is the history of surgery.  Rutkow’s background makes him an especially appropriate choice to write about Garfield, given the great importance of surgery to Garfield’s story. His expertise on nineteenth-century surgical practices enables Rutkow to make his readers understand the issues at stake in Garfield’s treatment after his wounding by Charles Guiteau.  Rutkow’s description of the doctors’ actions will make a sympathetic reader cringe and lament the horrible bungling of the president’s care.

Rutkow’s treatment of Garfield’s pre-presidential career is evenhanded if slightly negative.  His Garfield is a generally honest politician who was not above using hardball politics when he felt they were necessary. To Rutkow, “Garfield was remarkably thin-skinned.  He constantly sought approval of his actions from supporters, reporters, and family, and, if not satisfied to the truthfulness of their praise, often became despondent” (46).  Garfield, far from being a dark horse presidential candidate in 1880 who came out of nowhere, obtained the nomination through “antagonism, controversy, and subterfuge” (50).  Rutkow gives President Garfield high marks for trying to end the Post Office’s “Star Route Fraud” but little praise for his presidency in general.  Rutkow concludes with the following evaluation of Garfield as president:

Garfield helped mold a nascent political party into a force that would lead his country into world leadership.  But as chief executive he was clumsy in controlling his party’s factional differences.  Garfield was not a natural leader and did not dominate men or events.  He was a kindhearted and intelligent individual who was also a calculating politician…Ultimately, it was his lack of assertiveness and worry over the slightest hint of criticism that interfered with his presidential decision making…and for this reason he is remembered more as a political party functionary—and for having been assassinated—than an inspirational American president. (137).

James A. Garfield is a well-written and serviceable biography of Garfield and would be a good introduction to the subject for someone with no knowledge about the twentieth president.  Students who are willing to read a slightly longer book would do better to read Destiny of the Republic by Candice Millard, a gripping and more sympathetic account of Garfield’s life, his assassination, and his medical (mal)treatment.

Review of Rutherford B. Hayes by Hans L. Trefousse


To many if not most Americans, Rutherford Birchard Hayes is one of a long line of hirsute late-nineteenth century presidents of whom almost no one has ever heard.  To interested students of American history, Hayes is known primarily as the president who gained his office under shady circumstances and who then turned his back on Southern African-Americans. In Rutherford B. Hayes, part of the “American Presidents” series of biographies, historian Hans L. Trefousse attempts to bring this obscure yet key president’s life and work to light and to defend him, arguing that our nineteenth president was much more effective than has generally been acknowledged.

Hayes’ path to the White House was fairly typical for politicians of his time.  Service in the Civil War (by the end of which he had risen to the rank of Major General) was followed by Hayes’ being elected to the House of Representatives and then to the governorship of Ohio.  As a successful governor of a major state, Hayes naturally began to be mentioned as a presidential candidate, and when the 1876 Republican convention could not agree on any of the leading candidates, they nominated the dark horse Hayes.  The election of 1876 resulted in controversy, with the razor-thin electoral vote decided in favor of the Republicans on a party line vote by a committee consisting of 8 Republicans and 7 Democrats.  Democrats accepted the result only in return for Hayes promising major concessions, the most notable of which was his agreement to remove federal troops from the South, effectively ending Reconstruction and any hope of civil rights for the freedmen.

Regarding Hayes’ monumental decision to withdraw federal troops from the South, a decision for which he has been heavily criticized from his time right down to the present, Trefousse argues that Hayes “had little choice. His predecessor, General Grant, had decided to withdraw support from the disputed governments even before the inauguration, and the country was no longer ready to tolerate military interference in the South” (92). Hayes was no opponent to African-Americans. Prior to removing the Army from the South, he obtained promises to protect the civil rights of the freedman from several Southern governors, although he was admittedly naïve to believe these pledges.  Hayes also took steps such as appointing Frederick Douglass as marshal for the District of Columbia and naming John Marshall Harlan, an opponent of anti-black discrimination, to the Supreme Court.

