1790s: Jefferson

A temporary break from my chronological exercise, I read Jon Meacham's new biography of the third president, Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power.

The author builds upon a theme of Jefferson's attempt to balance being an ideal visionary and a pragmatic politician.  This provides a format for explaining the inconsistencies contradictions in Jefferson's words and actions over time, especially from today's perspective.  While overly simple, it is a fair approach to Jefferson, who was a key player in over many years of dynamic change.  In fact, this same theme is probably applicable to most people who were influential or in power over any length of time in those eras--from Washington, to Adams, to Hamilton, and even later with figures such as Andrew Jackson (one of Meacham's other biographical subjects.)

The history lessons of elementary and high school do not capture the fragility of the country after the revolution, and can even give a sense of ultimate American destiny during the Colonial era.  The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are amazing documents that emerged and unified philosophies for building a nation, but the divide in opinion for how to apply them to actual governing was much wider and more fundamental than today.  Jefferson was able to lead the country forward during this time, adapting and changing as the situation warranted.  Comparing him with the other presidential biographies and political histories that followed over the next 100 years, he certainly is deserving his legendary status for his endurance and impact across eras.  And this was possible because of this balance of strong ideals and pragmatic action at a time that required someone with this possibility.

1920s: Presidents of the '20s--Hoover

History 101 teaches that Herbert Hoover was one of the biggest failures as President, with the term "Hooverville" probably a correct answer on a test in every high school history class.  But aside from his presiding over the economy's crash and sudden plummeting into depression (and as a song in the musical "Annie"), I did not know much about him.  In fact, he is most known in contrast with FDR, who used unprecedented actions to try to reverse the slide.

As Hoover actually took over from Calvin Coolidge at the beginning of 1930, after the stock market crash, I read William Leuchtenburg's short biography to learn more about the Hoover of the 1920s, and how the nation would choose someone destined for infamy.  Was he simply the obvious safe answer to continue the string of Republican administrations?  I was surprised the answer was no. 

Harding was the transition from Wilsonian Democrats to Republican governments at the beginning of the 1920s and Coolidge was the accidental hands-off administrator that let the decade roar.  Harding only had minimal prior experience in Washington and his strategy was to offend no one.  Coolidge had even less experience and used a strategy of saying nothing.  And both were clearly in the conservative camps.  In contrast, by the time Hoover was the nominee at the end of the decade, he was a dynamo, a strong personality, known for taking strong actions, offending many, and not fitting neatly into the political parties.

The first part of Hoover's public career reminded me a lot of Robert Moses, the infamous "Power Broker" (and subject of Robert Caro's great biography), who at this time was just getting started in his role as the great mastermind and behind the scenes engineer of New York City who consolidated and wielded power to transform the city from a base of seemingly minor appointed positions.  While not elected, as head of the Food Administration under Wilson and then as Commerce Secretary for Harding and Coolidge, Hoover consolidated power and responsibility, creating mini empires out of previously lower level administration positions.  He had tremendous ego and ambition and defended his actions in the name of public good.  I don't know when the term was first used for a powerful person in our government, but his description as a Czar seems very appropriate.

Upon review it is not surprising that Hoover's aggressive style did not fit neatly into characteristic Republican profile (either conservative or progressive), yet his self-identified conservativeness and open criticism of government's abilities versus individual's did not put him in the Democratic camp.  So for ten years he existed as a powerful force and contrasting style within the relatively weak Republican administrations.  At the end of Coolidge's reign he cited the inevitability of Herbert Hoover as one reason not to pursue an additional term.  Is this a common trend in history, that when top leadership is weak that counter personality forces will emerge?  And the inverse, when leadership is strong that it is difficult for other strong players to develop?  Surely there must be other examples.

The 1920s America was one of heroes.  The public adored Charles Lindbergh, Babe Ruth, Henry Ford and others that symbolized the country's new position of leadership on the world stage and progression into the modern world through mighty feats.  With no heroes in the White House, Hoover was probably the closest fit for that role within the government with his famous actions to feed Europe and save food during the War and prominent roles afterward.  Plus his upbringing and early life success was straight out of a Horatio Alger story. His pre-presidential stature is largely forgotten today.

Moving to the next decade the two big questions are: Although he didn't cause the Great Depression did he make it worse?  And, if he did not inherit a crumbling economy, could Hoover have been a good or even great president?

The short answer to the first question is: probably.  While he could not have prevented the collapse, and it would have happened to anyone in his seat, he did not take the right actions to alleviate the situation.  In his defense, throughout the 1920s and in the 1929 election, there were no competing voices warning of impending depression and the need for preventative action.  Much of today's economic understanding and strategies were not known at the time.  However his attitude to downplay the severity, focus on adding tariffs, and limiting relief among other actions only exacerbated things and at a minimum caused the public to lose faith in government at a time it was most needed.  While what he did and didn't do was not necessarily inconsistent with common thinking at the time, it is exposed by the urgent and bold new actions taken by Roosevelt when he takes over.

As for his chance for success sans the collapse, Leuchtenburg argues that it still would have been slim.  He concludes that Hoover's engineering czar style of operating was not compatible with the office of the President.  He didn't have the ability to navigate the politics that are necessary for accomplishments in Washington.  And because he didn't fit well within the conservative or progressive groups within the party he did not have a core base of support.  While he may have been elected to a second term simply because he was an incumbent Republican in that era, he would not have accomplished much.  (Funny aside: as I was finishing the book I read Scott Adams of Dilbert fame asking if we should have engineers run the government.)

