1920: The Year of the Six Presidents

by David Pietrusza

The presidential election of 1920 was among history's most dramatic. Six once-and-future presidents-Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt-jockeyed for the White House. With voters choosing between Wilson's League of Nations and Harding's front-porch isolationism, the 1920 election shaped modern America. Women won the vote. Republicans outspent Democrats by 4 to 1, as voters witnessed the first extensive newsreel coverage, modern campaign advertising, and results broadcast on radio. America had become an urban Automobiles, mass production, chain stores, and easy credit transformed the economy. 1920 paints a vivid portrait of America, beset by the Red Scare, jailed dissidents, Prohibition, smoke-filled rooms, bomb-throwing terrorists, and the Klan, gingerly crossing modernity's threshold.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, American History, Presidents, Biography, Us Presidents

587 pages, Kindle Edition

First published December 8, 2006

About the author

David Pietrusza’s books include 1920: The Year of Six Presidents; Rothstein: The Life, Times, and Murder of the Criminal Genius Who Fixed the 1919 World Series; 1948: Harry Truman's Improbable Victory and the Year that Transformed America's Role in the World; 1960: LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon: The Epic Campaign that Forged Three Presidencies; and 1932: The Rise of Hitler and FDR—Two Tales of Politics, Betrayal, and Unlikely Destiny. Rothstein was a finalist for an Edgar Award in the Best Fact Crime category, and 1920 was honored by Kirkus Reviews as among their "Books of the Year." Pietrusza has appeared on Good Morning America, Morning Joe, The Voice of America, The History Channel, ESPN, NPR, AMC, and C-SPAN. He has spoken at The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, The National Baseball Hall of Fame, the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, the Harry S Truman library and Museum, and various universities and festivals. He lives in Scotia, New York. Visit davidpietrusza.com

Reviews

[Glenn · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone whose interest in history only flourished long after I was out of high school, I remember with a shudder those grim history books I was made to read. I know that the way history is transmitted can determine whether or not the subject really connects to a reader. Usually, it is done badly, and most people wind up not caring about the past.

David Pietrusza's remarkable new book “1920: The Year of Six Presidents” is exactly the way history should be written. It is riveting, involving, filled with verified fact and compelling anecdote. It makes the era come alive, challenges presumptions about well-known figures (showing, for instance that we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again) and methodically reveals a country changing--coming out of a War into relative prosperity, and trying to figure out how to relate to other countries, a well as the shifting relationship of citizen to citizen, white, black, man & woman.

David take a cast of almost literally thousands, a twisting path to nomination and election, and issues such as women's suffrage, sedition laws, the Palmer Raids, Sacco & Vanzetti, the resurrection of the Klan (and President Wilson's tacit endorsement of the racial politics of both the Klan and related things like “Birth of a Nation,”), the rise of the labor movement and its ties to the socialist revolution, and much, much more. David has the knack for choosing the smallest detail to communicate the most information about a person or incident. For instance, his relating that Herbert Hoover got married in a brown suit reveals much of the man that pages of exposition could not.

He also creates real tension--despite our knowing how things turned out--in extended chapters like the one where Warren Harding wins the Republican nomination. We read page after page as the tides shift from one candidate to another, Harding far behind, until finally, he rises, and wins.

And, being both talented writer and expert historian--a combination rarely present in the same person--David manages to balance all of these things, giving us as much information as we need in order to understand what the book tells us: That the election of 1920, and the events and characters surrounding and involved in it, was one of the most remarkable of any ever held in our country. In lesser hands, an 87 year-old political campaign would surely be a recipe for boredom, or irrelevance. But “1920…” connects to our current affairs subtly and unobtrusively, and tells a tale well worth telling.

[Louis · Rating 4 out of 5]

After reading Pietrusza's entertaining account of the 1948 election, I was looking forward to how he would deal with another presidential contest, one that now feels more relevant to 2020 than would seem to be the case. As with the other book, he does an excellent job of tying together the various events and personalities that made that election fascinating.

The 1920 election took place on the heels of a pair of tragedies. World War I had ended not long before; the unsatisfying attempt by President Woodrow Wilson to secure U.S. entry in the League of Nations, left the subject of American involvement in the world an open question. The influenza epidemic then raging worldwide also caused a great deal of upheaval.

Pietrusza's profiles of the major party candidates, especially the four who would eventually become president (Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and FDR), are well done. Even though this book came out a few years before the decline in Woodrow Wilson's historical representation, his portrayal here makes his shortcomings clear. On that score, much as I disagreed with the Harry S. Truman depicted in the 1948 book (I find him much more admirable than does the author), I think he's way too generous to Warren G. Harding. His point that the 29th president was not a bad man or a bad politician is still well-taken.

