The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the week of April 22, 2013 - April 28, 2013, we are reading Chapter Eight and Nine of Woodrow Wilson: A Biography.

This week's reading assignment is:

WEEK FIVE: April 22, 2013 - April 28, 2013 (p 159 - 197)
Chapter 8. The Great Campaign and 9. Preparation

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 Eight: The Great Campaign

Wilson and Roosevelt was the main focus of the 1912 presidential election. Roosevelt headed the Progressive Party and claimed the Democrats were state righters and free-silver-ites.

In late August, Wilson met with Brandeis to figure out the trust issue. They felt the system should foster competition, but not focus on the guilty, nor regulate monopolies.

In September, Wilson met with President Taft and Wilson liked Taft, but Taft didn't have a chance of winning. Wilson again meets with Brandeis to sketch out a anti-trust program. They would need to create a enforcement agency and enumerate prohibited practices to remove much of the existing vagueness found in the law.

By October, Wilson was on a nine day tour where he mentioned the New Freedom and attacking Roosevelt as erratic and acting like the nation's savior.

Roosevelt was shot that put him out of the campaign for a short time and Wilson agreed to suspend his campaign. Near the end, Wilson used a car for barnstorming. By election day, Wilson was the winner with a electoral count of 435-88-8.

Chapter Nine: Preparation

Wilson wanted a bold reform package early in his administration. He would call congress to session in April rather than December. The biggest issue facing Wilson was appointments and House helped advise him. He began to pick his cabinet, and he found he was scrambling, because the Democrats were out of power for 16 years and did not have a deep well of experience to choose from. In the end, Wilson didn't pick strong candidates and without strong supervision, Wilson would experience problems.

Meanwhile, Wilson had to finish his governorship. He tried to push for more reforms and the 16th and 17th Amendments. His results were mixed as the bosses still resented him.

From Judy:

I happened to come across the film footage of Woodrow Wilson's 1912 campaign ad and thought it might be interesting enough to share.

http://youtu.be/jwevmowCSZ4

"The Oldway and the New" is a 1912 campaign film put out by the Democratic National Committee on behalf of candidate Woodrow Wilson. Housed at the Library of Congress, it is the earliest known example of a political party or candidate using the medium of motion picture to communicate with voters."

Thanks Judy. This is a great example of how creative the Wilson campaign was.

Fascinating discussion from Cooper on the election of 1912 and, at the end of Chapter 8, on the real differences in orientation and outlook between the two progressives, TR and Wilson...So much of the campaign rhetoric on 'trusts' seems like splitting hairs. There's a vagueness to Cooper's handling of the issues, too, that perhaps originates with the candidates' reluctance to cite examples of trusts and anti-competitive markets. At this point in U.S. history, one thinks of Cornelius Vanderbilt and the railroads (vertical integration?), Rockefeller and Standard Oil (horizontal integration?) and there may have been markets in commodities like sugar and cotton oil that had become monopolistic. I think the Sherman Anti-Trust Act had been on the books for some time (Clayton Act yet to come), so the question is, for the non-scholarly reader, why was this such a compelling issue in 1912? Is it more about theory and political shading than real consequences of restraint of trade? Beyond the wordsmithing, it would have been interesting to know what the candidates -- and the electorate -- had in mind when taking stands against the 'trusts'.

Great points, Frank. I think Cooper does not illustrate well why they (and we) should care about the trusts.

It was real for them, not just theory. You mention a number of examples, and these trusts sets prices and rates, and it symbolized super-wealth. This might be helpful:

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act, passed in 1890, was the first important federal measure to limit the power of companies that controlled a high percentage of market share. Ironically, in the 1890s the Act was used primarily to block strikes, since it prevented any 'conspiracy to restrict trade,' and businesses like the Pullman Railcar Company argued that labor unions were such conspiracies. They won the support of state and federal militia to enforce this anti-labor view. At the same time, the Supreme Court ruled in 1895 that many forms of business combination did not constitute "trusts" that restrained interstate trade, and thus could not be prosecuted under federal law. The Interstate Commerce Commission had been created, but it did not yet have the powers it obtained in a later era, and critics considered it ineffectual.