Alas, Herbert Hoover is cemented in history along with the legacies of Martin Van Buren, James Buchanon, U.S. Grant, and Grover Cleveland who presided over economic Depressions and effectively sat on their hands.

Leuchtenburg's book is good for this series.  He does not overly defend his subject and writes a compelling narrative.  I really enjoyed the years leading up to the White House.  I did expect the author to be building a case that Hoover has been given a raw deal by history because of the success and personality of the mining executive and Secretary. If I had stopped there the book would get five stars and Herbert Hoover would be my new favorite president.  But the latter half of the book is a less gripping story and includes all of the expected descriptions of his fall that do not need much analysis.  All in all, 4/5 stars for an unexpected good read.

Going into the three consecutive biographies, I expected Harding to be the most interesting book, followed by Hoover and then Coolidge.  How wrong I was. 

1920s: Presidents of the '20s--Coolidge

Before reading the biographies of Harding, Coolidge, Hoover I had only a characterization-level understanding of the three.  Together they were the three Republicans that let the good times roll in the 1920s and irresponsibly set up the stock market crash and the Great Depression.  Individually they were the corrupt womanizer, the silent one, and Mr. Hooverville.

Of the three, Coolidge had the longest tenure in the White House and was truly the one that oversaw the decade and probably contributed the most, or at least had the opportunity to contribute the most, to the state of the country and the economy.  The "Silent Cal" image was neither unfair nor an accident.  Although it was probably a one-time anomaly for a president, only possible for vice president who assumed office when the president died.  And it is unlikely that today someone with his lack of strong personality could even be elected as a VP.  It was also a match of an economy naturally firing on all cylinders that reinforced his laissez-faire style.

David Greenberg's book is one of the better ones I have read from the President's series, showing again that sometimes the better story and interesting analysis comes from the less obvious subjects.  In this case, while Coolidge's personality was quiet and his actions were few, he did have six years in office compared to his more flamboyant predecessor who only had two years, and those six years happened to be a time of prominent social and economic change in the country.  The author also did not spend too much of the book passionately arguing that his subject is misunderstood or underappreciated as authors in this series are too often tempted to do, although he does raise the questions of how to fairly evaluate Coolidge from the hindsight perspective of different eras.

The irony of his quiet personality is that he was the first president of the modern media age.  Greenburg shows how his administration, and Cal himself, were the first to really capitalize on the radio and news reels to spread his carefully crafted messages to the entire country.  I was amazed by the comparison that some of his speeches were broadcast to listening audiences in the tens of millions while it is estimated that Theodore Roosevelt reached no more than 13 million people with every speech he gave in his career combined.  Even if there was not much substance to his messages and positions, his image was carefully constructed and then protected by press secretaries and friends in publishing unlike any of his predecessors.  It seems ironic now that his dull and almost unimportant legacy was intentionally developed by Coolidge and his people.

Greenburg addresses the fairness of Coolidge's blame for the subsequent economic disaster.

"Any president surely would have failed to do all that was necessary to avert some serious trouble.  But Coolidge's naive faith in the gospel of productivity and the benevolence of business--as well as his excessive reliance on others to make his policies--deterred him even from asking the questions that might have mitigated the misfortune." (pg 150)

It is difficult to judge fairly from a position of hindsight, and maybe even more in this era that was so suddenly different than previous eras.  Unlike the disastrous lead up to the Civil War, there were not significant camps of people and emerging political parties warning of trouble and underlying fundamental problems.  I think it is very telling none the challengers he had, both within his party and from the other side, were arguing to slow down the economy or do anything economists later believed could have reduced the fall.  A few may have been better in the long run because they would have supported this position or that, but it is likely the 1920s would have roared regardless and it would still crash.

If history truly does repeat itself we could see other cases of economic blind spots, which is probably a fair description of the lack of attention on fundamental weaknesses in the 2000s that led to the housing and credit crisis.  Is the lesson that when everything appears to be going well no politicians want to be the ones suggesting otherwise?

I still plan to read the Herbert Hoover biography next, but then I want to pause on the 1920s as so much else was happening as the country was transitioning from 19th Century to the modern era, socially, commercially and economically.  I also want to explore more the question of economic knowledge--was it simply that the understanding of economics was not developed enough to understand what was happening and therefore leaders can be excused from not acting on knowledge and advice that didn't exist.  If that is so, then there is less excuses for repeating economic issues in the future.

I will give Greenburg's book 4/5 stars for making Coolidge readable.

(Read May 2012)

1920s: Presidents of the '20s--Harding

For my next assignment I decided to read consecutively the Times series biographies of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, treating them as one continuous Republican administration.

Up first is Warren Harding, longtime favorite of my father, who is a fan presidential history, because of all of the juicy tales of corruption and intrigue around his death. That is until he read this book.

Many of the authors in this series are fans or apologists for their subjects, as is the case with John Dean.  And I smile that they found a former member of the Nixon White House to write about the infamously corrupt Harding administration.  Throughout the book the author is making two basic arguments:

1. Warren Harding's legacy has been unfairly, and incorrectly, tied to corruption.
2. He was not one of the worst presidents in history, but in fact a very good one.

The case Dean makes against Harding being corrupt is actually very solid.  As scandals were breaking at the time he died a lot of colleagues and politicians had incentive to find a scapegoat and focus attention on him to protect themselves.  I had always learned that he was "one of the good old boys", but he actually was not a lifelong Washington politician, having only spent a few years in the Senate before his election.  So there was not a lot of deep relationships with people that would look to protect his legacy.  Also telling, is the media's lack of interest in truly investigating the stories of what happened.

