James A. Garfileld

Candice Millard: Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President
James A. Garfield: 20th President (Mar. 4-Sept. 19, 1881); b. 1831; d. 1881

James A. Garfield was truly an interesting historical person, and this is a great book to read.  Garfield had one of the shortest presidencies ever--he was shot on July 2, 1881 and held on to life for over two months before dying on September 19.  Millard's book focuses almost entirely on Garfield's assassination.  The book focuses on Charles Guiteau, Garfield's assassin; Dr. William Bliss, Garfield's treating physician; and Alexander Graham Bell, who invented the metal detector for use in locating the bullet in Garfield's body.

Millard's book is a very easy read.  It's a piece of popular history written for a general audience, but she does and excellent job of providing historical detail about her characters and weaving them into a larger historical narrative.  She provides some background about Garfield himself, but more background information would be appreciated.  (To be fair, she's only half writing this as a presidential biography, so it's natural that she would only provided limited detail on Garfield's personal history, which could scare off potential readers.)  Millard has also chosen an excellent subject.  This was a dramatic event in American history, the details of which are enlightening, interesting, and completely unknown to most people.

Garfield is one of those presidents about whom I would read more (and hopefully will at some future time).  He's a compelling American.  He's similar to Hayes (about whom I read a gigantic tome), but appears to have been more personable and to have read a more interesting life.  Or perhaps I'm grasping at straws because these late 19th century Republicans are pretty boring.

Dark Horse Candidate:  James Garfield truly was a dark horse for the Republicans in 1880.  John Sherman of Ohio and James Blaine or Maine (as well as U.S. Grant) were candidates of national stature, each of whom had supporters going into the convention.  Garfield had served seven terms in the House, but wasn't a national figure--he hadn't spearheaded any significant legislation or undertaken many other actions to bring attention to himself.  He was an able and well-liked moderate Republican.  Garfield, a Buckeye, actually gave the nominating speech for Sherman.  But delegates were more impressed with Garfield's speech than they were by Sherman, and a strong groundswell moved for Garfield's election.  It does not appear that Garfield did anything to support his own candidacy--in fact, it appears that he was opposed to the idea and genuinely objected to his own nomination at every step.  But as it had been when Lincoln suggested that he enter congress rather than stay in the army during the Civil War (he was originally elected while serving as a Major General of Volunteers and, as in 1880, didn't campaign for himself), Garfield served when he was summoned.

One Major Victory:  Garfield began his campaign with a major victory.  When he refused to concede to Senator Conkling's demands regarding New York patronage, Conkling and Senator Platt (also of NY) both resigned.  But when they went back to the New York state legislature, neither was reelected.  Platt would see future success as a Senator from New York, but Conkling's career was effectively over (although Arthur would submit his name for the U.S. Supreme Court, but Conkling turned the post down after being nominated).  It's easy to speculate that Garfield could have had additional victories that would have improved his country.  He was a strong supporter of civil service reform, providing increased educational opportunities, and believed in protecting civil rights for blacks. 

I am a Stalwart of the Stalwarts!

Assassination:  Garfield's assassination is the heart of Millard's book and, tragically for someone with Garfield's abilities, probably the thing he is most known for.  But the story itself is fascinating, and Millard does an excellent job telling it.  She focuses on three characters.

Looks crazy to me.

-- Charles Guiteau.  Fascinating man.  Lived in a utopian community, was married briefly and recklessly cheated on his wife, was admitted to the bar but failed miserably as a lawyer, and eventually just traveled from place to place and lived by begging for loans or taking credit that he never paid back.  When he traveled to Washington in 1881, it appears that he genuinely thought he'd be given a consulate in Europe because of some crappy speech he gave during the election.  He was unquestionably mentally ill, and when he shot Garfield he believed that people would thank him for saving the republic . 

  -- Dr. Doctor Willard Bliss.  Millard renders a terrible judgment against Bliss, who rejected Pasteur and the "theory of germs" and unquestionably caused more harm to Garfield that he did good.  I'm often reluctant to judge historical actors based on modern standards of conduct.  But it appears that Bliss not only did a terrible, terrible job caring for Garfield, but also hid his malpractice by keeping the President hidden away from view (and from other doctors).  Garfield suffered terribly and needlessly at Bliss's hands.  (The takeaway is never trust a doctor whose first name is Doctor.)

-- Alexander Graham Bell.  We get a nice portrait of him here.  I love the idea of America's scientific genius rushing to create new inventions to save the life of the president.  (Think of Bill Gates rushing to create a supercomputer to save Obama, who has been crippled by an assassin's bullet.)  It's like something from a novel, but it's true.  And Bell's efforts resulted in the metal detector.