Antagonism toward "trusts" and "monopolies" was wide-ranging. Critics of "The Trusts" often targeted silver and gold mines in the West and other large companies whose employees faced hazardous conditions and low wages. Others attacked "The Trusts" and "Wall Street" in the same breath, identifying J. P. Morgan and other financiers as the agents of industrial consolidation. In rural areas, the most dangerous monopolies appeared to be the railroads, which controlled shipping rates along their lines. Railroad magnates like Jay Gould and C. P. Huntington were among the targets of free-silverites ire. Farmers also denounced grain elevators and speculators: the rise of agricultural futures markets, accompanying mechanization of harvesting and processing, caused many farmers to feel increasingly helpless in the face of large institutions beyond their control. In short, denunciation of "The Trusts" symbolized broad fears about the size and power of big business in America.
(Source: http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/trust...)

This also might be helpful:

Candidate Wilson's platform called for limits on campaign contributions by corporations, tariff reductions, new and stronger antitrust laws, banking and currency reform, a federal income tax, direct election of senators, a single term presidency, and the independence of the Philippines. Unlike Theodore Roosevelt's call for the strict government regulation of monopolies, Wilson followed the advice of his key adviser, Louis Brandeis, in calling for the breakup of all monopolies—Brandeis was a Boston attorney and leading corporate critic whom Wilson would later name to the Supreme Court. Whereas Roosevelt differentiated between "good" and "bad" trusts, Wilson suggested that all monopolies were harmful to the nation. He advocated a restored competition that would benefit consumers and reduce the power of corporate wealth in the nation. Calling his program "New Freedom," in contrast to Roosevelt's "New Nationalism," Wilson accepted Brandeis's argument that regulation would never solve the problem of corporate power because corporations would use their power to control the regulator—the federal government. The differences between the New Freedom and the New Nationalism over trusts and the tariff became the central issues of the campaign, largely because they symbolized a basic difference between Wilson and Roosevelt over the role of government: Roosevelt believed the federal government should act as a "trustee" for the American people, controlling and supervising the economy in the public interest. Wilson argued that if big business was deprived of artificial advantages, such as the protective tariff, the government's role could be minimal because natural forces of competition would assure everyone of an equal chance at success.
(Source: http://millercenter.org/president/wil...)

He [Wilson]advocated a restored competition that would benefit consumers and reduce the power of corporate wealth in the nation.

It appears that Wilson may be credited with the onslaught against the wealthy industrialists. Wilson won the election and too many today this vision remains fashionable. One example that I touched upon briefly was Andrew Carnegie, who actively enjoyed giving his personal corporate wealth back to society and his foundations continue the example today. Carnegie did not like labor strikes or unions and hired Pinkerton to break the strikes and the union. I do not see the capitalist as “anti-labor” as he created thousands of jobs through his steel company.

Thanks, Mark. I agree that Carnegie's philanthropy efforts got lost in the shuffle.

U.S. Steel controlled 80% of steel production in the U.S. I think this is what Wilson and many Americans worried about: the major decisions were in a handful of a few men.

Wilson is in a long line of critics. I thought it was interesting that Cooper states Wilson believed big business meant inefficiency, but I think Wilson didn't say he was against big business, but trusts. It is a little bit unclear.

Many of the robber barons were philanthropic. John D. Rockefeller began giving money to charity long before he was rich. Of course, he got rich (in part) by being a thorough b*****. But (I think it was this book) by Ron Chernow the author shows that John D. seems to have thought that God put him on Earth to make a lot of money and give a lot away.

Bryan wrote: "In short, denunciation of "The Trusts" symbolized broad fears about the size and power of big business in America."

Thanks for this helpful input. In part, it seems that the issue of 'trusts' resonated far beyond tariffs and specific business tactics to insulate and secure markets. I expect, among progressives, 'trusts' needed to be addressed as a consensus evil (or at least a concern in the case of TR) but would often also, to paraphrase from Dickens, 'bear a latitude of construction according to the fancy of the hearers'.

BTW, readers wanting to a glimpse into the lifestyle of the wealthy industrialists should consider a visit to the Vanderbilt Estate in Asheville, NC. Truly jaw-dropping in architectural scale and ambition, Biltmore is the flip-side of all that philanthropy.