It may have been independently published accounts that made the first or juiciest accusations of corruption, affairs, and even his being murdered by his wife.  While the major press and scholars may not have originated or spread these stories, they certainly did not look to correct the public record by the simple fact that his personal files sat untouched in a basement for forty years.

As for the case that his subject is an under-appreciated President, (the same argument most authors make in this series), Dean's argument is weaker.  At best, if you remove any stain from corrupt colleagues and assume Harding was innocent of any knowledge or involvement, you can say that his presidency was simply incomplete.  He did not live long enough to see a lot of his policies enacted.  His style of leadership in the Senate and campaign trail to "offend no one, make friends everywhere, bring together factions as the peacemaker" (p 52) didn't really translate to a strong leader in office.

At the end of the day, Harding was the transition from the Wilson years of Democratic control to the era of Republican leadership that contributed to the freewheeling 1920s, and eventually its later colossal collapse.   Along with Coolidge and Hoover I plan on reading other books on the decade of jazz, Prohibition, and economic growth built on margin.  I am curious to see how much these presidencies and their policies affected the changes in culture and an out of control economic engine.

Dean's book gets 3/5 stars for being a decent read and attempt at setting the record straight.

(Read October 2011)

1910s: Early Auto Industry

Each Labor Day weekend I go to Auburn, Indiana for a classic car festival, including a trip to the Auburn Cord Dusenberg Museum that tells the story of automobile manufacturing in Indiana in the first decades of the Twentieth Century. I am always fascinated by the hundreds of small car companies that were founded by tinkering mechanics that added engines to carriages, or by an enterprising businessman to assemble and market autos made entirely from acquired parts.

These were true start up companies at the infancy stages of an industry, with the same as we are seeing today in technology. Many small companies enter the market with an incremental innovation or with access to a new piece of the market. Many of these companies quickly fail, but a few catch enough lightning for short-term success. Then consolidation begins, and access and control of capital becomes an equally important factor to pure innovation and operations.

Many of these pioneer automakers only produced a handful or even just one car under its own brand before being lost to history. The ones that have survived today, the Buick, Ford, Chevrolets, Chrysler, are the result of both a great vision and effort of their founders as much as pure fortune of being in the right place at the right time. Pelfrey's Billy, Alfred, and General Motors is a fascinating story of how two gentlemen had the right vision while being at the right place and time.

While other pioneers, especially Ford, were successful building scale from initial concepts, this story shows how Billy Durant's path to consolidate different brands being the first to create economies of capital gave GM the infrastructure and competitive advantage to quickly emerge as the early, dominant player in the industry. But GM's legacy was only solidified, the author argues, because Durant was succeeded by Alfred Sloan who tranformed Durant's conglomeration into a single-functioning company with economies of scale that could continue to compete and grow.

While even now we are seeing companies take a competitive advantage to grow to a dominant position and then later lose when it cannot adapt, the story of GM's early generations shows the rare company that is able to radically evolve. In recent years we have seen IBM reinvent itself after Microsoft's rise, and then Microsoft's struggle to change.

This book was great after reading the stories of the industrial revolution titans taking advantage of innovations and government trying to adapt to keep up with a rapidly changing country. The rise of the auto industry expands upon these trends resulting in stories of average born but industrious individuals competing and building national businesses. The true American story of the Twentieth Century was born.

Pelfry's book is a really fun read, 5/5 stars. It was written for a General Motors anniversary and maybe is a little too bias toward the company legacy, especially compared to Ford, but I didn't care here and the stories of the various characters and ventures were well researched and told.

(Read August 2011)

1910s: WWI

I am not a big fan of military history, but I needed to read about World War I as it seemed to be glossed over in the shadow of World War II in history classes. It almost seems reduced to trivia answers: the Archduke Ferdinand, trench warfare, doughboys, the Red Baron, Treaty of Versailles. Maybe the fact that the US was late to enter the war and it was relatively brief and less painful than the Europeans' experience that it is almost overlooked in US history studies. Go to any large bookstore (while you can) and peruse the history and military aisles. There are rows and rows of Civil War and WWII books. Entire sections. And nestled in between you will probably find the obligatory account of the Spanish American War (most likely focusing on Teddy Roosevelt) and maybe a book or two about the Great War in Europe.

But what was the experience of the United States? Even if it was a short engagement the mobilization was massive compared to the somewhat recent conflict in Cuba. And the country was a very different place than when a previous generation raised arms in the Civil War. How did that happen? That is what I wanted to read about. With no compelling recent books I found The War to End All Wars: The American Military Experience in World War I written in 1968 by Edward Coffman. The book is exactly as advertised in the title. It barely covers the European conflict prior to the American involvement and then focuses exclusively on the planning, mobilization, administration, and finally major battles.

The battle description in the latter part of the book were interesting from the perspective of the decision-making and communications challenges, however it did not capture the true experiences of the thousands that lived and died through the horrors of early modern warfare.

The first half of the book described a mobilization effort that is still almost unbelieveable. The United States had a very, very small standing army and the institutions and infrastructure were basically nonexistent, or relics of the Civil War. That includes people and knowledge. The conscription, training, feeding, clothing, and moving of more than a million men from a standstill is remarkable. Of course many had little to no training. Others used sticks instead of guns for practice until they reached the front. Tanks and airplanes were brand new technology that no one knew how to use and maintain, let alone to understand and coordinate optimal military strategies for them.