As a social history, this book's detailing of the first election in which all women had the vote and Prohibition had just started adds a great deal to understanding that time. The end result makes an election that was pretty cut-and-dried well before the votes were cast a fascinating, solid piece of American social and political history.

[Arminius · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book “1920 The Year if the Six Presidents” gives a fascinating look at Presidents’ Theodore Roosevelt,, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding ,Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The author curiously leaves out William Howard Taft one of the featured candidates. They were all alive and very active in 1920.

After reading the Presidents’ Club seeing how President Truman created enduring friendships among the living presidents I wonder if he saw the animosity of the 1920’s group to each other.

The most vitriolic President of the group is Woodrow Wilson. He was a very well educated person yet he was vindictive and narcissistic. They are his good points. He also was a bigoted racist and a sexist to boot. In one of the funnier episodes Wilson states why he opposes Women’s suffrage. The reason he gives is that women are too logical. “A women’s mind leaps from cause to effect without any consideration whatever for what lies between” he said. To his credit, he later changed his mind however.

The extremely popular Theodore Roosevelt despised Woodrow Wilson. He also loved William Howard Taft while Roosevelt was President, hated Taft when Taft was President then liked him again when neither were president. FDR vilified Hoover when FDR was president. Hoover correspondingly detested FDR. However, when neither were president they had a cordial relationship. The Democratic Party even tried to pair Hoover with FDR in the 1920 election.

Woodrow Wilson was very unpopular by the end of his second term. WWI was not a popular war to begin with. His League of Nations was very unpopular. Wilson did not care though. He vainly tried to push it through its passage while his health was failing.

The two that stayed out of hatred politics were Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Warren Harding was one of the nicest people you could have met in 1920. It was said of him that he had the unique gift of being able to see “the good” in everyone. This trait sprung him into the Presidency. He was an accomplished Newspaper publisher, who long supported Republican causes. He also was a good public speaker and an attractive looking man. This made him a contender. The reason he was nominated though was because he had no enemies. When all other contenders knocked each other out, he was the only one left standing.

As president, Harding had his corrupt friends in government positions like Interior Secretary Albert Fall (notable as responsible for the Tea Pot Dome scandal) but had also had a Superstar Cabinet. First is his Vice President Calvin Coolidge (who succeeded him as president). As Secretary of State he appointed Charles Even Hughes. Hughes resigned at the beginning of Coolidge’s first term. However, he later was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He also tapped finance wizard Andrew Melon as Treasury Secretary. Melon’s tax cutting policies led to the economic boom of the 1920’s.

Harding was also unique in that he wanted Coolidge to attend every meeting. Typically Vice President’s do not attend Cabinet meetings.

Calvin Coolidge, known as Silent Cal, was very popular at the 1920 convention. Conventioneers liked his frugal, no nonsense, and business approach to government he displayed as Massachusetts Governor. They picked him to run with Harding. When Harding died he became president.

Coolidge lost Hughes bet kept Mellon. He had Charles G. Dawes as vice president. Dawes had already won the Noble peace prize due to his Dawes Plan, a program to enable Germany to restore and stabilize its economy. Dawes also composed a popular 1912 composition “Melody in Major.” His song later became a number one hit song in 1952 (when words were added) by Tommy Edwards and renamed “It’s All in a Game.” His Secretary of Commerce was Herbert Hoover. Hoover was known as the Great Engineer. He also was praised for helping organize the return of around 120,000 Americans from Europe during WWI. He led 500 volunteers in distributing food, clothing, steamship tickets and cash. He also administered the distribution of over two million tons of food to nine million war victims.

Harding and Coolidge governed over a period of peace, balanced government budgets and prosperity. So with his popularity and a vibrant economy Herbert Hoover (after Coolidge’s term ended) easily captured the presidency. Unfortunately it crashed and he did not have enough time to fix it before the public turned on him and elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR).

FDR was a very attractive man when he was young. Plus his “Roosevelt” name carried a lot of weight being the cousin of Theodore. He formerly served as under Secretary of the Navy where he survived a scandal of his own. Hoover did not have enough time to resolve The Great Depression in 4 years but nor did Roosevelt who couldn’t solve it in 12 years.

One finally note on the much aligned President Warren Harding. He had many scandals but he also anonymously paid a Woodrow Wilson assistant to take care of the former President when he was severely sick. It was a time when Wilson had alienated almost all his close supporters and had few friends otherwise.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

1920: The Year of the Six Presidents is misleading because Teddy Roosevelt, one of the six, doesn’t make past 1919….but the author makes him part of the story anyway. There are a number of interesting historical facts in this story of politics between the world wars. I was completely unaware that FDR ran for Vice President in 1920. FDR is not admirable while Hoover is. Harding doesn’t come across as the caricature he has become. Coolidge seems a little more human than commonly accepted and Woodrow Wilson is a racist dickhead.