The Republicans Ran America:  I could note this in a number of places, but I'll do it here.  From Lincoln through Teddy Roosevelt, the nationally active members of the Republican Party ran the United States.  I know that Cleveland had two terms in there, but he was such a political loner that it there didn't really emerge other national-level leaders from the Democracy.  I find two things about this interesting.  (1) The way in which a number of men were active in foreign and fiscal policy across multiple administrations.  (2) The importance of New York as a swing state and, thus, the importance of New York's political bosses in shaping national politics.  Some men of note are the following.

-- John Sherman.  Strong supporter of the war effort as a U.S. Senator and in the house.  He was Treasury Secretary under Hayes (where he strengthened the currency in 1879) and a Secretary of State for a time under McKinley.  He was multiple times a candidate for president.  As a senator he also helped create the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (which is still a critically important law).

James G. Blaine of Maine.

-- James Blaine.  He was the Speaker of the House in the 1870s and Secretary of State under both Garfield (he resigned shortly after Arthur took the job, but was active in South America and Hawaii) and Harrison (he was sick much of the time, but worked on the Pan-America conference and disputes with Germany and England).  Blaine also spent significant time in the Senate.  He was also a candidate for president multiple times.

-- Roscoe Conkling.  He was the Republican boss of New York for the 1870s and 1880s.  By controlling New York patronage through his relationship with Grant he held significant power.  He was also a reckless womanizer.

-- Thomas Platt and Elihu Root were senators from New York after Conkling.  Root was active in foreign affairs, being Secretary of State under T.R. and Secretary of War under McKinley.  Platt was one of the most powerful men ever in New York politics.

All the while, the party had diverse, often conflicting opinions on important issues.  It was a strongly unionist party, which had no support in the states of the old Confederacy.  It was generally in favor of black civil rights, but hostile (often prejudicial) to Catholics.  It was dominated by monied interests on Wall Street, but also had a strong social reformist element including teetotalers and other similar people.  And it had the strongest reformers, but also the people most committed to patronage politics.  The tariff issue often split the party, as did issues relating to greenbacks and free silver.

Thomas Jefferson

Joseph J. Ellis:  American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson:  3rd President (1801-1809); b. 1743; d. 1826

American Sphinx is an excellent name for a book about Jefferson because it’s so hard to cut to the core and see the real man at the center.  His predecessors made this much easier.  Washington was a man of duty--you could see his devotion to serving his country (be it Virginia or the U.S.) at many of the crucial events of his life.  Adams had a sense of puritan virtue that profoundly influenced everything he did (his greatest accomplishments and his greatest failures stemmed from his refusal to compromise when he believed himself to be in the right).  Even with later presidents we can see a central character trait that allows for a central narrative--Jackson cared too much about honor; Buchanan was overcome by his own blind ambition; Pierce tried too hard to mend fences.

They say he had auburn hair--looks right

There isn’t anything like that about Jefferson.  He is a mass of contradictions.  He authored the phrase “all men are created equal,” but he owned scores of slaved and never freed any during his own life (much in contrast to Washington who was not so eloquent, but truly lived his own ideals).  He was a committed franophile, but never achieved the fluency of Adams.  He was trained as a lawyer, but never really practiced.  He advocated war, but never himself served or even witnessed the horrors of war (unlike, say, Monroe, who witnessed the Reign of Terror first-hand).  He was a scholar but didn’t have the book learning of Quincy Adams.  He was a devotee of agriculture, but lost money on his farm and made money on his industrial endeavors (mostly nail-making).  He advocated independence, but was himself forever in debt.  And while the term “Jeffersonian Democracy” invokes the idea of an independent farmer, Jefferson himself lived a truly opulent lifestyle and, because of it, died in debt.

What to make of all this?  It’s easy, I think, to peg Jefferson as a sort of free-floating genius.  A man whose incredible intellect allowed him an easy mastery of any subject into which he came in contact without ever needing to devote himself to a subject or put in the hard work of his peers.  It’s also easy to paint as a reckless ideologue.  He had a certain devotion to the idea of revolution that, when taken to its extreme elsewhere, led to the breakdown of civil society and to mass bloodshed.  (It’s ironic that Edmund Burke, one of the founders of modern conservatism, wrote such polemical things against ideas very similar to those possessed by Jefferson, and yet Jefferson is held in such high regard by modern conservatives.)

Indeed, much of this is true.  Jefferson was a genius, and he was reckless.  But he was so many more thinks.  And that’s what makes him so interesting.

