History Filter: Why are the US Presidents of the Gilded Age so obscure?
August 5, 2013 9:08 PM
... or are they?
My question initially stemmed from watching Spielberg's Lincoln and thinking about the fact that of the 4 assassinated U.S. Presidents, there is a lot of interest in Lincoln and Kennedy, whereas despite their being killed in office, I'm betting few high school students can even name Garfield and McKinley. I asked my fairly bright junior high son (and my wife) and neither could name "the other two" assassinated presidents at all.
But in thinking about this, I realized that despite being something of a history buff myself, and probably being able to name all the presidents from FDR on in order, the presidents from late reconstruction through the Gilded Age (late 1800s to turn of the 20th century) are - a bit of a blank. I noticed in reading about this on various web sites that at least one historian indeed called them "the forgettable presidents."
So - why were these presidents so forgettable, despite being elected in an era of intense political competition (according to the wiki article) between the parties? And is it despite, or because of, all the scandals? Were their powers weakened in this era? Was it just a random bad run?
But in thinking about this, I realized that despite being something of a history buff myself, and probably being able to name all the presidents from FDR on in order, the presidents from late reconstruction through the Gilded Age (late 1800s to turn of the 20th century) are - a bit of a blank. I noticed in reading about this on various web sites that at least one historian indeed called them "the forgettable presidents."
So - why were these presidents so forgettable, despite being elected in an era of intense political competition (according to the wiki article) between the parties? And is it despite, or because of, all the scandals? Were their powers weakened in this era? Was it just a random bad run?
The first thing that comes to mind is that there wasn't a major war or crisis during that period.
We remember Washington, of course. And a few of the Founder presidents like Jefferson, Adams, and Madison. Then aside from Jackson you get a big gap through the first half of the 19th century to Lincoln (Civil War), then another big gap following Andrew Jackson and Grant until Teddy Roosevelt -- who, like Jackson, is famous more as a larger than life historical character -- Woodrow Wilson and WWI. Then you've got a blank again till you get to the Depression and FDR. After which you start getting into living memory.
posted by Sara C. at 9:26 PM on August 5, 2013
We remember Washington, of course. And a few of the Founder presidents like Jefferson, Adams, and Madison. Then aside from Jackson you get a big gap through the first half of the 19th century to Lincoln (Civil War), then another big gap following Andrew Jackson and Grant until Teddy Roosevelt -- who, like Jackson, is famous more as a larger than life historical character -- Woodrow Wilson and WWI. Then you've got a blank again till you get to the Depression and FDR. After which you start getting into living memory.
posted by Sara C. at 9:26 PM on August 5, 2013
The Gilded Age presidents did not distinguish themselves personally. They were very much tools of their parties, and their nominations were secured in "smoke-filled rooms" by party elders. And they were all Republicans except Grover Cleveland, who was fairly conservative for a Democrat. There were no major national crises to produce large political changes.
Most of the political competition happened at the state and local level.
posted by twblalock at 9:29 PM on August 5, 2013
Most of the political competition happened at the state and local level.
posted by twblalock at 9:29 PM on August 5, 2013
When I think of forgotten presidents, I actually think of the Mediocre Presidents of the 1830s-1850s.
That being said, as for the Gilded Age, when we think of what was going on in the US at the time, it was a time of explosive industrial growth. Frankly, the president's power was non-existent in comparison to barons like Rockefeller or Carnegie... or even lesser barons for that matter. The president was even less powerful and well-known than congressional leaders.
When it came to the changes America experienced, for better or for worse, it was those barons and industrial titans that really shaped the country during this time period. Except for TR, who was a big enough figure to capture the nation's attention, this kind of stayed the case until FDR was elected.
posted by Old Man McKay at 9:29 PM on August 5, 2013
That being said, as for the Gilded Age, when we think of what was going on in the US at the time, it was a time of explosive industrial growth. Frankly, the president's power was non-existent in comparison to barons like Rockefeller or Carnegie... or even lesser barons for that matter. The president was even less powerful and well-known than congressional leaders.
When it came to the changes America experienced, for better or for worse, it was those barons and industrial titans that really shaped the country during this time period. Except for TR, who was a big enough figure to capture the nation's attention, this kind of stayed the case until FDR was elected.
posted by Old Man McKay at 9:29 PM on August 5, 2013
The Gilded Age was a period where the presidents simply didn't have much power; growing industrial giants and machine politicians had way more cultural and political influence than presidents.
