They Also Ran the Story of the Men Who Were Defeated for the Presidency 1943

by Irving Stone

Biographical stories of men who were defeated in their run for the presidency.

Genres: History, Politics, Biography, Nonfiction, American History, The United States Of America

Hardcover

First published January 1, 1943

About the author

In 1923, Stone received his bachelor's degree from the University of California, Berkeley. In the 1960s, Stone received an honorary Doctorate of Letters from the University of Southern California, where he had previously earned a Masters Degree from the College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences.

When at home, Stone relied upon the research facilities and expertise made available to him by Esther Euler, head research librarian of the University of California at Los Angeles, to whom he dedicated and thanked, in addition to many others, in several of his works.

Stone enjoyed a long marriage to his wife and editor on many of his works, Jean Stone. The Stones lived primarily in Los Angeles, California. During their lifetime, Stone and his wife funded a foundation to support charitable causes they believed in.

Stone's main source for Lust for Life, as noted in the afterword, were Van Gogh's letters to his brother Theo. It seems probable that Vincent's letters to and from his own brother Theo provided a foundation for Adversary in the House. Stone additionally did much of his research "in the field". For example, he spent many years living in Italy while working on The Agony and the Ecstasy. The Italian government lauded Stone with several honorary awards during this period for his cultural achievements highlighting Italian history.

From Wikipedia

Reviews

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 4 out of 5]

Irving Stone's They Also Ran is a unique collection of mini-biographies, profiling failed presidential candidates from the early 1800s through Barry Goldwater (the edition I owned was written in 1967). Stone, the novelist best-known for historical fiction like Lust for Life and The Agony and the Ecstasy, has a flair for colorful portraiture, assessing the personalities, skills and shortcomings of political leaders. Some figures are colorful enough to speak for themselves: the flamboyant populist William Jennings Bryant and congressional giant Henry Clay; the egotistical George McClellan and prevaricating "Little Giant" Stephen Douglas; the war heroes Winfield Scott and his namesake, Winfield Scott Hancock. But Stone adds detailed coverage even of obscure figures, like Alton G. Parker, the honorable but colorless New York State Judge handed the impossible task of challenging Theodore Roosevelt at the height of his popularity; James Cox, the progressive Ohio governor steamrolled by Warren Harding. Stone obviously possesses a mid-20th Century Democrat perspective: he's a liberal in most regards, disdainful of conservatives like Coolidge and Eisenhower, but also drops into a sneer whenever discussing Grant and Reconstruction, or mocking the prairie populism of Bryant as if his massive appeal isn't worth serious consideration. 21st Century readers (if there are any for such a rare volume) can assess whether his positive views of New York's Civil War Governor Horatio Seymour, a borderline Copperhead and inveterate racist, or John W. Davis, the winner of the Democrats' deadlocked 1924 "Klanbake" convention, deserve the glowing depictions Stone affords them. Dated though it is, They Also Ran is the kind of bracing, wryly humorous popular history that political buffs find irresistible.

[Aloysius · Rating 3 out of 5]

An old mid-twentieth century book detailing the men who lost the races for the presidency from Henry Clay to Thomas Dewey. Stone gives the life stories of men as diverse as McClellan and Greeley, and how the country would have been different if the election results had gone another way in each circumstance. I don't agree with every conclusion reached (for example, I think Clay, the founder of the Whigs, would have been a better executive than Stone thought, and I think Lewis Cass would merely have been a Democratic analogue of Millard Fillmore, a forgettable antebellum footnote, had he beaten Zachary Taylor),and I wish he would have been more specific in the attributes and vices of the potential officeholders in the book, but I appreciate the effort all the same on such a noteworthy topic.

I do wonder what, if Stone were still alive, he would think of the also-rans McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain, and Romney. In any event, a decent book to burn through in a few days. Glad I read it.

[Bruce · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book by Irving Stone came out in 1945 and it is a series of biographical sketches of all the men who ran and lost the presidency over our history. Irving Stone is a good writer and if you want an
example of good work he did than I would recommend The Agony And The Ecstasy about Michelangelo or his biography of Clarence Darrow though both tend toward hagiography.

But this one is so incredibly superficial it's almost useless and some of Stone's conclusions just don't
stand up to any kind of deeper analysis. In every case he either said we were lucky to not have elected this individual or we missed true greatness. In only two cases does he say it was dead even and those Woodrow Wilson and Charles Evans Hughes in 1916 and Herbert Hoover and Alfred E.
Smith in 1928.

