The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the week of April 1, 2013 - April 7, 2013, we are reading Chapter Two and Three of Woodrow Wilson: A Biography.

The first week's reading assignment is:

WEEK TWO: April 1, 2013 - April 7, 2013 (p 33 - 78)
Chapter 2. Woodrow and 3. Professor

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Bryan Craig will be moderating this discussion.

Welcome,

~Bryan

TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

John Milton Cooper Jr.

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS ARE EXTREMELY DENSE SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

Glossary:

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Bibliography:

There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in her research or in her notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

TOC and the Syllabus:

The following is a link to the table of contents for the book and the weekly syllabus:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Book as a Whole Thread:

This link for discussion of the book once you are finished:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

John Milton Cooper Jr.

Chapter Overviews and Summaries

Chapter Two: Woodrow

He studied at the University of Virginia Law school. He joined a number of clubs, but he was bored by the law. While there he met Hattie Woodrow and he fell in love, which caused a distraction to his studies. However, she turned down his proposal for marriage. This news devastated Wilson. He began to work on a book, Government by Debate, and he moved to Atlanta to practice law.

There wasn't much legal business, and Wilson began to miss the intellectual life. By 1883, he decided he wanted to teach at the college level. He met Ellen Axson and this time they were engaged before Wilson went to Johns Hopkins. Wilson had trouble fitting in because the curriculum was built around the scientific process as social science was becoming more defined. He studied Congress and developed his classic work, Congressional Government. The book examined the power of U.S. congressional committees vs. the British system of cabinet. Congress took the power of debate out of the equation. The president should execute more policy and party discipline.

Ellen's father died and his estate gave her the opportunity to go to New York City to study at the Art Students League. Wilson took a teaching job at Bryn Mawr. Before Ellen and Wilson moved there, they got married in June 1885.

Chapter Three: Professor

He had a heavy teaching load at Bryn Mawr. He approved of women's education, but didn't really like teaching women. He also was not as committed to scholarly research, but more into practical politics. Ellen and Wilson had two daughters before he took another job at Wesleyan University (then had a third later on).

In 1888, his mother died. He worked through the grief to produce a text-book called The State. Some of his fellow Princeton classmates got him to come to Princeton. He became popular among the students and instituted a plan for tutors to work with a smaller group of students. He was offered other university presidencies, but turned them down.

So, he is at UVa and writes about the South:

"I yield to no one in precedence in love of the South. But because I love the South, I rejoice in the failure of the Confederacy." (p. 39)

What do you think he is trying to say here?

Reading further from that quote, I think he was specifically talking about the economic destruction the South would have experienced if secession occurred.

I took Wilson's statement to mean that he loved the South so much, but knew that the North was stronger and more progressive. Staying as a whole nation and not being divided, the South would be able to gain from the strength of the North. I think he believed that the issue of slavery would have continued to be a subject of "in-fighting" within the South keeping them from being able to flourish as a society had they stayed divided or won.

Bryan wrote: "So, he is at UVa and writes about the South:

"I yield to no one in precedence in love of the South. But because I love the South, I rejoice in the failure of the Confederacy." (p. 39)

What do yo..."

Thanks G and Teri, great points.

Yeah, I think he understood that the South would be weaker as a country. He was writing this after he lived in Atlanta, which might have had an influence.

Bryan wrote: "So, he is at UVa and writes about the South:

"I yield to no one in precedence in love of the South. But because I love the South, I rejoice in the failure of the Confederacy." (p. 39)

What do yo..."

I think Wilson called the slavery an "abominable institution" and believed for the South to be truly great that slavery had to go. I think he also thought the South should do more manufacturing like the North as a means to be better economically stable and independent. The South with slavery could never achieve that, they would continue to be agricultural and dependent on the North.

I'm not sure from the reading so far if Wilson thought slavery was immoral or just holding the South back from achieving its potential. I think in Chapter 1, Cooper mentioned he knew some slaves, but that's as much info as we got on the subject.

Yeah, I don't remember how felt about slavery, but I think his opposition to it fits into his general thinking about a progressive South.

Bryan wrote: "So, he is at UVa and writes about the South:

"I yield to no one in precedence in love of the South. But because I love the South, I rejoice in the failure of the Confederacy." (p. 39)

What do yo..."

I think he is trying to say that he doesn't think the south, by itself, would be a viable country. This fits with his opinions (mentioned just prior in the book) that contra Jefferson, trade and cities are where ideas come to fruition.