The infrastructure created, including the financing and industrial relations, will obviously be key to the country's ability to expand into a world power in the coming century, specifically its lead role in WWII. (Personal shout out to Mr. Bernard Baruch for his leadership in WWI as the most famous alum and namesake of my graduate school!) While the book stopped with the armistice, I want to know more how much the country was truly changed by this experience, how much infrastructure remained versus dismantled, and how the attitude of people changed as the soldiers returned to waving flags and bands with stories of the horror of a great war, all against a backdrop of a rapidly world and their country's position in that world was changing.


Coffman's book is a fine read. 3/5 stars. As mentioned the focus is exclusively on the American experience. While it is not a page turner, it is readable and appears to be thorough, with a good use of primary sources and accounts from multiple perspectives. Written in 1968, there are fleeting references to Vietnam and he anticipates World War II, often hinting at people who would later become prominent in that story.

(Read July 2011)

1910s: Taft Administration

I prefer to read biographies and presidential histories on the lesser-known presidents, focusing on specific events for the "big guys". Previous books on Monroe, Polk, Ben Harrison have been pleasant surprises as interesting lessons in politics, insights into a specific time, or just compelling stories. That was my expectation in choosing to read about William Howard Taft instead of Roosevelt or Wilson. My mistake.

Gould's book on Taft is well researched, positioned, and written, but he can only do so much with limited material. The fact is that not much happened during the Taft administration. He was Teddy's chosen successor, but nothing like him in ambition. A much more conservative Republican in both politics and style, his highlights were pushing legislation to tweak tariffs and most international relations issues were with the world powers of Mexico and Canada. Although his legacy shouldn't be hurt by the fact that a war didn't break out on his watch. But he also was not an adept politician, didn't surround himself with great people or look for advice when he should, essentially shooting himself in his foot. Arguably his rift with Roosevelt could have been avoided along with other blunders, which possibly could have resulted in a second term and Taft needing to deal with WWI. How history would have been different.

In the context of the times, Taft's administration does illustrate some of the trends. He approached the office more as a lawyer (or maybe judge), instituted some organization to the administration processes as were being implemented in industry and organizations across the country at the time as the scale of operations in an industrialized society required more organization. But this society required a lot more than just organization, and industrialization and urbanization were creating new problems for people seen in the past several books--from the steel laborers in Pittsburgh, to the Kansas farmers with economic imbalances with the railroads, to the disadvantaged immigrants in sprawling Chicago, to the local bank customer in New York. The trend toward progressivism was clearly taking hold, but the conservative side of the Republicans were essentially disregarding the inevitable. And as the party had been in power more or less for decades, in hindsight it is not surprising that the party leadership could be assumed by a master lawyer/admisitrator than necessarily a master politician and leader. If anything Roosevelt is the more surprising anomaly in personality.

As I said, Gould's book is fine. The material is incredibly dry, but he gets credit for presenting it in as compelling a manner as possible. I would read a book on a better topic by him. 2/5 stars.

(Read April 2011)

1900s: Bank Panic

The history of the United States economy is filled with boom and bust cycles--often with more regularity, extremes, and currency impacts than the generally steady climate the past two or three generations have experienced. The banking panic of 1907 was similar to many other downturns in its effect on both the economy and the political landscape. The exponential growth of the economy in the decades and years leading up to 1907 had created a particularly volatile situation as the financial infrastructure that was mostly established pre-industrial society was not able to keep up. The lack of a central bank, or alternate centralized monetary controls or regulations, combined with a widely distributed and decentralized banking system across rural areas created a web of interdependencies among financial institutions--large and small--that were neither transparent nor understood by almost anyone. The system was not able to absorb the shocks of the San Francisco earthquake followed by the even the collapse of small corporations whose finances were overleveraged to banks who were also overleveraged. Even if these events had not set off the panic in 1907, the system would have collapsed due to some other events.

1907 was similar to its counterpart one hundred years later in that both were essentially credit crunches do to overly risky, opaque investments by the large banks. However, the similarities end there. With a lack of a central bank or similar institution, there were limited abilities in 1907 for a coordinated reaction to the events as they were unfolding. The establishment of the Federal Reserve and other regulations were a direct result of that experience and of course were instrumental in controlling the magnitude of our most recent recession. (The Fed's effectiveness is admittadly a debatable point.)

At the same time, while a complex tangle of financial investments and relationships led to the panic, it was visible enough that J.P. Morgan and colleagues were able to manage the situation and control certain events from spiraling out of control via spot loans and bailouts of certain brokerages, clearing houses, and even the city of New York's payroll, that were seen as strategic cogs in the financial machine that would lead to out-of-control chaos if they went down. The argument is that Morgan et al's actions over several days in 1907 kept the panic at a recession-level downturn versus a disastrous depression that could have absolutely crippled the U.S. economy and currency.

The Panic of 1907 was one of the first books I identified for this reading list. Taken alone it is a good story, albeit a little academic, on the events leading up to a bank panic and the special circumstances and maybe even heroic efforts of a few powerful men in attempt to quell the storm. The author may be a little enamored with Morgan and I believe there are histories with alternative emphases on events or business cycle theories, but the basic simple lessons of how a panic can be generated are a good perspective to consider current events. As part of this reading project the book is even better in context after reading about the years of expansion and growth in industry, population, and local infrastructure. Transitioning to the next decade I am going to look at the upcoming political history, including the changing political priorities of Taft from Roosevelt coming out of this economic climate.