Some of the more outrageous conclusions he drew about the losing men were that of John C. Fremont
in 1856, William Jennings Bryan in 3 elections 1896, 1900, and 1908 and John W. Davis in 1924.

Fremont was a brave man and a great explorer and his western expeditions captured the public's
imagination when he did them. He knew how to exploit his fame and his Washington connections
were used to the max, he married the daughter of Thomas Hart Benton the long time Senator from
Missouri. He was also reckless at times, he got into an extremely stupid controversey during the
Mexican War which broke out while he was on one of his expeditions. Quite on his own and on
active service with the army he decides to recognize Navy Commander Robert Stockton as the
ruling party in newly conquered California. General Stephen W. Kearney who was the commanding
army general had the peculiar notion that his rank entitled him to Fremont's loyalty and recognition. Fremont was courtmartialed and it took all of Benton's wirepulling to get him out of
that scrape. During the Civil War as a commander of the theater in Missouri he took it upon himself to free the slaves. Again Abraham Lincoln thought he was the one to make that decision.
Fremont was relieved of command. In his declining years when he was broke and living in genteel
poverty President Hayes made him territorial governor of Arizona. He was barely ever there. Fremont used the office to try and repair his lost fortune and this was while the Apache Indians
were quite active and so was the legendary exploitations of the Clanton gang against the Earp brothers. Where was Fremont? Seeking investors for one scheme after another and traveling out
of Arizona on the taxpayer dime. Fremont ran against James Buchanan who is one of our worst
presidents, but there's nothing to suggest Fremont would have been any great improvement.

William Jennings Bryan sad to say suffers from the Lawrence-Lee play Inherit The Wind about his
last public activity celebrity prosecutor of John Thomas Scopes for teaching Darwin's theory of
evolution and the debacle he made of himself under Clarence Darrow's examination. Remember
Stone did a most favorable study of Darrow so his prejudices were well established. But Bryan was
a remarkable man. He only held two public offices, as a Representative from Nebraska for two
terms and as Woodrow Wilson's first Secretary of State. He got his first nomination for president
in 1896 at the Democratic convention when he made his celebrated Cross of Gold speech in favor
of a cheaper mixed gold/silver standard as base for our currency. He lost of course, but by sheer
force of personality dominated the Democratic party for the next 16 years, remember he held no
office at this time. As Secretary of State he's far from the best who ever was in that office, but he
truly felt that we should be truly neutral in regard to the war in Europe. Who is to say he was wrong in fact you could make a damn good case for his position. In any event he resigned as Secretary of State as a point of principle, how many do that? He was a devoutly religious man, but
he also backed an entire array of reforms from the Populist/Progressive era, things that later became law. Bryan was far from a reactionary because of his religion as so many are today. Again
he ran against McKinley and Taft and no reason to think he might not have been a decent president.

One of my favorites is Democratic candidate John W. Davis who won his nomination on the 103rd
ballot of the 1924 convention. He was in fact one of the best lawyers in the nation who won many
landmark cases. But his last case was defending the policies of segregation in the famous Brown vs.
Board of Education case. Davis lived another 31 years after his unsuccessful run in 1924 and to be
fair Stone's book was written before this happened. Davis was a Representative from West Virginia, Solicitor General, and then Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Stone describes Davis as
a most distinguished man who gave a good image of the USA to the British. And he duly reported
back wonderful reports on them including how they were just this close to crushing those Irish
rebels. This was right up to the day the British called for a truce and Michael Collins,etc. went to
parley with them. He was hardly on top of that situation and in 1924 reliably Democratic areas
voted for Calvin Coolidge such was the disdain Davis was held in. 1924 for instance was the last
time Brooklyn voted for a Republican presidential candidate.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. There are a lot of new biographies out of some of the
men who ran and lost for president and a lot of presidents are being radically reassessed and they've gone up and down accordingly. All but Alton B. Parker who ran and lost against Theodore
Roosevelt have had biographies written about them. Study any and all of them and I think you
will see how false and superficial some of Irving Stone's conclusions are.

[David Dunlap · Rating 5 out of 5]

Irving Stone brings Presidential 'also-rans' to vivid life!

[Jerry Landry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting book about the men who ran but lost the presidency from the 1940 presidential election back. Just the concept of addressing the also-rans is enough enticement to pick up this book. While it was informative, I wished at some points that Stone had given the reader more details. Also, the way he grouped people together instead of presenting them in chronological order was a bit distracting to me. However, Stone's perspective was fasinating since the book was written while the nation was still in World War II and FDR was president.