Thanks, Peter and Frank. I want to see Biltmore one day.

You bring up a good point. Many Americans saw big business in the light of good and bad. Big business can do good by providing efficiency, but the bad is low wages and gouging the public. I think Wilson believed this, too, and Brandeis and Wilson set out to enumerate some this "badness." Wilson was not out to destroy every big business out there. It was the trusts that worried him the most. Going back to Cooper, Wilson also thought big business were inefficient, but I think his efforts were against the larger trusts.

Do you see any differences and similarities between the 1912 election and elections today?

I view many of the big business as rather efficient as the large manufacturing facilities were consumed with innovation and technology, which stimulated monetary reinvestment back into the company. Around this time Ford Motor Company was beginning to take off to become a large corporation. There was certainly competition, but Henry Ford’s philosophy was for every American to be able to own a Ford and thus prices were kept low to consumers. There was no gouging of the public. Yes entry level wages were low, but wages were better than the alternative unemployment. Jobs were created allowing for career avenues through advancement as supervisors, engineers, quality control, maintenance, finance along with sales and marketing.

Thanks, Mark, you sound like an earlier version of TR, lol.

I think both men were not against Ford, because he was better than some in practices, but other companies used harsh tactics to eliminate its competitors, used child labor, set prices, etc.

Bryan wrote: "Thanks, Mark, you sound like an earlier version of TR, lol..."

Oh well, I find American culture of the entire 20th Century to be fascinating.:-)

One thing I thought of in this chapter: Wilson, a profoundly religious man, had a secular style and a lot of formal education; Roosevelt, who was (from what we know, anyway) had an evangelical style and, while certainly well educated, was not a scholar in the same sense as Wilson.

Peter wrote: "One thing I thought of in this chapter: Wilson, a profoundly religious man, had a secular style and a lot of formal education; Roosevelt, who was (from what we know, anyway) had an evangelical styl..."

Yes, I think TR was a more traditional scholar back then, in that he did not pursue a graduate degree like Wilson.

Both great minds, though, and as Cooper says, it is a shame they didn't debate. What a show!

I forget in which bio of TR I read this, but once, when he had broken a leg or something, he wrote to the president of Harvard asking for books to read and including a list of books he had recently read. I forget the details, but it was something like "ON ancient Rome, I have read ... and would like to pursue ...." etc.

TR would have loved the History Book Club! And 50 books a year would not have been a problem.

Here http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.or... is a list of books TR *wrote*. Someone once (rather unkindly) said that TR wrote more books than GW Bush read.

Yeah, I think he would have beaten the challenge in about 2 months, lol. He was a huge reader, indeed, thanks Peter.

Bryan wrote: "Yeah, I think he [TR] would have beaten the challenge in about 2 months, lol. He was a huge reader, indeed, thanks Peter."

Regarding the Spanish American War Teddy Roosevelt mentioned: “Indeed as long as we were under fire or in the immediate presence of the enemy, and had plenty to do, there was nothing of which I could legitimately complain; and what I really did regard as hardships, my men did not object to-for later on , when we had some leisure, I would have given much for complete solitude and some good books” pg 182

Theodore Roosevelt

I thought Cooper made a strong point by noting Wilson mentioned in a speech “…he explicitly rejected Jefferson’s limited government views…”. pg.166

Bryan wrote: "Do you see any differences and similarities between the 1912 election and elections today?"

I see similarities between 1912 and today such as when Taft said to Wilson “A National Government cannot create good times. It can not make the rain to fall, the sun to shine, or the crops to grow, but it can, by pursuing a meddlesome policy, attempting to change economic conditions, and frightening the investment of capital, prevent prosperity and a revival of business which might have otherwise have taken place.”

Peter wrote: Wilson, a profoundly religious man, had a secular style and a lot of formal education; Roosevelt, who was (from what we know, anyway) had an evangelical style and, while certainly well educated, was not a scholar in the same sense as Wilson.

Cooper describes TR as "a devotee of modern science and something of a religious skeptic,"(P. 177) but emphasizes his evangelical style. In his speech accepting the nomination, Roosevelt said "We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord."(P. 160)

I always distrust politicians who think God is speaking to them (maybe because he doesn't speak to me). This doesn't remind me of the most recent elections, but it does remind me of George W Bush.