It probably is also a historiography problem. High school and college survey-level history classes have a pretty limited time to teach that era (or any era), and Gilded Age presidents simply aren't as interesting as lots of the other stuff going on in that era: large-scale labor strikes and unionization, the Haymarket Square riot, the rise of trusts, massive increases in immigration, and the Indian Wars in the West are all far more captivating subjects for students than the do-nothing presidents of the era. So teachers don't focus as much on the presidents, which means students don't ever learn that much about them in the first place. That makes them even more forgettable for most people.
posted by lilac girl at 9:43 PM on August 5, 2013
It probably is also a historiography problem. High school and college survey-level history classes have a pretty limited time to teach that era (or any era), and Gilded Age presidents simply aren't as interesting as lots of the other stuff going on in that era: large-scale labor strikes and unionization, the Haymarket Square riot, the rise of trusts, massive increases in immigration, and the Indian Wars in the West are all far more captivating subjects for students than the do-nothing presidents of the era. So teachers don't focus as much on the presidents, which means students don't ever learn that much about them in the first place. That makes them even more forgettable for most people.
posted by lilac girl at 9:43 PM on August 5, 2013
This is something that I've wondered, too. All of the answers above suggesting that presidential politics just take a backseat to industry when the Gilded Age is discussed seem to make sense to me.
I wonder, though, whether the fuzziness that surrounds that era's presidents isn't also the result of a kind of hand-waving around the history of leftist politics in the U.S., at least at the level of primary and secondary school teaching. This probably varies a great deal depending on where (and when) one first took U.S. history, but I truly wasn't aware of most of the labor history that lilac girl mentions until I took AP U.S. history in the 11th grade (at age 17). Until that point, it was mostly Carnegie, Rockefeller, and economic vocabulary (vertical integration, monopoly). That's the only version that my friends in the non-AP class received.
Turning the focus back onto politics, and onto a president like, say, McKinley, might also mean explaining how the Spanish-American War began (TR enters it in medias res), and acknowledging that there were real, live socialists and anarchists in the U.S. at that time. That would complicate the picture quite a bit for a unit that's probably covered in under two weeks in most classes.
(Sarah Vowell's Assassination Vacation and Candice Millard's Destiny of the Republic helped me to flesh out my own understanding of McKinley and Garfield a bit more - you and your family might find them interesting, too.)
posted by Austenite at 10:43 PM on August 5, 2013
I wonder, though, whether the fuzziness that surrounds that era's presidents isn't also the result of a kind of hand-waving around the history of leftist politics in the U.S., at least at the level of primary and secondary school teaching. This probably varies a great deal depending on where (and when) one first took U.S. history, but I truly wasn't aware of most of the labor history that lilac girl mentions until I took AP U.S. history in the 11th grade (at age 17). Until that point, it was mostly Carnegie, Rockefeller, and economic vocabulary (vertical integration, monopoly). That's the only version that my friends in the non-AP class received.
Turning the focus back onto politics, and onto a president like, say, McKinley, might also mean explaining how the Spanish-American War began (TR enters it in medias res), and acknowledging that there were real, live socialists and anarchists in the U.S. at that time. That would complicate the picture quite a bit for a unit that's probably covered in under two weeks in most classes.
(Sarah Vowell's Assassination Vacation and Candice Millard's Destiny of the Republic helped me to flesh out my own understanding of McKinley and Garfield a bit more - you and your family might find them interesting, too.)
posted by Austenite at 10:43 PM on August 5, 2013
It's perhaps a historiography problem, but strong presidentialism is more of a 20th-century phenomenon: some date it from Teddy Roosevelt, some from Woodrow Wilson. The frontier-carving of the later 19th century was, in many ways, the equivalent of European powers' colonial exploits in Africa and Asia, and it was happening in a diffuse way.
For a contemporary take, you could do a lot worse than look at the most famous chapter of James Bryce's The American Commonwealth: 'Why Great Men Are Not Chosen Presidents'. It's usually citied for the bits about character and capabilities, but the description of how presidential candidates are beholden to state party organisations to secure the nomination and round up the votes is perhaps more relevant.
posted by holgate at 11:32 PM on August 5, 2013
For a contemporary take, you could do a lot worse than look at the most famous chapter of James Bryce's The American Commonwealth: 'Why Great Men Are Not Chosen Presidents'. It's usually citied for the bits about character and capabilities, but the description of how presidential candidates are beholden to state party organisations to secure the nomination and round up the votes is perhaps more relevant.
posted by holgate at 11:32 PM on August 5, 2013
I think it's partially because that particular time-period of foreign policy was fairly sordid, so people don't like to talk about it.
posted by empath at 2:31 AM on August 6, 2013
posted by empath at 2:31 AM on August 6, 2013
Lack of exposure to media about them, really. For example - my daughter knows all about Garfield and McKinley, but not because of history, because of the musical "Assassins".