1920 would be the first presidential election where the women could vote. A bit of sarcasm in the run up to the passage of the 19th Amendment:

Writer, poet, and suffragette Alice Duet Miller wrote in 1915:

Why We Don't Want Men to Vote

' Because man’s place is in the army.

' Because no really manly man wants to settle any question otherwise than by fighting about it.

' Because if men should adopt peaceable methods women will no longer look up to them.

‘ Because men will lose their charm if they step out of their natural sphere and interest themselves in other matters than feats of arms, uniforms, and drums.

° Because men are too emotional to vote. Their conduct at baseball games and political conventions shows this, while their innate tendency to appeal to force renders them unfit for government.

Herbert Hoover had been put in charge of feeding the Belgians and Northern French during WWI, enduring many charges of aiding the Germans—who should have provided the food. Hoover said the soldiers, politicians and VIPs would always get fed and the “little” people would starve. When the war ended in November 1918, Hoover’s charge expanded:
All that Hoover had previously accomplished was mere prologue to this. He now fed three hundred million persons across Europe and the Middle East.

In Warsaw in 1919, Poland’s grateful children organized a rag-tag parade in his honor. Hour after hour, they marched. By sunset, fifty thousand children had trooped past Hoover. General Paul-Prosper Henrys, head of the French military mission, exclaimed: “There has never been a review of honor in all history that I would prefer for myself to that which you received today.”

At one point, the children caught sight of a rabbit, broke ranks, and chased and caught it. With tattered honor, they presented it to their benefactor “[T]hey were,” Hoover biographer Vernon Kellogg noted, “astonished to see, as they gave him their gift, that this great strong man did just what you or I or any other sort of human being could not have helped doing under the circumstances. They saw him cry.”

Franklin Roosevelt doesn’t come across well:
FDR, however, exhibited interest only in causes that he might lead. Unconcerned with the labor and safety laws emanating from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire tragedy, he pointedly ignored Frances Perkins’s entreaties on the matter, and wasn’t even in the Senate Chamber for the final votes-none of which kept him from later taking credit for the bills.

Lots of interesting vignettes on all the potential 1920 candidates for president or vice president. During WWI, Hoover had developed a program in the US to reduce food consumption voluntarily to support the millions of troops being sent overseas. Here is Eleanor Roosevelt's Hooverize program:
Eleanor Roosevelt made news in 1917. The July 17 New York Times reported on her attempts to Hooverize her humble Washington household: “Mrs. Roosevelt does the buying, the cooks see that there is no food wasted, the laundress is sparing in her use of soap, each servant has a watchful eye for evidence of shortcomings on the part of the others.” It ended by quoting her: “Making ten servants help me do my saving has not only been possible but highly profitable.”

The Franklin Roosevelts of New York City, Hyde Park, Campobello, and Washington, D.C., looked like rich twits, hopelessly, cluelessly removed from the problems of everyday folk-and FDR knew it. Unable to restrain his sarcastic bent, he wrote Eleanor:

All I can say is that your latest newspaper campaign is a corker and I am proud to be the husband of the Originator, Discoverer and Inventor of the New Household Economy for Millionaires! Please have a photo taken showing the family, the ten cooperating servants, the scraps saved from the table….

FDR fooled around and did not bother to be discreet:
Franklin’s adultery was soon common knowledge in Washington. Alice Roosevelt Longworth once spied the two of them out driving together and complimented FDR on the “perfectly lovely lady” he was with-and clearly transfixed by. “Isn’t she perfectly lovely,” Franklin replied. Alice invited the couple over for dinner. “He deserved a good time,” TR’s daughter remarked, “he was married to Eleanor.”

FDR, like a future President, tried to claim military veteran status by virtue of holding a government position (Asst Secretary of the Navy):
In truth, FDR attempted to enlist only very late in the game. On October 31, 1918-a dozen days before the Armistice-he petitioned Wilson in that regard. Wilson said no.

In his own mind, though, he served. Following the war, a Groton classmate wrote to him, raising funds for a plaque honoring Groton boys who wore the uniform. “I believe that my name should go in the first division of those who were ‘in the service,”’ he responded, claiming that his sightseeing inspections to France somehow qualified him, “especially as I saw service on the other side, and was missed by torpedoes and shells.”