The book is an average read, 3/5 stars although it probably reads a little smoother than it should for the subject matter. On a side note, this was my first ebook, read on the Kindle app on an iPad, which was a surprisingly enjoyable experience. (Although it showed I still had 50% to read when it ended because of all of the appendices that I hadn't noticed.)

(Read February 2011)

1900s: Chicago and urban growth

For the first decade of the 1900s I finally jumped into local history, which is my favorite lens, and chose Chicago (my adopted home town) as a case study of the entire country's growth of cities in the industrial revolution, although it was the most dramatic case up to this point.

The Plan of Chicago, created by the leadership of Daniel Burnham in the first few years of the Century paints an elegant picture of the new grand ideas urban planning coming out of the industrial revolution applied to the relatively sparse canvas of U.S. cities, especially in the growing west. That Chicago was so rapidly rebuilt by commercial and leaders following the Great Fire of 1871 shows the energy and urgency toward growth and the ability to ignore basic social and structural considerations such as housing, transportation, or public health. It is natural to see how this led to uncontrolled massive expansion of the city as support for its industry, and secondarily by default, a place to live for masses of immigrants coming to work in the jobs created by the growth.

As I read about the lack of overall vision and planning on a national scale for Reconstruction, but successful planning at the corporate level with the Carnegie's and Fricks of the world, with hindsight it appears inevitable that the application of the planning philosophy would move from industry to government. And the Plan of Chicago is an example of the link as Burnham created it on behalf of the commercial and merchant's clubs, who then lobbied the city to implement its ideas. When I lived in New York several years ago I read The Power Broker about Robert Moses, the infamous and powerful city planner. He was clearly the next step (and apex?) in the planning evolution as a member of the city he was able to combine the creation of an overall vision and take the necessary steps (no matter how unpopular or unfair) required to execute his grand plan.

One hundred years later I am amazed at how much the Chicago of today is influenced by the first integrated central plan for the city.

I also just read Sin in the Second City about the infamous red light district of Chicago and it's most famous house, operated by the Everleigh sisters at the same time as the Plan of Chicago was being written. While the stories of the Everleigh house are fascinating, and their higher class status compared to all of the other establishments in the Levee District made for very interesting clashes, if not just a brilliant competitive positioning as a business, it is a great microcosm for the state of progress in the city, and country, at that time. While Burnham and industry's leaders were attempting to create a grand vision for Chicago and to establish and process for the city to implement it, this district was allowed to flourish because of the corruption of local officials and the general acceptance of most of the city's leaders that vice was just a given result of growth and it was at least concentrated in one area. This finally changed in the next decade as pressure increased from religious and moral leaders in the city and across the nation on city officials who finally had no choice but to act to clean up the district. This coincides with starting the first projects from the Plan, widening streets into avenues, building bridges, relocating people.

Overall it was a time of transition, with governments slowly taking initiative to shape our landscapes, both physical and morally. I suspect this may be a trend to watch in future books.

Both books were enjoyable reads. Carl Smith's review of The Plan of Chicago was written for the original's 100th anniversary. I found it a surprisingly written with a good pace and level of detail. I would have loved more illustrations, but maybe I'll just have to go find and explore a copy of the actual Plan. 4/5 stars. Sin in the Second City was a great story, but the story was challenged at times, and as compelling as the Everleigh sisters were, the reform efforts just were as juicy tales so the book is a little choppy and slow at times. Although it did make me want to visit their original establishment in its heyday as I cannot quite fully imagine what it was like. But I doubt my wife would approve of such research, even with time travel. 3/5 stars.

1900: Wizard of Oz

To wrap up one century and move into another I switched from book to essay, returning to one of my all time favorite topics: Is the Wizard of Oz and allegory of late 19th Century populism? (If there was any lingering doubt as the the nerdiness of this entire endeavor, let it now cease.)

I read Henry Littlefield's 1964 paper that suggests L. Frank Baum was an active observer of the growing Populist movement of the late 1800s centered around William Jennings Bryan and the promise of bi-metalism as a solution to western farmers' economic ills. While later scholars, including David Parker's 1994 paper refute the direct allegory suggested by Littlefield, it is regardless a great illustration of the forces and parties at play in the country at that time, even if it is a total coincidence. (After reading a Baum biography a few years back, I personally agree with the coincidence theory, or at least indirect influence, as Baum was likely more directly influenced by women's rights and other issues of the day, which are also more pronounced in the later Oz books.) (See what I mean by nerdiness?)

The Kansas setting of Dorothy's home represents a time of hardship for western American farmers on the plains. On top of severe weather, they were caught in an economic storm of low commodity prices and increasing shipping rates from the expanding railroad empires. At the same time the industrializing eastern cities were discovering escalating conflicts between the labor classes and the ruling capital owners. All of these parties were, of course, looking for political support of their causes. In fact, it was viewed almost as a zero-sum game: power could not support equally labor, capital, and the farmers.

In this world there were several individual who crusaded for, or represented the characterization of each of the factions. Bryan, with his single issue platform of bimetalism (which would cause inflation and help farmers at the expense of eastern industrialists) was the most prominent. William McKinley (or his predecessors) is another prominent character on the national scene as the ruling party controlled by those of money.