[Relstuart · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting looking at the other people that ran for the highest office in America. It is also interesting thinking about what would have been different had they won. We would live in a very different country today had some of the races gone the other way.

[Andy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had to read this one in high school but found it to be very interesting. I wonder if I would still find it interesting now, all these years later?

[Lisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned a lot about the men who ran for the WHite House and lost. Very interesting

[Julio Pino · Rating 4 out of 5]

They came, they ran, they almost always disappeared. Irving Stone, made rich by authoring fictional biographies of famous men (THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY on Michelangelo; JACK LONDON: SAILOR ON HORSE BACK; FIRES OF THE MIND on Freud) here decided to go for hard-core non-fiction on a most unlikely topic, and that is the men who ran for the presidency and lost. Would we be living in a different America if these losers, some beautiful, others grotesque, had made it to the White House? (Stone published this book in 1968, hence we get no assessment of Richard Nixon versus Hubert Humphrey. As for the 1972 contest, I once heard George McGovern say in person, "I'd rather have been the loser in that race than traded places with the winner".) Let's cut to the presidential chariot race. Stone is right in arguing that any Democrat elected between 1920 and 1928 would have made a better president than Harding, Coolidge or Hoover. They might not have been able to stop the Great Depression but at least the Democrats pointed out the dangers of the stock market bubble and the need to regulate Wall Street, in addition to calling attention to the plight of the American farmer and low crop prices. The case of Hoover versus Al Smith merits special attention. Hoover had the Jimmy Carter problem; both men were extremely intelligent and trained engineers who could not see the trees for the forest, meaning big plans and little results. Both lacked tact in dealing with other politicians. When Hoover lost to Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 he refused to drive to his Washington apartment to take him to the inauguration, telling him over the phone, "Mr. Roosevelt, when you have been in this town long enough you will realize the President of the United States calls on nobody". Yet his opponent, Al Smith, governor of New York and the first Catholic to run for president, showed little grasp of national issues and it's a miracle he carried most, not all Southern states. Speaking of which, the presidential contests of the nineteenth century post-Lincoln leave much to be desired. The Republicans were swinging away from the party of "free soil and free men" and towards big business, yet no Democrat could get to the White House without the Solid South, and that meant endorsing Jim Crow and ignoring the Ku Klux Klan. Grover Cleveland managed to slide into the White House, the only Democrat president between Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson, but then his opponent was Benjamin Harrison, who was a lot like his grandfather William, without the charisma.(Cleveland won the popular vote in running for re-election but lost to Harrison in the Electoral College.) I have one giant bone to pick with Stone, and that is his assessment of William Jennings Bryan. One contemporary joke, reproduced in these pages, ran, "Bryan would rather be wrong than be president". Yes, Stone concedes, Bryan should have won in 1896, the closest he ever came to the presidency, (anybody but that zombie McKinley) but he was also "a near psychopath" who richly deserved to lose in 1900 and 1908: "His mind was like a large, empty bowl; capacious but holding nothing inside". That is grossly unfair to the "Boy Orator from the Platte" who championed female suffrage, direct election of U.S. Senators and a progressive income tax at home and anti-imperialism abroad. Of a more contemporary candidate Stone believes Adlai Stevenson would have made a better president than Eisenhower in both 1952 and 1956. Yet, Adlai paid as little attention to civil rights as did Ike, and it's hard to imagine him negotiating peaceful coexistence with Khrushchev. THEY ALSO RAN is more than a trip down memory lane. Stone offers us a chance to debate the merits of today's presidential candidates and how Americans often choose neither wisely nor well.

[Martin Denton · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book many many years ago and really enjoyed it and, more importantly, found it highly memorable. Stone's breezy style was atypical for political history/biography in those days--it's probably less surprising today.

The book offers short, opinionated biographies of the men who were presidential candidates of the 2 major parties but never won. Stone is unforgiving and relentless as he goes after the men who he feels were unqualified to be president, and admiring and sometimes fawning over those who he wishes had prevailed in their elections. Small spoiler alert: some of the former include George McClellan and Henry Clay, some of the latter include Samuel Tilden and Horace Greeley.

It's an informative and engaging read, if not particularly objective.

I have recently dipped back into it, reading the chapters on Bryan and Alton Parker, and I am planning to revisit some of the other characters. Indeed, one of the nice features of the book is that you can dip in in just that way: because the flow is not chronological, you can read the chapters in any order.

The chapter on Bryan is terrific and illuminating. I had just finished Howard Fast's "The American," in which Bryan comes in for some deserved bashing as a blowhard opportunist; Stone certainly doesn't hold back in flaying the Boy Orator with similar criticism.