Woodrow Wilson was probably an invalid and the US government was likely being run by his wife and a small clique. Wilson hung around until late in the game, never announcing he was going to run for another term or retire. Then, as now, he could count on a compliant media to run complementary news stories about him:
Then Wilson barged in. On June 17, 1920, the staunchly Democratic New York World published an extensive interview between Wilson and its reporter, Louis Seibold, Wilson’s first interview since his stroke. It was a fraud. Seibold and Joe Tumulty had cooked up the questions and answers between them. Their only problem was clearing the script with Edith Wilson. Their version had Wilson clearly rejecting a third term. Hers didn’t.

“I saw [Wilson],” Seibold (“a trusted friend,” as Tumulty delicately phrased it) lied to his readers, “transact the most important functions of his office with his old[-]time decisiveness, method and keenness of intellectual appraisement.”

It was all false, fake news.

There are a number of other players in the 1920 election with interesting impact. 4 Stars for the US political aficionados, maybe a little less if politics are not your thing.

[Lauren Albert · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book for people interested not just in politics but in "politicking.". It was a little too detailed for me and even with the list of people.at the front, I found myself getting confused. But I blame that on my ignorance of that period of our history. It was incredibly well researched and Pietrusza dug up plenty of amusing anecdotes to lighten the book.

[Genni · Rating 3 out of 5]

An engaging popular history, which means there was arguable stuff everywhere. But it zipped along at such a pace, that I was hard-pressed to complain too much. Pietrusza has a deep grasp of the material and provided wonderful snapshots of men, movements, and motivations. I snorted my way through many a pithy quip and as I am not an expert in the 1920s, learned.

As with so many eras in history, many dynamics are similar to today's, such as the Harding victory ultimately riding on the desire for something calming after the storm. "Normalcy."
Alternately, there were many differences to learn from as well, such as the makeup of the parties. In no way did they resemble the ones of today, touting such things as Progressive Republicans and Conservative Democrats. Harding's (R) nomination speech contained the statement that he was "...not a professing progressive, but a performing progressive." *enter lament about the hard lines of today's parties*

Widening the lens, it was interesting to read this so shortly after finishing American Midnight. Hochschild's portrayal of Gene Debs was almost saint-like, while here I found a much more balanced and fair portrait. But when it came to FDR...oof. It became really clear that Pietrusza hailed from the other end of the spectrum.

Another weakness was the insane amount of material he covered. I learned a little about a lot, but will definitely have to delve into other works if I want a deeper understanding.

Lastly, while the work as a whole was engaging, there are quite a few times when he used repetition of favorite words or phrases, sometimes within a page. While a humble GR reviewer might get away with such things, should a highly edited (one assumes) work from a relatively well-known commentator??

Recommended for enjoyable historical reading.

[Karen (Living Unabridged) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Incredibly interesting and rarely dull, although sadly mis-titled. Why "The Year of the Six Presidents" when one of the aforesaid men was already dead (Teddy Roosevelt)?

I picked this one up because by chance I got to stay at James Cox's mansion Trailsend this summer. He was the Democratic nominee (with FDR as his running-mate) in 1920 and it intrigued me that both major nominees in 1920 - Harding and Cox - were newspaper men from Ohio. I wanted to read more about that circumstance and that is how this book came into my reading stack.

It's long, detailed, gossipy, and makes for a better perspective for anyone who has the idea "things have never been this divided in our country." Even setting aside the Civil War, the era around the first World War and on through the 1920s was incredibly frought. Literal bombs exploding at peoples' house and such.

So, yes, things are bad. But there is nothing new under the sun. There's nothing like a good history book to remind you of that.

[Daniel Kukwa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Let's call this 3.5 stars. The overview of the 6 past-present-and-future Presidents is extremely well done: concise, straightforward, and not wasting any words on digressions. However, I can't say I received that expansive a feeling of life in 1920 -- odd snippets, a few concentrated topics and biographies, but nothing to indicate how special or significant it might be (or should be). A mixed bag, when all is said and done.

[Doreen Petersen · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was just okay but I probably wouldn’t bother with this one.

[Judy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before anyone gets the wrong idea--the United States not only didn't have six presidents in 1920, but one of the presidents under discussion, Theodore Roosevelt, died in 1919. What the author is referring to is that in the American political environment as the 1920 election year approached, six presidents-one past, one sitting, and four men who would become presidents in the future were involved in the political discussions, debates, and decision-making of that post World War I world. Even though Theodore Roosevelt had already died and Woodrow Wilson was physically incapacitated because of a stroke, the political aims and objectives of both of those men were important during that election year. While focusing on the election of 1920 and the presidential race between Democrat James Cox and Republican Warren Harding, Pietrusza's attention is also drawn to future presidents Coolidge, Hoover, and Franklin Roosevelt as well as to personalities such as Eugene V. Debs, A. Mitchell Palmer, Al Smith, Leonard Wood, William McAdo, and Hiram Johnson. Pietrusza also brings to life an America that was rapidly changing--automobiles were replacing horses, people were buying on credit, more people were living in urban areas, women had the vote, and the country was in the grip of a Red Scare. A fascinating look at the United States at the beginning of the 1920s.