I'm thinking that the 'yield to no one' comment could be mere rhetorical flourish. His attitude toward slavery may be just one factor in his orientation to Dixie. For Wilson, the South seemed inhospitable for building the kind of busy, stimulating life he wanted for himself. Just before quitting his failed law practice in Atlanta, we get this in a letter to a Virginia friend: 'I can never be happy unless I am enabled to lead an intellectual life and who can lead an intellectual life in ignorant Georgia?'

Interesting quote FrankH. Wilson certainly sought a more cerebral stimulating environment and for him I guess law in Georgia was not it.

You may be on to something although it was not a flattering comment. It could have been interpreted as "sour grapes" though.

But on second thought I realized that you posted a spoiler and got a little ahead. I want to let you know that this thread only goes up to page 78. If you want to post a comment that goes ahead - make sure to place it on one of the spoiler threads not a weekly non spoiler one. We move spoilers - so just as an FYI.

Thanks Bentley and Frank. We can hold off on the quote part.

I did not know Princeton brought in many Southerns and he certainly used it as a way to get ahead.

Bryan wrote: "So, he is at UVa and writes about the South:

"I yield to no one in precedence in love of the South. But because I love the South, I rejoice in the failure of the Confederacy." (p. 39)

What do yo..."

I think he believed in the Union.

I think so too.

On page 49 (ebook,) He says of the US government: "As at present constituted, the federal government lacks strength because its powers are divided, lacks promptness because its processes are roundabout, lacks efficiency because its responsibility is indistinct and its action without competent direction." I've been taught to believe that the strength in our government lay in the balance of powers, this seems to refute that. Currently it does seem that it lacks promptness because its promptness is roundabout.

It is the burden that students bear, to believe they know more than their instructors. At Hopkins Wilson said (p 45 trade paper) "Style is not much studied here, ideas are supposed to be everything - their vehicle comparatively nothing" and that his professors "wanted to set everybody under their authority". And yet, when he expressed his displeasure to Professor Herbert Adams, he was surprised at the sympathy Adams showed toward Wilson's displeasure.

In my opinion, Adams recognized that Wilson did not have the temperament for the rigors of institutional/academic research and was letting him down gently.

He seems to have hit a certain stride writing the political analysis of Congressional Government and, as was pointed out earlier by Daniel and Silke (non US members of this group) looking at the main differences between the Congressional and Parliamentary governments. He seemed to prefer Parliamentary. In fact, he has not much good to say about Congressional systems. Interesting from a future President.

Sherry wrote: "On page 49 (ebook,) He says of the US government: "As at present constituted, the federal government lacks strength because its powers are divided, lacks promptness because its processes are round..."

Good points, Sherry. This was in the era where Congress reigned supreme. The Executive was much more passive. I think Wilson saw this as a imbalance. You wonder if Lincoln was his model of a more active president...

G wrote: "It is the burden that students bear, to believe they know more than their instructors. At Hopkins Wilson said (p 45 trade paper) "Style is not much studied here, ideas are supposed to be everything..."

It is interesting how Wilson really was not into the scientific process of social science. We now enter an age where social science was being developed, mainly from Johns Hopkins. We try to quantify political actions.

I sense this counters why Wilson wants to study politics. It isn't about the numbers and finding a hypothesis and proving it right or wrong through a rigorous method.

G wrote: "He seems to have hit a certain stride writing the political analysis of Congressional Government and, as was pointed out earlier by Daniel and Silke (non US members of this group) looking at the m..."

No doubt, G. This is his high point as a academic.

What strikes me is that he is pushing for a more active president, more on the British system.

Bryan wrote: "G wrote: "He seems to have hit a certain stride writing the political analysis of Congressional Government and, as was pointed out earlier by Daniel and Silke (non US members of this group) lookin..."

I do agree that he was "arguing for a stronger presidency" but he wanted the position to have complete accountability.

What I think will play out later, is a quote from the review of Wilsons' book by A. Lawrence Lowell: Wilson "lacked a scientific mind" and saw everything "through the haze of his own preconceptions", and a quote from Wilson himself who said "I have a passion for interpreting great thoughts to the world".

Other words come to mind, but I think this is exactly why he wasn't really presidential material. He does change, and Cooper quotes him later as saying he wished to avoid "...the danger of being accounted a doctrinaire." The strength of his practicality, I think, is beginning to develop.

yeah, this theme of practical politics keep coming up, especially in regards to the academic life. As Cooper says, he wanted to study where the power of government was, and although it has theoretical elements, it also shows his practical side.