I do agree that discussing the Lincoln assassination is a lot easier than the others, because it has an obvious, black-hatted villain. Whereas as Austenite says, you can't get into McKinley without discussing Czolgosz, and Czolgosz's ideas about the structure of government itself being oppressive to the common man and McKinley being an enemy to the people.
I think both of them did a lot of cool things, but also think that we also just don't have the time that we used to have to discuss American history. As I recall, it only gets about a year or two in high school now, and we definitely don't talk about it in depth in elementary or junior high except for "America fuck yeah" type instruction.
posted by corb at 2:39 AM on August 6, 2013
I do agree that discussing the Lincoln assassination is a lot easier than the others, because it has an obvious, black-hatted villain. Whereas as Austenite says, you can't get into McKinley without discussing Czolgosz, and Czolgosz's ideas about the structure of government itself being oppressive to the common man and McKinley being an enemy to the people.
I think both of them did a lot of cool things, but also think that we also just don't have the time that we used to have to discuss American history. As I recall, it only gets about a year or two in high school now, and we definitely don't talk about it in depth in elementary or junior high except for "America fuck yeah" type instruction.
posted by corb at 2:39 AM on August 6, 2013
I think it's a combination of things:
*Lincoln was not only the first president to be assassinated, he was president during the Civil War, a time of massive turmoil in this country. Lots of emotion involved, lots of drama everywhere you looked. Plus, let's face it, he was also PHYSICALLY distinctive.
*Garfield and McKinley were presidents during times of relative calm, and both were pretty ordinary-looking.
*Kennedy was president during another time of massive turmoil, again with drama --- highs and lows --- everywhere. And he was assassinated within living memory of a lot of us, including myself; people tend to remember those kinds of events within the context of their own lives. And yeah, he was young (for a president!), good-looking with a good-looking wife and small kids.
posted by easily confused at 3:12 AM on August 6, 2013
*Lincoln was not only the first president to be assassinated, he was president during the Civil War, a time of massive turmoil in this country. Lots of emotion involved, lots of drama everywhere you looked. Plus, let's face it, he was also PHYSICALLY distinctive.
*Garfield and McKinley were presidents during times of relative calm, and both were pretty ordinary-looking.
*Kennedy was president during another time of massive turmoil, again with drama --- highs and lows --- everywhere. And he was assassinated within living memory of a lot of us, including myself; people tend to remember those kinds of events within the context of their own lives. And yeah, he was young (for a president!), good-looking with a good-looking wife and small kids.
posted by easily confused at 3:12 AM on August 6, 2013
I've been really enjoying Adam Cadre's reports on books he's been reading of all the presidents, and he's up to this period. Hayes, Garfield, Arthur. Cleveland and Harrison. The Gold Standard issue. McKinley.
posted by Casuistry at 4:14 AM on August 6, 2013
posted by Casuistry at 4:14 AM on August 6, 2013
Grover Cleveland
My wife has the original federal land grant, passed down from one of her relatives, signed by President Grover Cleveland for a piece of native American land in what is now Eastern Washington state. It is actually signed by the President which suggests that Presidents in this time did not have very busy schedules and didn't actually do very much.
I think the larger answer is that this period of American history is really much more focused on the labor movement. The late industrial revolution was when unions were on the rise in America and American history of this period is largely dominated by this. President Cleveland intervened with Federal troops to break the Pullman Strike - but the socialist labor leader who led those strikes, Eugene Debs, is more well-known to American students.
posted by three blind mice at 5:30 AM on August 6, 2013
My wife has the original federal land grant, passed down from one of her relatives, signed by President Grover Cleveland for a piece of native American land in what is now Eastern Washington state. It is actually signed by the President which suggests that Presidents in this time did not have very busy schedules and didn't actually do very much.
