In The Presidential Election of 1896, Stanley L. Jones opens his discussion of Republican presidential candidate William McKinley of Ohio with a description that I found both startling and amusing:
William McKinley had devoted his career to tariff protection with a singular concentration. It was literally true that he knew nothing else, that the issues of money and banking, foreign policy, and so on, were largely mysterious to him. His speeches, besides the repetitious discussion of tariff problems, were decorated with references to patriotism and Americanism, which he correlated with the tariff and the care of Civil War veterans. . . . His intellectual interests were narrow and provincial. He did not read books; he did not travel except when politics required it; he did not correspond with or make any special attempts to meet personally the intelligent or creative minds of his day. He was self consciously of the Middle West and did not like the East or its politicians.
This is surprisingly reminiscent of Martin Van Buren, of whom Col. James Hamilton wrote: "His knowledge of books outside of his profession was more limited than that of any other public man I ever knew."
ReplyDeleteHi Elektratig,
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that reading this description, I cannot help feel that this is the typical "Gosh, he is a Republican after the Civil War. He must not be very smart." that suffuses the historical writing of the Gilded Age. It also makes me think that maybe the Liberal Republican/mugwumps and their academic progeny won the battle over who gets to write the history books. That section you quote might as well have been written by Henry Adams. If you like the politics of the 1890's I suggest looking at Lewis Gould, R. Hal Williams, and H. Wayne Morgan for a more balanced view of McKinley.
Sean
My knowledge of American history in the last quarter of the 19th Century is, let us say, vague. I've freely admitted before, I think, that I knew nothing about American history until less than ten years ago, when the bug bit, but I just didn't get beyond the Civil War and Reconstruction.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why I'm gingerly exploring unknown territory now, except that the Kansas Press presidential election volumes looked like an interesting way to get a taste. Since the Kansas volume on 1896 isn't out yet, but I was interested in learning a little about William Jennings Bryan, I thought I'd try out the volume quoted from.
Frankly, I like Jones. All historians have biases, or at least points of view, I enjoy the fact that Jones doesn't hide his under a bushel. It's really refreshing - and funny. That way I can take it into account.
The opening chapter, by the way, has a great overview of the contentions concerning and assumptions underlying bimetallism. The book is probably worth reading for that alone.
The jury is still out as to how much deeper I'll go into this period. But if I do go deeper, you're going to have to tell me, Sean, who on earth the people you named are. I've never heard of any of them.
Your ignorant servant, etc.
Hi Elektratig,
ReplyDeleteI have gotten used to reading so many historians express something approaching contempt for the politics of the period (especially with the Gilded Age Presidents) that I apologize if I sounded curt in my earlier comment. I am sure Jones is good on the election, but you might be interested to know that Hal Williams is doing the 1896 volume for the American Presidential Elections series (the same that did both Holt and Cole's books that you recently read). Lewis Gould is probably one of the best historians still writing in this period, as he has published much on McKinley/TR/Taft/Wilson and the Progressive Era. Wayne Morgan has written what is the standard biography on McKinley which he recently revised to take advantage of newer scholarship. That said I am curious what you think after reading Jones. It is a very interesting period, too bad some of the historians ruin it (in my opinion).
Sean