Mark wrote: "Bryan wrote: "Do you see any differences and similarities between the 1912 election and elections today?"

I see similarities between 1912 and today such as when Taft said to Wilson “A National Gov..."

Good points, Mark, these arguments have not changed much have they? I think we will always struggle with the power of the Federal government.

Ann wrote: "Peter wrote: Wilson, a profoundly religious man, had a secular style and a lot of formal education; Roosevelt, who was (from what we know, anyway) had an evangelical style and, while certainly well..."

I'm a little surprised, because I never got the big impression TR was that religious. Maybe he is catering to people, or it was a little more common to use religious language in speeches.

Another similarity is that candidate speeches or words are taken out of context like what TR did to Wilson and attacks:

"With his attacks on Wilson as a state-rights Democrat, Roosevelt was appealing to memories and prejudices that went back to the Civil War, which had ended less that fifty year before. Those memories and prejudices also threw up a formidable obstacle to any future effort by Wilson to build a majority coalition and win reelection against an undivided opposition." (p. 175)

Wilson also seems to be ducking the suffrage issue. I also was surprised he got the NAACP vote. I think the Republicans were not doing enough...

Suffrage must have been a very divisive issue (hard as that is to understand by a present day woman!). Cooper says that it was one of the few issues that Roosevelt and Wilson really differed on. Yet the Republicans did not choose to emphasize this.

I wonder how Wilson explained his stand to those two suffragist daughters of his.

Amazingly enough, some people *still* think women shouldn't have the vote, including at least one woman who is an officer in the MS Tea Party, Janis Lane; googling her name brings up lots of info.

It must have, Ann. I am thinking the same thing, he dodged the question for the most part, except saying it was a state issue. So, I guess he supported it if states passed legislation, but he must have had some exchanges with his daughters about what to do on the national level, but not to a point that it caused alienation or anything extreme.

Peter wrote: "Amazingly enough, some people *still* think women shouldn't have the vote, including at least one woman who is an officer in the MS Tea Party, Janis Lane; googling her name brings up lots of info."

Yikes. Here were some of the arguments against the vote that were out there in Wilson's time:

1. Women would be corrupted by politics and chivalry would die out.

2. Women were emotional creatures, and incapable of making a sound political decision.

Bryan,
Politicians seem to say things are a "state" issue when they want to evade taking a controversial stand, don't they? I am thinking especially of gay rights and abortion.

Peter, Janis Lane must not have many women friends. :-) I think she's gone too far even for the Tea Party. She must like attention.

Yeah, it is an excuse, isn't it?

I watched a PBS American Experience presentation on WW that I found on YouTube that was done in 2012 to comm. 100th year anniv. of his election that I had never seen that was VERY enlightening . . and I was so interested in listening to the audiobook version of this book that I plowed right on through chapter 10 before I realized it ;-)

Nice, I like the American Experience series.

Bryan wrote: "I also was surprised he got the NAACP vote. I think the Republicans were not doing enough..."

I don’t have Cooper’s book/index handy but I believe Josephus Daniels is mentioned by chapter 9. I offer a side bit of history on Wilson’s 1912 prominent supporter Josephus Daniels, who was given the post election position as secretary of the Navy.

In 1900 my wife’s great-great grandfather Superior Court Judge Spencer Bell Adams, a friend and supporter of Teddy Roosevelt, was the Republican Party candidate for Governor of North Carolina against Democrat Charles B. Aycock. The seaport city of Wilmington was the most populated city in the state and in the midst of recovering from the 1898 notorious race riots. Adams sided with the plight and cause of the Americans of African decent. Aside from Aycock his opponent, the person most responsible for Adams defeat was Josephus Daniels. As the majority owner of the Raleigh News and Observer in the state’s capital city, he heavily supported the Democratic Party and southern White Supremacy.

As was mentioned in chap. 9 . . . Wilson was a naif when it came to understanding the motives of other countries . . . he was much more experienced in domestic affairs. I think that was both a blessing and a curse later on when WWI came along. It gave him the ability to dream of the League of Nations . . . but be lost when he couldn't understand why mankind wouldn't choose to discuss differences instead of going to war over them.