Loyalty?:  One of the topics that is so frustrating to the modern student of Jefferson’s life is his complete lack of loyalty to those around him.  He actively worked against many of the goals of the Washington administration and basically left the administration so that he could rail against it in the press.  His duplicity against Adams--for whom he served as vice president--was in many ways even worse.  The lies and half truths that he spread against John Adams, and his use of the potential war with France (a war Adams rightly sought to avoid) as a campaign issue were both repugnant.  This is especially true considering his long friendship with both John and Abigail.  And he was more than happy to use Monroe as a sacrificial lamb when public option turned against France (where Monroe was minister), even though Monroe had not only followed his instructions to a “t,” but had also excelled as a diplomat.  Perhaps worse, he came close to committing treason when he willingly gave aid to the French who were capturing and killing Americans on the high seas.

This is perhaps the worst part of Jefferson’s character.  He was always willing to destroy a friendship to advance his own career or whatever cause he championed.  What is interesting is that the men--John Adams and James Monroe--mostly forgave him, while the women--Abigail Adams and Martha Washington--found him to be a despicable creature.

Party Man:  We take parties for granted now, but Jefferson was really the first man to form one.  He was one of the original anti-Federalists--indeed, he was in France when the Constitution was written and he railed against it.  It was Madison, who wrote large portions of it, who had to tell him to be quiet so that the thing would be ratified.  And after the ratification, he spend his time fighting against Alexander Hamilton, whose main goal was to create a stable national currency that would have allowed all of those farmers that Jefferson supposedly represented pay off their debts more easily.  This included an early form of the spoils system as well as strong party loyalty (which required Monroe to step aside so that Madison could become president, and lead the country into a disastrous war with England).

Ladies Man:  So, Jefferson had a long-term affair with one of his slaves.  We know that.  He also had a long relationship with a certain Ms. Cosway in Europe during his time abroad.  These are both interesting events, especially considering that he appears to have gone into a severe depression when he wife died (and rather early).  I don’t know if this portion of his life makes him more vulnerable and therefore appealing, or more of a reckless debutante.  But it’s interesting.

Evaluation:  As a president, Jefferson may be the most overrated in our history (perhaps along with Monroe and Regan).  But as an American, his legacy stands there with Washington and Edison.  His ideas about liberty--and let’s give him credit, these were radical ideas that he helped shape and put into words--are now central tenants of our political culture.  And his positions on a number of issues led to the creation of one of the main schools of American political thought (not sure how to define it’s--it’s classical liberalism, but now it’d be called conservative).  He was also completely dedicated to these ideas.  Perhaps that is the most important part of his legacy.  When he said crazy things about revolution and the blood of patriots he was, perhaps, being a little flip and reckless.  But he said these things out of a real devotion to civil ideals.  Prior to Jefferson, I don’t know that anyone had created the idea that these civil virtues were so important that they were worth dying for.  This was vitally important then, and is even more vitally important now.  America is a collection of people of many nationalities, ethnicities, religious, and viewpoints.  

Most important document EVER!?  Possibly.

Unless there is something holding everyone together other than base self-interest, America is nothing more than empire.  That “something” was, I think, Jefferson’s legacy.  The “something” we have now we may have inherited directly from Lincoln, but without Jefferson we never get to that tall man from Illinois.

James Monroe

Even looks a little like Washington

Harlow Giles Unger:  The Last Founding Father: James Monroe and a Nation’s Call to Greatness
James Monroe:  5th President (1817-1825); b. 1758; d. 1831

James Monroe’s life was truly interesting—he walks through the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the War of 1812, the Era of Good Feelings, and the Monroe Doctrine—and interacts with so many of the most interesting people in the world’s history (how many people knew both Washington and Napoleon?).  The books is not overly long, 350 pages of text with a large font, and Unger makes the material very readable.  Unger does an excellent job of telling this story in a gripping manner, creating engaging characters and telling the story from Monroe’s point of view.  Monroe comes along a decade or so later than his predecessors, so he views the events of the revolution and the coming years from the vantage of a younger man than his predecessors.

Little Washington:  James Monroe was an excellent president and a wonderful American.  One of the things I enjoyed about Monroe was the way that he consciously imitated Washington (he even looked a little like Washington).  From the time he was in college and he joined the Continental Army, he really tended to worship at the altar of Washington.  This was apparent in his time as president.  Rather than act just as a Republican, he did everything in his power to unite the country behind a single banner.  This was one of the forces leading to the ‘Era of Good Feelings’ and I don’t think that we should entirely discount Monroe’s role in this.  His ability to end partisan bickering—especially after the partisan strife in earlier elections—was a good thing.  And his tour of the United States while in office was in many ways unique, and was imitated by many of his successors.