[Lauren Hiebner · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pietrusza’s book is very readable with some sensationalism in covering the events leading up to the 1920 presidential election. The author tends to dwell on the seamy side of the characters in a tell all book with a pinch of wit and a dash of sarcasm. I’m not sure why, but possibly to humanize the people involved. This is a micro-history of the 1920 presidential election with tremendous detail well researched by the author. The author depends on newspaper articles of that time period some of which may not always be accurate. Nevertheless, this is a great inside story of that election that saw some of the weakest candidates ever for both political parties, Harding and Cox. As it turns out their respective vice presidents will emerge as stronger leaders in their times. Well worth the read.

[Snail in Danger (Sid) Nicolaides]

Now that the school year has started, I've decided that I don't have time for books that don't fully cite their sources. This guy seems to have taken the "I'm only going to cite direct quotations" approach. As someone who is reading because of historical interest ... well, let's just say that my opinion is that if you don't cite ALL your sources, then your (non-fiction) work is useless. The incomplete citations plus the overly dramatic tone had me deciding within two pages that I wasn't going to bother reading this thing. (There's an excerpt linked from the Search Inside This Book link on the Amazon page, if you want to see what I'm talking about.)

[Katlyn Calia · Rating 2 out of 5]

Poorly structured- some interesting parts, but some very repetitive parts and way too much listing ballot counts

[Stan Prager · Rating 4 out of 5]

Review of: 1920: The Year of the Six Presidents, by David Pietrusza
by Stan Prager (June 4, 2016)

In an election year that at first glance seems unprecedented – the Republican nominee is not really a Republican, a woman is likely for the first time to head up a national ticket, and her stubborn rival for the Democratic nomination is not really a Democrat – I turned to historian David Pietrusza as a reminder that this is hardly the first Presidential electoral cycle branded with the air of the peculiar. I’m a big fan of Pietrusza: his frenetic retelling of two of the most consequential elections of the postwar twentieth century – 1948: Harry Truman’s Improbable Victory and the Year that Transformed America, and 1960: LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon The Epic Campaign that Forged Three Presidencies – represent some of the best accounts I have read about modern politics and elections, and his style is often both compelling and irresistible.
This time, I selected his earlier work, the fascinating but in my opinion deeply flawed 1920: The Year of the Six Presidents, which recounts how in the days when deals made in smoke-filled rooms overruled primaries, an unlikely dark horse from Ohio named Warren Harding became the Republican nominee and eventually the President of the United States. Harding – who on the convention’s first ballot polled a dreadful sixth with only 65 votes while the top two contenders garnered 287 and 211 votes respectively – became the eventual nominee largely because, as famously noted by Republican Connecticut Senator Frank Brandegee, “We’ve got a lot of second-raters and Warren Harding is the best of the second-raters.” [p225]
The book’s subtitle is a little misleading: one of the “Six Presidents” is actually Theodore Roosevelt, who actually died before he could fulfill or dispel predictions that after some years of exile due to his 1912 third-party revolt he would again be the Republican Party’s standard bearer, and Pietrusza does not really explore how the ghost of his probable candidacy weighed on the election. Another is Woodrow Wilson, the reigning President, a stroke victim broken both physically and emotionally, who dreams of a third term that virtually no one else considers possible. The remainder, in addition to Harding, are indeed future Presidents: Herbert Hoover, at this point a progressive whom (like the future Dwight Eisenhower) no one is sure is Republican or Democrat; Calvin Coolidge, the laconic and little-known governor of Massachusetts who becomes Harding’s Vice-President; and, Franklin Roosevelt, the handsome pre-polio rising star who becomes the vice-presidential candidate on the opposing ticket.
The level of detail in 1920 is daunting, but a little lop-sided on the Republican side. There is a deep study of the biographies of Harding and Coolidge and a host of other party regulars, as well as moment-by-moment coverage of the Republican convention, but I walked away still knowing almost nothing of substance about James Cox, the other dark horse from Ohio who became Harding’s opponent on the Democratic side, and the coverage of the latter convention was superficial in comparison. One wonders whether this is because Pietrusza is a conservative historian, although that is hardly detectable in his later works, 1960 and 1948, where he appears to disdain all candidates equally. In 1920, on the other hand, he seems unable to suppress his admiration for Harding, who nevertheless comes off as an intellectual lightweight and somewhat of a cad who is most successful at accumulating much younger mistresses. He also clearly favors Coolidge, a strange man and kind of a political stick-figure who rose to national prominence by crushing a police strike, and then unexpectedly ascends to the Oval Office on the death of Harding.
For Democrat FDR, on the other hand, Pietrusza reserves a kind of barely suppressed loathing. Nearly two chapters are disproportionately devoted to exploring unseemly scandals involving homosexual sailors during Roosevelt’s tenure as Secretary of the Navy in the Wilson Administration. For instance, the author roundly condemns FDR for his responsibility in the return to active duty of former inmates of a naval prison – many who were termed “moral perverts” – to the consternation of ranking officers. While it is true that there was great antipathy at the time towards what were termed “unlawful and unnatural acts,” what is striking and perhaps cringe-worthy in this narrative is that Pietrusza writing from a twenty-first century perspective cannot disguise his own horror at those he freely terms “perverts” roaming navy ships at will [p134-35]. There is of course a certain irony in historical retrospect: Harding presided over one of the most irresponsibly corrupt administrations in the nation’s history; Coolidge – whose economic policies are lauded by the author – was barely out of office before the nation suffered catastrophic economic collapse; yet it is FDR, who provided existential leadership through depression and war, who is widely heralded by historians as the nation’s third greatest President of all time, following only Lincoln and Washington.
Pietrusza’s other books are generally fast-paced; this one often gets bogged down with minutiae, but there are highlights that draw both sharp contrasts and parallels to this election season nearly a century beyond it. And the topic of “gays in the military” is not the only one that resounds to the present day. This was the first election where women had the franchise; almost a hundred years later there is yet to be a female President, although Hillary Rodham Clinton may very well change that in November. Socialism and progressivism, as well as populism, were central albeit fading elements of political discourse. Terrorism – in this case bombs lobbed by anarchists – was much in the news. Business and labor were at odds, and the proper role of government in this and other arenas was much debated. Most striking was the chilling anti-immigrant nativism that reverberates today … cross out and replace the ethnicities in the quote below from Woodrow Wilson’s own shamefully resurrected 1903 commentary on the nation’s “wretched refuse” and 2016 sounds too much like 1920:

“Now there came multitudes of men of the lowest class from the south of Italy and men of the meaner sort out of Hungary and Poland, men out of the ranks where there was neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence; and they came in numbers which increased from year to year, as if the countries of the south of Europe were disburdening themselves of the more sordid and hapless elements of their population, the men whose standards of life and of work were such as American workmen had never dreamed of hitherto.” [p326-27]

[Now replay this scary echo: “When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists . . .” – Donald Trump, 2015]

Internationalism vs isolationism was also a potent issue. World War I was part of the fabric of the very recent past and both major parties were sharply divided within their own ranks about whether to embrace or reject Wilson’s beloved but doomed offspring of the peace, the League of Nations. And this is in my estimation where the greatest fault of 1920 is most detectable, for conspicuous in its absence is a focused examination of this single great issue that dominated the national contest like no other. The reader will learn where each candidate stood on the League – or how well he waffled about it – but not the weightier arguments that defined the debate. Perhaps pages devoted to blow-by-blow tallies of convention votes, detailed accounts of Harding’s numerous peccadillos, and Roosevelt’s role in the scandals of gay sailors might better have been redirected to a more thorough exploration of this critical topic.
While this is certainly not his finest book, Pietrusza is both a talented writer and historian, which is far more admirably evident in his later works. And despite its flaws, 1920 is a worthwhile drive-through of an often overlooked election that ends up telling us perhaps more than we would like to know about our own times and about how little we have grown up nearly a century later. To channel Jean-Baptiste Karr, (plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose) "the more things change, the more they stay the same."



My latest book review - 1920: The Year of the Six Presidents, by David Pietrusza, is live on my book blog https://regarp.com/2016/06/04/review-...

[Kristi Thielen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this a decade ago and reread it in 2020. 1920 was a singularly important election year, not just because of who was ultimately elected, but because of how the men who were in the 1920 political orbit impacted America for the next 20 years. I think it possible that the election of 2020 will be like that, too.

In 1920, Woodrow Wilson was president. Teddy Roosevelt wanted to run for president but died before he could do so. Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge ran on the republican ticket and won. Franklin Delano Roosevelt ran for VP on the democratic tickets and lost. And Herbert Hoover – well, both parties were taking his measure, to see where he might fit in their future.

These are the “six presidents” of the book’s title.

The book details all the politicking, the gossiping, double-dealing, and backroom transactions that led to the conventions in which balloting went on unceasingly. Finally, two lesser lights prevailed: James Cox for the democrats; Warren G. Harding for the republicans. Harding won the presidency, but if Teddy Roosevelt had lived, he would likely have run and won – sparing American the mediocrity of Harding and the mendacity of his crooked pals. If Woodrow Wilson had been less wrathful about the rejection of his League of Nation plans, he might have done more to promote his party and Cox’s candidacy. Oh, the what-ifs.