Against this backdrop it is easy to see how a story with the cornucopia of characters in Oz can be an allegory of the times. Scarecrow as farmers. Tin Man as labor. Cowardly Lion as Bryan. And powerful entities controlling different factions and vying for control: the Wicked Witch of the East (Eastern capitalists) who had enslaved the Munchkins (laborers), the Wicked Witch of the West (McKinley) who had conquered the Winkies (recently acquired Philippines), and the Wizard himself, who ends up having no real power (perhaps Mark Hanna, a politcal powerbroker?)

And did I mention Dorothy's magic shoes that prevail at the end are silver?

Regardless of whether Baum intended the story to be an allegory, or if he was simply naturally influenced by major story lines of the day, it is a fun exercise to the look at the Turn of the Century issues from various constituencies' perspectives.

(Disclaimer: I discovered the original Littlefield essay in high school history class when the teacher had us find out who the various characters represented as a homework assignment. In the pre-Internet days, this was quite a challenge and may or may not have included consulting with upperclassmen for clues. In graduate economics courses I reread the original article along with several criticisms, which I just revisited.)

1890s: 1898

Looking to round out the 19th Century and begin transitioning to the next, I read David Traxel's 1898: The Birth of the American Century to learn more about the events leading up to and during the Spanish American War and how results of the conflict officially changed America's role in international relations.

In hindsight, the events of this year do seem to be a natural termination of the trends of the previous four decades.

Formal reconstruction and recovery from the Civil War was more or less over, with a new economic, political, and race relations equilibrium established. And the generation of the war was beginning to hand over the reigns to the next. I had never contemplated the concerns of having US troops on their way to Cuba pass through the American South--this was the first time since the Civil War/Reconstruction and no one knew how the public would react. The fact that they were cheered is telling of how the country's focus and priorities had changed in just a few years.

The changing of national focus had been seen in the fast migration and "taming" of the West, which had an almost sudden end, as the frontier was officially gone by the 1890s. Industrialization, with its urban focus and complementary need for trade, including international trade, to keep the economic engine churning was leading to a new interest in foreign conerns--a"foreign" concept to the isolated mentality established with the Revolution.

Urbanization and communications had allowed the media to emerge as major players in the country's actions, with the popular lead up to the war by the competing newspapers and their moguls as the classic example of creating news. It seems almost too neat of a story, with figures too large for life.

Traxel's book is okay. Not great, but readable and interesting enough. 2/5 stars. The main portion of the book is the war, but it is sandwiched between general survey history chapters on various cultural and political topics.

The book did, however, feel like a movie that was written with a sequel in mind.

The Germans were being set up as a future bully / enemy with their actions in the Philippines. The year ended with the European powers now having to consider America as a player in their events. And Teddy Roosevelt, after his introduction a few books ago, is emerging as a big hero.

Late 1800s: Settling the West

Aside from slavery, the driving concept of 19th Century America was manifest destiny. Given the vastness of the western United States, especially for anyone who has driven cross-country, and the imagery of the small, primitive wagon trains and cowboys on horses, it is amazing how quickly the thousands of miles were settled and transformed.

The decades leading up the Civil War resulted in acquiring more land from Mexico and Britain, and moving Native Americans to lands west of the Mississippi. Then coming out of the war, with technology advancements in transportation and economic shifts, the stage was set for a sudden expansion into an apparent void.

The American West is more or less a collection of short histories of various events and topics related to the settling of the states between the Mississippi and California in the second half of the century. Dee Brown is the author of Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee so his stories of the major "Indian Wars" are well documented and, naturally, very sad. Each one seems to further reduce ways of life along with territories. While George Washington and other early presidents may have struggled with the issue of Native Americans, the lack of national concern after the Civil War to the situation versus the speed of, essentially, annihilation over the course of just a few decades is astounding.

The other chapters in the book are quite secondary, providing a good overview of the development of the cattle industry, stories of colorful characters and events. But the narratives do not tie together as well as they could and much fell flat. 2/5 stars.

(Read July 2010)

1870s: Reconstruction

I almost skipped over the one topic that is probably the most glossed over in school history classes--Reconstruction--but I knew I really need to understand more of what happened, and why, to former slaves specifically, and the country as a whole coming out of the Civil War. I started this reading project with a primary interest in economic history but it is easy to get wrapped up in just the basic political history. But this time period was one of the most crucial turning points for the country's economy, government, and social institutions that would determine the course of the United States in the future.

And this is to not diminish the profound impact for an entire race of people.

Prior readings of the issues leading up the founding of the Republican Party soon before the War and its cast of characters from different backgrounds, regions, and priorities gave great context for how the party would not be in position to govern and manage such a massive transition. While Lincoln presumably would have been a more effective and visionary leader than the disastrous Andrew Johnson, there is no evidence that a cohesive and forward-looking plan could have been politically or practically implemented. The moderates and radicals and even Democrats each had opportunities to run things, but none were able to provide a stable new equilibrium for former slaves labor, investing in the Southern economies, reintroducing the former Confederacy into the Union, or establishing civil rights.

From the perspective of the 21st Century I still cannot fully grasp the mindset of 1870 Americans. Only a few years prior slavery was accepted practice. Even the most radical anti-slavery factions would probably be considered bigots today. The average moderate thinking was somewhere in between. Even if they were able to have the vision for integrating the former slaves into a fully equal civil society by today's standards, would they have been able to create a path to move in that direction while achieving the immediate goals of rebuilding the Southern economy and politically reintroducing former confederates? I would love to hope so, but it is doubtful.