I need to re-read the Henry Clay chapter and will probably update this review when I do so.

This is a recommended book for those who are familiar with their US history. It's probably not the best place to start if the whole subject of American politics is new to you.

I currently have the paperback edition; I wish I had the one shown here with the great pictures of the candidates' relative stature!

[Judith Squires · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a vintage book I found while browsing at my favorite independent bookstore in Bend, Oregon. It was published in early 1943 and is a fascinating account of some of the "also rans" who contended for the Presidency, but didn't win. Irving Stone renders a verdict at the end of each chapter about whether the loser would have made a better president than their opponent or been a disaster. I learned so much about some obscure candidates, such as Horatio Seymour and Lewis Cass. There are also accounts of the more famous losers such as Stephen Douglas and Al Smith. In the epilogue Stone concludes: "Countless crimes have been committed in the name of partisanship. Popular government is thus faced with a dilemma; a two-party system is necessary to the functioning of a democracy; yet out of a two party system has arisen a majority of the political ills of this nation. No political sulpha-drugs have been evolved which would eradicate these election diseases. I found that be extremely timely, given our political divisions in 2022. I love Presidential history and I very much enjoyed this book.

[Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mr Stone had a terrific idea in writing this book - we know far too little about many of the unsuccessful Presidential candidates. Mr Stone set the issues of the various campaigns and built a decent understanding of many of the personalities. He tended to voice a negative opinion about many of the candidates who today we'd label pro-business growth - he would certainly be a Bernie supporter in today's debates. I also thought his decidedly negative treatment of Henry Clay was off base. I would add that Mr Stone wrote his first edition of this book in 1943 and some characters have improved or declined in general historian view since then. All in all, I would definitely recommend this book to a student of American politics.

[Sharon · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book extremely comforting to read in the political climate of 2017. It was reassuring to read accounts of other elections that had far-reaching consequences for the country. Stone leans to the left. I'm not sure what more conservative thinkers would think of his conclusions, but I liked the way he showed that most political arguments are connected to Adams and Jefferson way back at the founding.

[Al Gritten · Rating 3 out of 5]

A collection of biographical essays centered around the men who lost their bids for the presidency. It is a bit dated as it was published in the mid 20th century, but it is an interesting look at their lives and their dreams. For historical buffs this is a good look at the also rans, many of whom history has forgotten. Never the less, I found it fascinating to look at their motivations and histories.

[Yvonne Lacy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although this book is dated (only goes through the 1944 presidential election) it is one of a kind: it asks what might have happened had the defeated candidates won. There is very thoughtful consideration of each man's background and of the election campaigns involved. It's instructive to learn that nothing we see or hear in our present election is actually new...and that the country has survived.

[Jason Freng · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting stories about interesting people that we never hear about. The style is engaging and you get a look at the personal life of each of the Also Rans. My biggest dissappointment was that this book was written so long ago and I didn't get to read Stone's writings about the last 60 years.

[Janet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Re-read my copy.

[Brian · Rating 2 out of 5]

A month before the election the Democrats were denying that I had ever been a Democrat; a month after the election the Republicans were denying that I had ever been a Republican.

Who am I?

[Cindy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting stories of the men who ran for president and lost! Irving Stone is a great storyteller.

[Dennis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Today on President's Day I thought about this book I read years ago. It is a good read pretty interesting. But one thing that struck me about it that I still remember is the irony of how we so often had two great men run against each other and also so many times had two mediocre men run against each other. Too bad we could not have had the deck shuffled differently. Anyway, for anyone interested in history I recommend it.

[Al Berry · Rating 3 out of 5]

20 page short biographies, on the men who ran for President but lost, up until Dewey, Bios are good, but the authors biases stand out in full force and are undeserved conclusions, for instance. stone fears had WJB won he would have instituted a theocracy.

[Orville · Rating 4 out of 5]

I preferred the 1945(?)edition. The 1965(?) printing included more loosers but the editing and construction wasn't and interesting.

[Christopher Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Arguably the most in-depth look at the men who ran and lost the presidency out there. What I really liked about this book is how it really demonstrates that thoughts on presidents is rarely fixed. For example, the book pans the Administrations of Grant, Garfield, and Coolidge (just as most historians did at that time) while paying homage to Jackson. Additionally, I don't think you'll find a better write short bio of people long forgotten from history but who played an important role in the founding of our Republic. I learned so much about John Fremont, Lewis Cass, Horatio Seymour, Wendell Wilkie, and George McClellan through this book. Definitely a read for those who love presidential history.