I think the larger answer is that this period of American history is really much more focused on the labor movement. The late industrial revolution was when unions were on the rise in America and American history of this period is largely dominated by this. President Cleveland intervened with Federal troops to break the Pullman Strike - but the socialist labor leader who led those strikes, Eugene Debs, is more well-known to American students.
posted by three blind mice at 5:30 AM on August 6, 2013
Man! You get great answers from the 3rd shift! My family has a land grant signed by Millard Fillmore, so, yeah...
posted by randomkeystrike at 5:44 AM on August 6, 2013
posted by randomkeystrike at 5:44 AM on August 6, 2013
At least when I was in school, back in the 70s, we learned no American history after the Civil War at all! I only know about those other presidential assassins from the score to Sondheim's Assassins and because I love to read non-fiction.
posted by interplanetjanet at 5:45 AM on August 6, 2013
posted by interplanetjanet at 5:45 AM on August 6, 2013
FWIW, the best date for the construction of her house my cousin has comes from the neighbour's land grant signed by Abraham Lincoln (on the assumption the two houses are roughly the same age), so it's not like they were only signed by presidents perceived as boring.
posted by hoyland at 5:48 AM on August 6, 2013
posted by hoyland at 5:48 AM on August 6, 2013
....growing industrial giants and machine politicians...
Yeah. Names like Hearst, Rockefeller, Astor & Vanderbilt all come mind.
posted by bonobothegreat at 6:03 AM on August 6, 2013
Yeah. Names like Hearst, Rockefeller, Astor & Vanderbilt all come mind.
posted by bonobothegreat at 6:03 AM on August 6, 2013
My understanding is those later land grants were signed by a secretary, not the president.
posted by interplanetjanet at 6:12 AM on August 6, 2013
posted by interplanetjanet at 6:12 AM on August 6, 2013
I wonder, though, whether the fuzziness that surrounds that era's presidents isn't also the result of a kind of hand-waving around the history of leftist politics in the U.S., at least at the level of primary and secondary school teaching.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with this. First off, I remember reading about the Haymarket riots and the labor movement and strikes and stuff in high school history. But the very exercise of remembering the presidents kinda contradicts it.
The only really well-known president between the Civil War and WWI - Teddy Roosevelt - also happens to be the one most associated with progressive politics. Now, obviously TR was no leftist, and his progressivism only went so far (and didn't extend overseas, sadly). But the bare bones of late 19th/early 20th century American history, as I recall it being taught was something like this: the nation industrialized rapidly, lots of (often immigrant) workers were treated badly while some people got rich, the progressive and labor movements started, TR came in and broke up the monopolies and supported regulation and they started cleaning shit up. This is, of course, grossly simplified, but I don't think it really hand-waves around leftist politics. Also, the Vanderbilts and Carnegies and the like weren't really taught as heroes, at least not in my schools - they were sort of presented as people who achieved great things at great cost. I definitely recall my high school history textbook using the phrase "robber barons" to describe late-19th century industrial titans. These guys weren't presented as all-American superheroes or something.
As to the original question, I think it's the quirks of 19th century history combined with the fact that most of those Presidents didn't really, well, preside over Big Historical Events in the way that we usually think of them. I think most people's knowledge of US presidential history would go something like Founding generation - Jackson - Lincoln/Civil War - TR - Wilson/WWI - FDR/Depression/WWII - living memory. TR and Jackson are sort of the exceptions, in that they are well-known, from the distant past, and aren't associated with the founding generation or some kind of catastrophe. Which, in itself, is pretty interesting - why do people remember them but not, say, Polk or McKinley?
posted by breakin' the law at 7:20 AM on August 6, 2013
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with this. First off, I remember reading about the Haymarket riots and the labor movement and strikes and stuff in high school history. But the very exercise of remembering the presidents kinda contradicts it.
The only really well-known president between the Civil War and WWI - Teddy Roosevelt - also happens to be the one most associated with progressive politics. Now, obviously TR was no leftist, and his progressivism only went so far (and didn't extend overseas, sadly). But the bare bones of late 19th/early 20th century American history, as I recall it being taught was something like this: the nation industrialized rapidly, lots of (often immigrant) workers were treated badly while some people got rich, the progressive and labor movements started, TR came in and broke up the monopolies and supported regulation and they started cleaning shit up. This is, of course, grossly simplified, but I don't think it really hand-waves around leftist politics. Also, the Vanderbilts and Carnegies and the like weren't really taught as heroes, at least not in my schools - they were sort of presented as people who achieved great things at great cost. I definitely recall my high school history textbook using the phrase "robber barons" to describe late-19th century industrial titans. These guys weren't presented as all-American superheroes or something.