This book by Eric Foner was much more of an investment to read than I expected, but well worth it. While it is not a fast flowing narrative, I will give it 4/5 stars due to the comprehensive coverage of an important, underrated subject matter. He is very detailed in the blow by blow accounts of what happened and didn't happen in the years 1863-1877, showing how the different constituencies of each region in the South and North had competing goals and incentives throughout the period and the worked together when it suited their own needs, and competed when it didn't. This meant that the make up of the political parties, especially the Republicans, could change from state to state, geographic region to geographical region, and over time. For the former slaves, this meant they were at the mercy of political alignments focused on various economic issues. And unfortunately for them, there were few groups in the country that saw personal economic benefits of a newly freed class of workers. A few saw benefits of a new voting bloc, and very few saw altruistic motives for helping them.

Foner's analysis of regional politics shows the vast differences of issues and action in places such as Louisiana with a large former free black society and sugar economy, versus the upcountry Carolinas with smaller farms and a large poor white population, versus the cotton belt counties that were plantation dominated. He also did a great service tracking the progress of specific issues such as the development of education in the south where it is easy to see how the institutions of the 20th Century were established. Many times I thought while reading, "so these are the events that will lead to a landmark Supreme Court decision 80 years in the future." We're now how many generations out of Reconstruction? And we're still untangling the mess, even if it was inevitable.

(Read June 2010)

1890s: Benjamin Harrison

The unlikely subject of my next reading assignment came about not because of my personal interest in Indiana history, but because his name appeared in several of the previous books, even if ever so briefly. And yes, his house in Indianapolis is next on my visit hit list of homes of obscure presidents. Hello, Benjamin Harrison.

Between the author's obligatory introduction and conclusion that make the case of Harrison as the first modern president and least appreciated, there is a surprisingly contemporary story of national politics, economics, and personal toll. Similar to Lincoln, Harrison was not the favorite candidate entering the nominating process but he emerged as the least objectionable and possibly the most winnable Republican. And like Lincoln, once elected he struggled with the selection of his cabinet, eventually convincing his biggest rival to take the secretary of state position. While we heard many comparisons to Lincoln when Obama chose Clinton for this position, Harrison's choice of James Blaine may be the better parallel. And unlike the amazing relationship formed between Lincoln and Seward during a unique, wartime situation, Harrison and Blaine continued to be rivals, one of the causes of their eventual downfall.

Also strikingly similar to modern political patterns was how similar 1892 was to 1994 and to what is expected in 2010. After several years of Democratic power in the 1880s and a down business cycle, the Republicans swept the presidency and both houses of congress in 1890. Seeing a mandate for significant change, they immediately pushed for large, expansive legislation to increase the services provided by the federal government, along with its budget. While several of the issues were clearly progressive and great with historical perspective (ie enforcing black, southern suffrage) and some are possibly as debatable now as they were then (pensions, anti-trust, monetary policies), internal party politics limited the effectiveness of a seemingly unstoppable platform. Senators and congressmen were more likely to vote based on what would get them re-elected and strike deals than just go with the president's favor. Yet still in the midterm elections of 1892, the Republicans lost control of Congress due to public dissatisfaction, and Harrison finally lost re-election two years later.

The foreign relations and economic monetary issues of the early 1890s are clearly primitive to the US and global economy of today. However, the questions and decisions made at this time were beginning to move the country's role from a self-contained, decentralized nation of states to an industrialized national power.

Here comes the Spanish American War and the battle of Populists and Progressives.

The book itself is good and typical of this solid series: 3/5 stars.

But before continuing on I realize I have skipped over some important subjects so I am going to go back a little. Primarily I need to read up on Reconstruction in the South.

(Read March 2010)

1890s: The Industrialists

The Gilded Age has always been a fascinating, if not romantic era to me with its larger-than-life capitalists, the shaping relationship with labor, the exponential growth of the economy, and the literal laying out of the infrastructure for the 20th Century. While focusing on the love-hate, and then mostly hate relationship of Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick, this book does a decent job of describing some of the cultural and personal tensions that emerged as America industrialized. There were certainly cases of Horatio Alger rags to riches, as Carnegie himself almost symbolized. But for the masses this was not the case, and the romantic era was actually covered in soot, dangerous, and filled with limited earning power and opportunities for the vast, vast majority of individuals. While Carnegie appeared to internally struggle with this fact while at the same time allowing his sheer power and money to keep his own labors at bay, the author paints a picture of a more ruthless Frick who had no such notions of tension. Whether accurate representations of their own mindsets, the overall story is a good representation of a pivotal time in this country's development and tensions that grew and evolved into major story lines throughout the next century and still exist in a form today.

Book review: 2/5 stars. As the author noted there are many in depth biographies of the two main characters already published so he tried to create a narrative around their relationship. The middle part of the brief book told the story of the Homestead strike and riot that he tried to use to illustrate a turning point in their relationship. While that story was probably the most interesting part of the book, his argument feels incomplete and it is essentially a story within a story.

(Read February 2010)

1880s: Building the Brooklyn Bridge

To explore the era of exploding industrialization, grand visions, and changing infrastructure that begin shaping the country for its tremendous economic growth in the 20th Century, I started with the story of the Brooklyn Bridge. After living in New York and purchasing the bridge from a guy on the street, I figured it was a good artifact to learn about how it came to be.