And again . . . that white southern issue of discrimination . . . 100 years after Jefferson it still was not resolved . . . how sad :-(

Thanks, Tomerobber. This lack of foreign policy experience is interesting; it is nothing new for presidents. Looking at the candidates, with the exception of TR, no one had any experience. However, the timing is awful as you say.

Here is something else about timing: the Democrats were out of power for so long, it was hard to find decent people to fill posts. I didn't appreciate this until I read Cooper's chapter. Cooper also does not shy away from the fact that Wilson had weak subordinates and supervision.

This is not a very good combination to make a effective cabinet.

Mark wrote: "Bryan wrote: "I also was surprised he got the NAACP vote. I think the Republicans were not doing enough..."

I don’t have Cooper’s book/index handy but I believe Josephus Daniels is mentioned by c..."

Fascinating, Mark, thank you for sharing. Yeah, I get the impression Daniels was a pretty key figure in Wilson's campaign. Do you know if TR came down to NC and stump for the judge?

Bryan wrote: "Do you know if TR came down to NC and stump for the judge?"

I don’t and have wondered about that. I also wondered about support from McKinley to the near by state.

Judge Adams granddaughter stated to me that Adams was with TR when Booker T. Washington dined at the White House in 1901. The guest list was never printed. I’ve tried a bit of research to confirm this but I’ve come up empty and true historical facts should be derived from two reliable sources of information.

President Theodore Roosevelt did appoint the judge, with confirmation from the senate, to handle the 1902 treaties of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Citizenship Court.

Wow, cool history, Mark. So, the judge got the first-hand experience of TR's personality. It must have been something else, quite the opposite of Wilson. I do remember reading somewhere his voice being squeaky.

TR would be a person I would go back in time and meet, and see the 1912 election first-hand.

Tomerobber wrote: "As was mentioned in chap. 9 . . . Wilson was a naif when it came to understanding the motives of other countries . . . he was much more experienced in domestic affairs.,

I noted when reading about Colonel House that Cooper says House's effect on domestic policies was not that important, but the "colonel's foreign policy influence would be another story." Cooper, p. 194

I am very interested in reading more about this to find out just how "necessary" it was for the U.S. to get involved in World War I and try to affect the future of Europe after the war.

Bryan wrote: "Here is something else about timing: the Democrats were out of power for so long, it was hard to find decent people to fill posts."

Didn't reporters say the same thing about filling posts after Obama was first elected?

The people in the cabinet and other high offices can be so important to a president. Consider Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney in George W.'s administration.

Weren't James Madison and Albert Gallatin huge assets to Thomas Jefferson?

You raise some interesting thoughts, Ann.

It might be harder to do a parallel with today, because someone in the White House can go into the "private sector" but really is still involved in the field-lobbying, consulting, etc. The government was smaller in Wilson's time, easier for people not to do what they used to do. Congressional staffs were smaller, too, so hard to pick from there.

Good point, Bryan about the rotation of people in and out of government, while staying in the same fields. I guess there are a few advantages as you pointed out, although in general I think it is bad for the country overall - at least when the direction is from the government to the lobbying.

At any rate, thanks for pointing out how very different the situation was when Wilson was president. I hadn't realized that.

Indeed, Ann, not always a good thing. You have to figure that most of the people Wilson was choosing were either from private business, or national/state politicians, no career national government policy folks.

in the closing of his nomination speech Wilson closes "demanding 'unentangled government that will not tolerate the use of the organization of a great party to serve the personal aims and ambitions of any individual. ...It is a great conception, and I am free to serve it as are you." (e-book page 162) This seems to be at the heart of his views on the power of influence of big money. I feel this power now as a huge influence in our political situation and in the last elections. The power of the rich over the common person has been with us since the dawn of civilization.

I have been very busy and out of the loop, although I Keep up and enjoy the reading enormously. I have also enjoyed reading through all the posts today. There are some great thinkers on this site. I am always gratified when those who have a different opinion from mine are so articulate and well thought out and make such a great case for what they believe to be true.

Sherry wrote: "The power of the rich over the common person has been with us since the dawn of civilization."

You are so correct Sherry. The pendulum around the globe swings back and forth, but whether at the national level or the local level your statement is so often true.