There is a sizable “cast of characters” in the story of 1920, and the author prefaces his work with biographical information about them. He concludes the book with information about what became of this cast, which makes the book especially interesting.

I encourage anyone with an penchant for presidential politics to read this book. In 100 years, everything has changed – and nothing has.

[Jake Powers · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 Stars

Very disjointed book that really isn’t able to fully immerse you into the narrative due to that. Very fragmented. Often using large blocks of quoted primary sources as opposed to generalizing them and trying to use lofty prose that does not land.

Some worthwhile asides and connections but overall there is a better book to be written about the 1920’s (One Summer: America 1927 by Bill Bryson) or
about the main political cheracters in particular. As the book is primarily with the election as the focal point but tries to really go into overall the 1910’s and 1920’s in an attempt to get a better understanding of the election but really pulls you out of the political drama.

Especially with chapters solely dedicated to singular aspects that really didn’t have much to concern for the election to deserve a whole chapter (ie Harding having ancestors being African American or FDR running a homosexual sting operation in the navy)

Disappointing overall.

[F.C. Schaefer · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the history books, the Presidential election of 1920 is usually described as a debacle, one that resulted in the election of Warren G. Harding, universally thought to be one of our worst Chief Executives; to ice the cake, Harding won with 60% of the popular vote, making him one of the few men ever to pull off a feat that not even Ronald Reagan could achieve.

But in his book, 1920: The Year of the Six Presidents, author and historian David Pietruza brings the America of that year back to life and shows us that much more was going on than meets the eye.

The six Presidents of the title were: Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and both Roosevelts, all of whom factored into the campaign of 1920. America would not see this many political heavy weights contend in a Presidential contest again until the 1960's. But Pietruza's book is not just about them, he gives the reader a detailed portrait of a country leaving the supposedly simple and agrarian 19th Century far behind and rushing headlong into the 20th. We were no longer a nation where the center of power rested on farms and in small towns; the majority of the country now lived in urban areas and as a result the United States had gone big city, embracing automobiles, woman's suffrage, jazz, department stores and radio, then in its infancy. Those who loved the older America pushed back, enacting Prohibition and outlawing the teaching of evolution, thus setting off a culture war that has never really gone away.

In his book, Pietzuza chronicles the resurgence of the Klan and the challenge of the Socialists; the sad case of Sacco and Vanzetti and the Red Scare that cracked down on anarchists and leftist agitators; the battle for America's entry into the League of Nations and the isolationists who wanted nothing to do with it. All of these things had tremendous impact on the election and its outcome.

It is in his portraits of the titled Presidents and the others who made their mark on 1920 that Pietruza really shines. The Woodrow Wilson of these pages is bitter, inflexible, and after suffering a stroke, no longer in touch with reality and clearly unfit to continue as President. Yet he conspires to seek a third term, much to the detriment of his fellow Democrats. Warren Harding is quite the contrast, a kind and generous man to his friends, well liked by everyone, but at the same time, an amoral adulterer, as bad or worse than Bill Clinton on his best day. Herbert Hoover is the heroic public servant who saved millions from starvation in Europe after World War I, admired by his fellow Americans, with supporters in both parties who want him to be their nominee, although no one seems to notice he lacks the common touch. The young Franklin D. Roosevelt is the Assistant Secretary of the Navy and Democratic VP nominee, ambitious for higher office and with a fidelity problem of his own. Theodore Roosevelt, FDR's distant cousin, who leaves us with one of the great What If's of American political history when he dies in January of 1919, well before he could have claimed the Republican nomination the following year and won the White House again, thus making Harding's nomination possible. Then there is Calvin Coolidge, clearly a favorite of Pietruza (whom he has written about in other books), who comes across as a plain speaking and unassuming public servant, everything the others are not.

This book also has a great cast of supporting characters, some forgotten by history: James M. Cox, the Ohio Governor who lost badly to Harding and was the first divorced man to head a Presidential ticket; Harry Daugherty, Harding's shrewd and dishonest campaign manager,a future disgraced Attorney General; Florence Harding, the Senator's ambitious and fearful wife who knew how to look the other way; Hiram Johnson, the petulant California Senator who blew off a chance to be Harding's VP and ultimately the Presidency itself; General Leonard Wood, the Republican front runner who could not seal the deal; Professor William Estabrook Chancellor, a morbid racist and character assassin; Eugene Debs, the Socialist candidate for President, who did all his campaigning from a cell in the Atlanta Penitentiary; and Al Smith, the Governor of New York and the first Catholic to seriously contest for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

We also get a great behind the scenes look at the Republican convention that year where legend has it that Harding was picked by party bosses in a "smoke filled room." The truth is somewhat different, but just as fascinating. So to the homosexual scandal at the Newport, Rhode Island Naval Base that nearly derailed FDR's political career.