Having written Congressional Government at such an early age shows how versed he was in the workings of our government. I suspect that there are very few of our past Presidents who could or would have taken the time to study the inner workings of government as he did. Just think he did this without visiting Washington DC. The fact that this book is still available today is amazing. I have downloaded a free version to my kindle that I will read later.

I thought it interesting that Wilson turned down the chance to be the First President of UVA 1898. It is also interesting that 6 years pass before Alderman becomes the First President of UVA 1904.

Clayton wrote: "Having written Congressional Government at such an early age shows how versed he was in the workings of our government. I suspect that there are very few of our past Presidents who could or would h..."

Great Clayton. It is pretty amazing that he did not to observe Congress. He did a lot outside reading, too.

Kenneth wrote: "I thought it interesting that Wilson turned down the chance to be the First President of UVA 1898. It is also interesting that 6 years pass before Alderman becomes the First President of UVA 1904."

Me too. I didn't know he was offered the job. I don't know how his career would have changed if he went to Charlottesville.

G wrote: "He seems to have hit a certain stride writing the political analysis of Congressional Government and, as was pointed out earlier by Daniel and Silke (non US members of this group) looking at the m..."

He does seem to prefer Parliamentary governments to Congressional governments. I hope we get more insight into this further into the book. I can definitely sympathize with his view that Congressional governments take much longer to get anything done; if they get anything done at all.

Thanks Theresa. He also focuses on president being a party leader like a PM.

Clayton wrote: "Having written Congressional Government at such an early age shows how versed he was in the workings of our government. I suspect that there are very few of our past Presidents who could or would h..."

I got a free copy from iBooks as well . . . I wanted to read more about this. He was only 28 yo at the time he wrote it . . . that's fairly impressive.

Based on the information in Cooper, I am confused about Wilson's relationship with women's suffrage. While at Bryn Mawr (a way station on the road to The College of New Jersey), he basically was disrespectful to the ability of women to learn the subject he taught. He turned down writing a chapter in someone's else's book because the subject was suffrage, and then when getting out of his contract at Bryn Mawr, he states "I have for a long time been hungry for a class of men". And yet Cooper states "He still sympathized with women's aspirations for greater independence and education." At this point, I am not sure the author has done a good job of supporting that claim.

G wrote: "Based on the information in Cooper, I am confused about Wilson's relationship with women's suffrage. While at Bryn Mawr (a way station on the road to The College of New Jersey), he basically was di..."

Hopefully, there will be more on Wilson's view of women's sufferage to come. I was interested in his opinion of women vs men as students and learners, finding women passive and and possessing a "different" sort of intelligence (p. 56). However, in a journal entry he mused that this passivity might be due to "undergraduateism, not at all to feminity" (p. 57). Clearly, though, the academic atmosphere at Bryn Mawr was not challenging or stimulating for Wilson.

It's interesting to note that the class included Emily Balch, a women's rights advocate with international reach who later won the Pulitzer Peace Prize (www.brynmawr.edu/balch).

Tomerobber wrote: "Clayton wrote: "Having written Congressional Government at such an early age shows how versed he was in the workings of our government. I suspect that there are very few of our past Presidents who ..."

Great Tomerobber, enjoy

G and Donna, the flip side of this is his personal relationship with women. Clearly he enjoys intelligent women like Ellen and supports their education.

I have to admit I was a little surprised by the Bryn Mawr experience, but maybe it is a evolutionary thing that is going on. He could have started more on the negative side and changed over time (with the help from the women in his life)...we will see.

I thought the Bryn Mawr experience was interesting. Could you say it was in large part a cultural thing that women were more "passive?"

Bryan wrote: "G and Donna, the flip side of this is his personal relationship with women. Clearly he enjoys intelligent women like Ellen and supports their education.

I have to admit I was a little surprised..."

All of you points are well taken, Bryan. I think he just hadn't quite found his "fit" at Bryn Mawr and is trying to define his unease. He seems a little ambivalent about the academic world in which he finds himself even after moving on from Bryn Mawr.

I agree that the "passivity" he describes may have been a large part cultural both in terms of the era and also the Quaker-affiliation of Bryn Mawr at its onset. His students simply may not have felt as comfortable engaging in academic argument to the degree that it was encouraged at all by Wilson's lecture-driven teaching style.