Saving Paine and Lafayette:  I think that Monroe was a particularly effective diplomat, much as Q would be soon after him.  His ability to ingratiate himself among the French was critical in keeping the peace among the two nations.  And this was an especially difficult period in which to operate—Napoleonic Europe was a complicated and dangerous place.  Monroe’s ability to negotiate the Monroe-Pinkney treaty was commendable.  The individuals that rejected this treaty—Jefferson in particular—possessed unrealistic views of America’s place in the world vis-à-vis the powers in Europe.  This unrealistic viewpoint played not a small role in causing the War of 1812.

Part of what makes Monroe compelling is his courage and devotion to others.  He took a real risk in hiding Thomas Paine and Lafayette shipping them out of France.  And the scene in which Monroe’s wife drove up to La Force Prison and demanded the release of Madame Lafayette—and the authorities comply—would make for compelling fiction if it wasn’t true.

Madison:  The way in which Jefferson and Madison worked together to make Monroe “wait his turn” while Madison took the White House for eight years was really unfortunate.  Monroe had a distinguished record, was very popular, and had every right to actively seek the presidency in 1808.  His grace in 1808, especially after his falling out with Jefferson and Madison, was impressive and speaks well of his character.

1812:  That which damns Madison stands to Monroe’s credit.  When Madison panicked and acted like a dead fish when the British stormed Washington D.C., Monroe—then the Secretary of State—basically stepped in and took personal command of American troops in the area.  This was really a glorious event and moment of leadership for Monroe, even though we don’t hear about it much today.  I think it shows the force of his personality and ability to lead men.  

The War of 1812:  Where more than one Future President Shined

Q:  I find it interesting that Monroe and John Quincy Adams got along so well.  These are men from very different backgrounds and with very different personalities.  But they were both of the same era—young during the Revolution, aging with their country—and both had long careers in service of the public.  It is a great historic relationship in which two people respected each other and were able to work together to better advance the cause of their nation than they would have been able to alone.

Family Man:  Monroe was committed to his family.  He had a wonderful relationship with his wife, who embodied many of the same characteristics as him.  And he was very close with his daughter Eliza Monroe Hay, who spent a great deal of time in his White House.

Dead on the Fourth of July:  Just like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

Rutherford B. Hayes

Ari  Hoogenboom:  Rutherford B. Hayes: Warrior and President
Rutherford B. Hayes:  19th President (1877-1881); b. 1822; d. 1893


This book is over 700 pages long, which means is much, much more than you would ever want to read about Rud Hayes.  But there isn't a lot of selection from which to pick Hayes biographies, and this seems like the standard one.  Hoogenboom's books is technically very well executed, and he obviously researched it extensively.  But, at times, it's a little much.  It's illustrative that I finished with a large section of the book devoted to Hayes's presidency and Hoogenboom said (essentially):  and that finished the first years of his presidency.  And I said:  we have THREE MORE YEARS OF THIS!


Hayes actually seems like a decent guy.  He served valiantly in the Civil War and was truly devoted to improving the lives of his fellow citizens.  It kind of sucks that he bowed to pressure from teetotalers and made the white house dry, but it's cool that he never joined a church.


One thing that did strike me about Rud Hayes was that he parallels quite nicely with Barak Obama.  Both came from rather humble origins to attend college and The Harvard Law School.  And as presidents, both were faced with severe difficulties at the start of their terms from members of their own parties who thought that they, rather than the president, should be leading policy discussions.  Later, they faced exceedingly hostile opposition parties with bases among conservative southerners who took control of congress.  And the Democrats in the late 1870s, like the Republicans now, used riders attached to budget bills and other methods of legislative hard ball to try to force strongly ideological legislation on the president.


I think that Hayes actually did a better job that Obama in facing the opposition.  Rather than caving in to get bills past, Hayes just vetoed legislation that he disagreed with.  He had the courage of his convictions and did not back down.  In the end, congress had to back down and they eventually passed legislation that he could sign.  This was a major victory for his administration, and he deserves credit for this--indeed, he really helped preserve the independence and power of the presidency.


Hayes also make significant contributions after his presidency.  His favorite cause was education, and I think that all he did for education at colleges in Ohio and for blacks in the South was truly admirable.  Hoogenboom compares him to Carter, and I think that's fair.



He loses points, however, for abandoning the republican administrations in South Carolina and Louisiana after they did so much to make him president in the most controversial election ever (the election of 1876 makes Bush v. Gore look like smooth sailing).