Hayes also attempted to deal kindly with Native Americans, even though individual Army commanders did not always follow his wishes. Hayes prevented the War Department from taking over the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which surely would have resulted in the Indians being treated even worse than they were.  Trefousse also gives Hayes high marks for foreign policy for presiding over an honest administration, and for laying the groundwork for much-needed civil service reform.  He summarizes Hayes’ administration thus:

What did Hayes contribute to the presidency?  His biographers have generally credited him with unifying the country, though faulting him for not succeeding in safeguarding blacks’ rights.  This verdict is substantially correct.  He was one of the best-educated men to occupy the White House, was honest, evenhanded, and humane.  Taking over the scandal-besmirched presidency from General Grant, he reestablished the good reputation of the country’s first office and was rewarded with the Republican success of 1880. This was his real achievement. (129)

With Rutherford B. Hayes, Hans Trefousse has succeeded in producing a balanced and well-written introduction to the life and career of our nineteenth president.  Anyone who wants to gain an introductory understanding of Hayes would do well to read it.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Review of American Ulysses: A Life of Ulysses S. Grant by Ronald White



Ulysses S. Grant may have been a great general, but as president of the United States, he was a dismal failure.  Although personally honest, Grant was a man of mediocre intellect and was a terrible judge of character who appointed unqualified and corrupt associates and presided over one of the most scandal-ridden administrations in United States History.  Or so we have usually been taught.  For decades, this unflattering description of Grant and his presidency has been a staple of American History courses. In recent decades, however, several historians have made attempts to “rehabilitate” President Grant. Ronald C. White’s American Ulysses: A Life of Ulysses S. Grant (2016) is the latest in a line of more sympathetic Grant biographies. White disputes much of the conventional wisdom regarding Grant, arguing that Grant was much more talented than he is usually given credit for and that his presidency was far from a failure.

Regarding Grant’s mental abilities, White admits that the general was no brilliant scholar on the level of Adams, Jefferson, or Theodore Roosevelt, but shows that he was far from dim-witted.  White points out that Grant had a great gift for mathematics, so much so that he considered becoming an instructor at West Point.  White also turns Grant’s famous comment that “much of the time [at West Point], I am sorry to say, was devoted to novels” (34) on its head.  He examines the specific novels that Grant read, arguing that even though Grant may have neglected his formal studies to read them, the novels expanded his view of the world and of the human psyche, which would greatly benefit him in the future.  While in Mexico, Grant took in all he could about the culture, geography and language (he was one of the few US soldiers who learned some Spanish) of the region.  The most well-known example of Grant’s mental acuity, however, are his insightful Memoirs, universally hailed as one of the best works of this genre ever written.  White makes a persuasive case that Grant’s mind was anything but dull.

Another Grant stereotype that White confronts is the general’s alleged lack of spirituality.  Many who have written about Grant have made much of the fact that he did not regularly attend Sunday services and never officially joined any church. Nevertheless, White argues that “the story of [Grant’s] relationship to religion is more complex than is usually understood…his piety was practical” (491).  As White points out, Grant prayed throughout his life, gave money to foreign mission efforts, and attended services when he could.  Moreover, his Methodist upbringing influenced him to adopt a tolerant mindset toward Indians and ultimately, to adopt the cause of the freedmen in the South. 

Finally, White tackles the common belief that Grant’s presidency was an utter failure.  Despite the scandals that occurred during the two terms of his presidency (for which only indirect blame can be assigned to Grant), President Grant enjoyed many successes.  First, with the help of his Secretary of the Treasury George Boutwell, Grant defeated Jay Gould and Jay Fisk’s scheme to corner the gold market, thus preventing a likely financial collapse.  Second, at a time when relations with Great Britain were strained, Grant worked for peace with Great Britain, greatly improving relations with the former mother country. Finally, Grant promoted friendly and generous policies toward American Jews, Native Americans, and especially African-Americans.  In regard to the latter, Grant generously supported the Freedman’s Bureau and signed into law the Ku Klux Klan Act, which dealt a deadly blow to the terror organization’s activity and undoubtedly saved the lives of many freedmen.  No less a leader than Frederick Douglass said of Grant, “To him more than any other man the Negro owes his enfranchisement and the Indian a human policy…” (659).

Regarding the scandals during Grant’s presidency, White does not excuse them, but rather attributes them to Grant’s own positive qualities, including his loyalty to his subordinates, his hatred of interpersonal conflict, and his belief in the good in all people.  White elaborates on this by quoting Grant’s Methodist minister Otis Tiffany, who wrote
Absolutely incapable of servility, [Grant] could not suspect other men of fawning sycophancy.  The soul of honor and manliness himself, a man who was a stranger to indirection and falsehood, General Grant could not comprehend how men could be dishonorable, and false by method (569).

American Ulysses is a tour-de-force of biographical writing.  White’s writing style is highly engaging, so much so that much of book (for example the parts on Grant’s service in the Civil War) reads like a hard-to-put-down novel.  The book suffers from a few minor errors, but these are extremely few.  In addition, there are a few curious omissions, like the famous story of the boy Ulysses (actually, “Hiram” at that time) trying to get a bargain on a horse and the promotion of the adult Grant to four-star general, but these omissions hardly detract from the quality of the book.  Those interested in the life of this pivotal figure in American History could do no better than to read American Ulysses.