As to the original question, I think it's the quirks of 19th century history combined with the fact that most of those Presidents didn't really, well, preside over Big Historical Events in the way that we usually think of them. I think most people's knowledge of US presidential history would go something like Founding generation - Jackson - Lincoln/Civil War - TR - Wilson/WWI - FDR/Depression/WWII - living memory. TR and Jackson are sort of the exceptions, in that they are well-known, from the distant past, and aren't associated with the founding generation or some kind of catastrophe. Which, in itself, is pretty interesting - why do people remember them but not, say, Polk or McKinley?
posted by breakin' the law at 7:20 AM on August 6, 2013
There are two major drivers of history for the common person: war and exploration (as Ambrose Bierce is claimed to have said: "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography).
The U.S. didn't have any major wars between 1865 and 1917 (you can define "major" however you want, but even the Philippine-American War, which killed more than 4,000 Americans, pales in comparison to the more than 10,000 lost on each side of the Battle of Antietam alone), nor did it explore anything particularly interesting during this time (expansion isn't exploration).
Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson are anomalies in two ways: first, they had military pedigrees, so you get some frisson of war in there; second, they were... let's say "odd" guys. Fun to learn about. Also, their stances in the public consciousness are partially because they were in those big Revolution-Civil War and Civil War-WWI gaps -- if you teach about Jackson, you can cover the War of 1812 and Manifest Destiny; if you teach about Roosevelt, you can cover the Spanish-American War and the post-Gilded Age rise of labor. If they hadn't been there standing colossal, someone else would have been so elevated.
posted by Etrigan at 8:34 AM on August 6, 2013
The U.S. didn't have any major wars between 1865 and 1917 (you can define "major" however you want, but even the Philippine-American War, which killed more than 4,000 Americans, pales in comparison to the more than 10,000 lost on each side of the Battle of Antietam alone), nor did it explore anything particularly interesting during this time (expansion isn't exploration).
Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson are anomalies in two ways: first, they had military pedigrees, so you get some frisson of war in there; second, they were... let's say "odd" guys. Fun to learn about. Also, their stances in the public consciousness are partially because they were in those big Revolution-Civil War and Civil War-WWI gaps -- if you teach about Jackson, you can cover the War of 1812 and Manifest Destiny; if you teach about Roosevelt, you can cover the Spanish-American War and the post-Gilded Age rise of labor. If they hadn't been there standing colossal, someone else would have been so elevated.
posted by Etrigan at 8:34 AM on August 6, 2013
(expansion isn't exploration)
Well, it isn't when you start from the modern map of the US and treat the nation's history in terms of filling in the blanks -- which is, understandably, the kind of perspective that sticks with people until it's shaken out in an academic setting.
I'd assume that the back end of the 1800s has a strong presence in state history west of the 100th meridian (just as Southern states highlight the Civil War) but that's distinct from federal and particularly presidential history.
And does John Wesley Powell not count here? His expedition seems to epitomise the federal role out west, with the USGS that he subsequently incorporating abstract space into the nation by mapping it.
posted by holgate at 11:07 PM on August 6, 2013
Well, it isn't when you start from the modern map of the US and treat the nation's history in terms of filling in the blanks -- which is, understandably, the kind of perspective that sticks with people until it's shaken out in an academic setting.
I'd assume that the back end of the 1800s has a strong presence in state history west of the 100th meridian (just as Southern states highlight the Civil War) but that's distinct from federal and particularly presidential history.
And does John Wesley Powell not count here? His expedition seems to epitomise the federal role out west, with the USGS that he subsequently incorporating abstract space into the nation by mapping it.
posted by holgate at 11:07 PM on August 6, 2013
I think the idea that the era was defined by powerful industrialists and the labor movement, more so than the government, really hits the nail on the head. As I think about it, I can name all kinds of "robber barons" from the era.
And then it kinda crashed and the government became more powerful again.
posted by randomkeystrike at 10:39 AM on August 7, 2013
And then it kinda crashed and the government became more powerful again.
posted by randomkeystrike at 10:39 AM on August 7, 2013
This thread is closed to new comments.
So I think part of it is that we concentrate a lot on the founders, and we still know a lot about the presidents who are in living memory. Between those, it's pretty much just Lincoln.
posted by cairdeas at 9:22 PM on August 5, 2013