Great stuff, Donna. It makes sense that Wilson is sorting all this academic life through. Didn't Ellen say not to take the job? It didn't seem the right fit and he could be taking it out on how he views his students.

Cooper says Wilson had his sights set on Princeton early on, perhaps because the College of New Jersey was created by a Presbyterian synod and he felt there may be more of an intellectual and religious kindred spirit there. So I think he was going through growing pains at Bryn Mawr and Wesleyan. However, because he also had adjustment issues at Hopkins and his other schools, I wonder if his early schooling by his father didn't give him an unrealistic sense of self.

G wrote: "Cooper says Wilson had his sights set on Princeton early on, perhaps because the College of New Jersey was created by a Presbyterian synod and he felt there may be more of an intellectual and relig..."

I think you are right, he seemed to gunning for Princeton from the beginning. If his heart was not in social science research, I think he would be struggling.

Very interesting points, everyone.

Wilson was a loving husband and he was obviously lucky to have found Ellen, who could discuss all of his ideas with him, as well as provide practical translation help. I enjoyed reading about him dancing with his daughters.

I think Wilson liked women, but he was also a man of his times. On page 43, Cooper quotes a letter Wilson wrote to Ellen explaining his attraction to her: "I had longed to meet some woman of my own age who had acquired a genuine love for intellectual pursuits without becoming bookish, without losing her feminine charm."

Ouch. However, at that time, being "bookish" was bad, and feminine charm required deferring to men.

This seems to have been fine with Ellen, who had no qualms about giving up an artistic career for marriage.

Wilson did not like coeducation, but he approved of educating women in all girls schools. He got frustrated with teaching women because they were not as stimulating as men. On page 58, we also learn that he thought he was wasting his time because his primary interest was politics and women could not vote.

Copper says that he argued with his daughters about suffrage. I too am very interested in learning how that issue played out.

Great summary, Ann, thank you.

Interesting about being "bookish." I would like to be a fly on the wall when Wilson talked to his daughters.

That was a great post Ann and I guess if a woman were bookish then in Wilson's words you had lost your feminine charm. I think Wilson's daughters possibly gave Woodrow an earful. We will have to wait to see how this all played out.

Bentley wrote: "That was a great post Ann and I guess if a woman were bookish then in Wilson's words you had lost your feminine charm. I think Wilson's daughters possibly gave Woodrow an earful. We will have to ..."

An earful, indeed, Bentley.

Well, gentlemen, nowadays, you can't shut us "bookish" women up. :)

It was interesting to read about Wilson’s political ideas in Congressional Government. He really did have a talent for analyzing and seeing the big picture. I was impressed.

In our time, the Executive, the Supreme Court, and political parties all have a lot more power than in his time, but Wilson seems to have put his finger on an endemic problem in Congress – the excessive power of government committees. (See pages 48-49) This reminded me of the huge problems LBJ had in getting Civil Rights legislation passed through the committees. It also reminds me of our current Congress, where, for example, many of the gun control proposals won’t even make it out of committee. Shouldn’t all Congressmen at least be forced to take an open stand on important issues like this?

I am learning that these problems with Congressional government go back a long ways.
by Woodrow Wilson

So true, Ann. Can you image the problem back then when the Congress was seen as the main instigator of legislation, not the president?

Here is a just one example of the lack of transparency that Wilson saw:

March 6, 1888
Executive Sessions
For more than half of the Senate's existence, its members enjoyed conducting business with the Senate Chamber's doors locked. The framers of the Constitution had assumed that the Senate would always meet in secret. After six years of operation, however, pressure from the state legislatures then electing senators caused a change in policy. In a compromise, the Senate agreed to open its legislative proceedings, but to conduct all executive business related to nominations and treaties in private. Reports of those closed sessions, leaked by senators sworn to secrecy, conjure up images of members removing their jackets, lighting up cigars, and totally dispensing with formal floor procedures. Unfortunately for our understanding of how the 19th-century Senate operated—through the haze of cigar smoke and brandy—official reporters of debates were not usually permitted in those sessions

In the 1880s, pressures emerged that ultimately doomed secret sessions for executive business. The specific issue in 1888 was the possibility of going to war with Canada. In February of that year, Great Britain and the Democratic administration of President Grover Cleveland signed a treaty designed to reduce tensions over fishing rights off the northeastern coast of North America. Two years earlier, following the expiration of a previous fishing agreement, Canadian authorities had seized U.S. fishing boats. Americans retaliated by capturing Canadian seal fishing vessels off the coast of Alaska. War seemed to be a distinct possibility