David McCullough is one of my favorite history authors, so this book has been on my hit list for some time. The story was particularly appropriate for this era as the father and son team of Roeblings as the grand visionaries and the engineering, construction, political, and financing teams around them represent the transition from antebellum world of modest capital projects to the grand projects made possible by the exponentially improving technology and shared intelligence of the late 19th Century. And maybe more important, as told through the side stories of this book, the increasingly complex layers of politics, financing, and human inputs that evolved with the technology.

Add this story in context of where New York had been up to that point and how its growth exploded soon afterward, both physical, population, and economic, and it is too obvious to see this as a metaphor as a bridging of the old with the new. But this is clearly the first chapter of a new volume for New York, soon to be included with the consolidation of the boroughs, the works of Olmsted and Vaux such as Central Park, the building of the subway, and culminating with the story of Robert Moses. (Robert Caro's The Power Broker, would be part of this reading project if I hadn't already read it. Highly recommended.)

The book itself is 4/5 stars. I love McCullough's usual great balance of story telling and original source work, but as can be the case, the book maybe lingers a little too long on some technical details for the sake of thoroughness. Any of the "subplots", such as the lives of the father, son, and wife; Tammany Hall; or just the engineering breakthroughs are worthy of their own books for deeper inspection, if that is possible.

The other book I would have read for this era, if not already a favorite on my shelf, is Ambrose's Nothing Like it in the World about the building of the transcontinental railroad.

I am probably going to linger on the end of the 19th Century for a little while longer. Several biographies of ecnomic empire builders are tempting me.

(Read fall 2009)

1870s: Grant

Written by a military historian, the book focuses more on Grant's lead up to and leadership during the Civil War. There is more detail for certain battles and war decisions than for parts of the Presidency. But all in all, that is probably appropriate for describing him, and arguably more important to the country.

(Read July 2009)

1860s: Baseball

I wanted to linger a little more on the pivotal Civil War era before jumping into Reconstruction issues. And it was time for something lighter, because the country could not have been fully focused on the horrors of war and divisive moral issues all of the time, every day. There must have been fun, too. In fact, this was the time that baseball evolved into a standard game and the sport very quickly spread across the country, creating the first, true national pastime craze. One that has had quite the longevity. I knew a little about baseball's origins, that it was originally a city game and became professional fairly early on. And I figured advancements in transportation and communication had a role in its spread. So to learn more I read Peter Morris' "But Didn't We Have Fun?: An Informal History of Baseball's Pioneer Era, 1843-1870." Most of the book focuses on the peak of the game's popularity among amateurs in the 1860s and its transition to a professional sport by the end of the decade.

My review of the book: 2/5 stars.

Histories tend to fall into two categories based on the author's skill: great research with so so writing; great story telling but no special insights. This book is clearly the former. The topic was really compelling to me: I love baseball and I love history. And it had enough information to satisfy my curiosity and keep me reading. The quotes and stories from original sources he found gave a great color and sense of the game as it developed, spread across the country, became standardized, and transitioned into a professional game. You can understand how baseball was developing at the right place at the right time to become what it became.
The first half of the book is a little awkward, reading more like a college thesis than a trade book. The author spends a lot of time telling us what he is going to say and repeating his points than actually saying anything. But he seems to find a groove in the second half, which is where the real story takes off.

(Read April 2009)

1860s: Lincoln

The 1860s were obviously dominated by the Civil War, and the leading character was Abraham Lincoln. I have read books on him before and visited the excellent new museum and related places in Springfield, IL two years ago. I was still left wanting to know more about his personal ambitions and drive that would lead him to the pursue the Presidency and his moral ambitions and drive that would lead him to act as he did. The Lincoln-Douglas debates in his actual words were a great lead up to this. So for this pivotal decade I read Doris Kearns Goodwin's very popular, "Team of Rivals".

My review: 5 / 5 stars

Okay, I'm officially on the bandwagon that this is a very good book. Lincoln (and Seward once he's SoS) still seem a little too idolized and larger than life, but it is amazing what they accomplished and how they did it. The other characters, especially Salmon Chase, are just as compelling, and in many cases I wanted to hear even more about them. While there are a million and one books about Lincoln, this is definitely a top recommendation, especially for the lens of how he managed and used his cabinet. The obvious contemporary comparisons have been made in the media as Obama and Hillary allegedly both loved this book and her appointment is a not unsimilar to Lincoln's appointment of Seward. But I would stop there. Lincoln was not trying to build cross-party cooperation to get things done in Congress as the Republicans essentially controlled everything and there were no Southern Democrats in sight. His primary political purpose was keeping a new party together during a horrific national crisis. I would not dare to compare the Civil War concerns with any economic hiccup we are having now.

(Read February 2009)

1850s: Debates

Knowing that the 1860s would be dominated by the Civil War, with Lincoln as a central figure, I wanted to read more of where he came from and the differing views that led to the breaking up of the country. During his failed bid for a US Senate seat in 1858, Lincoln famously debated his most famous rival, Stephen Douglas, in locations throughout Illinois. In The Lincoln-Douglas Debates: The First Complete, Unexpurgated Texts, the author attempts to recreate the actual words spoken, versus the cleaned up text later promoted by Lincoln, byusing the newspaper accounts from the papers supporting the opposite political party than the speaker. This was the best example so far of showing how this book is much more powerful when reading it in the context of the events before and after it. You can see how controversy and debate happens at the intersection of competing but equally supported ideas. While Lincoln and Douglas were heated in their debates, in the big picture they were both moderates, backing similar compromises. This added much more subtlety and complexity to the Lincoln that emerges in the Presidency.

(Read November 2008)