The new treaty with Great Britain spawned intense anti-British opposition among Americans of Irish descent. To fuel this dissent, the Republican-controlled Senate, in March 1888, amended the Chamber's executive session rules to allow a treaty to be considered in open session for the first time. With the closely contested presidential election of 1888 approaching, Senate Democrats called foul and asserted that the Republican majority had engineered this first open executive session to improve their chances of winning New York State's crucial 36 electoral votes. Republicans hoped they could sway that state's considerable Irish-American population with revelations against Great Britain from the secret treaty negotiations. If successful, they could win the narrowly divided state and thus the presidency

Senate Republicans put on a great show. They publicly debated the Canadian Fisheries Treaty throughout the summer, before rejecting it. Two weeks before the election, they leaked a secret letter from the British ambassador saying that the government of Great Britain quietly supported reelection of Democratic President Cleveland. Publication of that correspondence consolidated Irish-American support for the Republicans and put their nominee, former Senator Benjamin Harrison, in the White House.

The Senate routinely continued holding closed sessions on treaties and nominations until 1929. Yet, news from these secret sessions routinely leaked out to the press, enabling newspapers to publish full accounts of what transpired. Reporters joked that if the Senate wanted fuller coverage, it should do all of its business in secret.
(Source: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/h...)

Fascinating, Bryan. So things have improved.:)

I am amazed that they got by with secret meetings for so long. On the other hand, maybe some of the current committee meetings would be a lot more productive if they weren't directed at the TV cameras.

Thanks for the information.

Indeed, Ann. Oh, don't forget to switch the author photo with the author link.

Done.

I've been somewhat bothered by the dichotomy -- raised in these posts and in the book -- about Wilson's idea of 'theoretical' and 'practical' politics. Under the sway of Edmund Burke, Wilson is quoted at one point (p. 73) this way by Cooper:

The politics of the English speaking peoples has never been speculative; it has always been profoundly practical and utilitarian. Speculative politics treats man and situations as they are supposed to be; practical politics treats them (upon no general plan, but in detail) as they are found to be at the moment of actual contact.

Perhaps I don't quite grasp the distinction here but isn't the raison d'etre of the political scientist to analyze and explain forms of government on the basis of a theoretical model, i.e. engage in speculative politics? Wilson made recommendations that executive-branch cabinet members should have a vote in the legislature precisely because he believed, in theory, it facilitated law-making. In a democracy, though, what is 'practical and utilitarian' is often defined by -- and is an expression of -- a majority will -- some political leverage -- and has very little to do with a form or shape that majority will assume. Wilson's line of thought here seems to me a little like the theoretical physicist arguing lab work is more important than hypothesis. If so, why not drop the 'speculation', pull up a microscope and get to work? This, of course, may be where Wilson is headed. Cooper indicates Wilson dropped as a writing project his grand synthesis of 'practical' politics, 'Philosophy of Politics', because he had other 'ambitions', presumably like running Princeton. But the author also tells us 'No one before Wilson had ever written such a book and no one has written one since'(p.77). It's not hard to see why. To my knowledge, Cooper does not comment on whether Wilson believed the recommendations coming out of Congressional Government had any chance of being made 'practical', that is enacted.

Edmund Burke

Woodrow Wilson

Thanks, Frank. Just some housekeeping first.

1. Please give a page number for any Cooper quotes.
2. When you mention a book and author outside of Cooper's, we need you to cite the author and/or book:

Edmund Burke
Woodrow Wilson

FrankH wrote: "I've been somewhat bothered by the dichotomy -- raised in these posts and in the book -- about Wilson's idea of 'theoretical' and 'practical' politics. Under the sway of Edmund Burke, Wilson is quo..."

I see what you are saying, Frank, I hope, anyway.

Possibly you are thinking about the study of modern politics today. I don't know exactly what was taught back in Wilson's time, but I suspect it was what we call today political thought. And maybe political thought was still the lens newer, emerging political scientists were still using when Wilson began his work.

Today, we have political scientists who do study what is happening now, sometimes not using a theoretical model all the time.

Maybe it is the subject. Wilson certainly was looking at everyday politics of Congress, which might have been new at the time, while all the others were focused on political thought and not its applications.