Why did Harding win and by such a big margin? It had a lot to do with "back to normalcy," a slogan and an issue that resonated deeply with a public tired and disillusioned after the tumult of the first World War and desperately wanting a return to quieter times. But "normalcy" in the 20th Century would not be what it had once been.

There is some bias in this book; you'd wouldn't know it from these pages why Woodrow Wilson is regarded as a great President, and Pietzuza is generally easy on the Republicans. Not unusual for a guy who appears on FNC, but he should know that the Republican and Democratic parties of the 1920's are not the same parities of today. There needs to be more context when it comes to the policies and choices Harding and Coolidge made and how they ultimately contributed to the Great Depression and the coming of World War II. There is also some snark in Pietzuza's style, which may not sit well with some readers of history.

Still, most of those who devour history books, not to mention students of political history, will love 1920: THE YEAR OF THE SIX PRESIDENTS. Read it and see how much has not changed in nearly 93 years.

[Timothy Daley · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was an interesting and fun historical drama of the early 20th century that jumped around a decent amount. The title is misleading in that only 4 of 6 presidents actually run for president or vice president during the 1920 election. Pietrusza does a great job of explaining the role of each of them in the lead up to the election, though it fails to give equal weight to other candidates. Though he does great with building suspense with both contested conventions. The complex issues and topics of the time period show how much the world has changed today. I appreciate Pietrusza's devotion to giving the third parties a fair evaluation in their support and influence on the election too. I enjoyed reading it and comparing it to our current election cycle!

[Bob Kempf · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating stories well told about characters, figuring in a big way in our nation and world.
Totally amazing how none of the issues have changed in 100 years.
Gender, infidelity, race, immigration, corruption, International law, America first, Slander, impropriety, scandalous behavior, all the way to the top, socialism, anarchism, physically, and mentally disabled presidents controlled by others, gigantic eagles hanging on the power…….its all there .

only negative is a lot of vote counts - nonetheless its all for a point

[John Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

My one friend, Lee, suggested this book to me, knowing how I have this weird fascination of President Harding. Surprisingly, I never read it despite it being about the 1920 elections. The premise is that 1920 was different than any other year because six presidents – past or future – were, at some point, interested in running for president. As Lee promised, it was quick reading with lots of interesting points about the people and the times.

The author did a good job outlining the various characters in a pretty fair manner. I read much of the story in the past but still surprised by some of what I learned. There was Wilson, sick and unable to do his job, laying in bed nearly every day, barely able to read documents his wife handed him and he desperately wanted to stay in office and run again, if given a chance. Even literally on his deathbed four years later, he was trying to figure out how to run for yet another term – against Harding! As with every other book I’ve read about Wilson, the more I read about him, the more I dislike him.

TR’s actions were mentioned throughout the book. He certainly had a clear constituency and such a powerful personality. I thought the author did a good job balancing TR’s strong personality and not being against or for the character.

Hoover’s incredible accomplishments were highlighted as was his inability to connect with people. The latter was probably the reason why he wouldn’t be considered more seriously against the weak Harding. But at one point, and later, Hoover was being encouraged by leaders of both parties to run on their ticket. The book mentioned that some were trying to put together a Hoover-FDR ticket, something that FDR showed interest but Hoover turned down. It’s truly a tragedy that he was elected when he did and had such a poor presidency when he did such amazing work feeding people – before and after his presidency. It’s also a sad reflection on FDR how he treated Hoover when the two had a good relationship prior to their race against one another.

FDR was painted as a true opportunist, especially when considering his support to candidates to president; he was willing to switch at the drop of a hat. The author also brought up the navy scandal where he was outing gay navy men by using young recruits and how he was soft on various issues of the day including suffrage, prohibition, and the League.

As if six past and future presidents were not enough candidates, the author also rounds out the other candidates considered, including the frontrunner – General Leonard Wood and Wilson’s star cabinet member and son-in-law William Gibbs McAdoo. McAdoo had two problems, he was in the president’s cabinet and married to his daughter at the time; Wilson not taking his name out froze McAdoo’s campaign even when he hinted he would be willing to run. Ironically McAdoo later divorced Elanor Wilson in July, 1934 and at age 67 married a 26-year-old public health nurse.

Harding’s quick assent in politics was displayed in the one chapter. After an unsuccessful campaign for a local office in 1895, he won a spot three years later for state senate despite being in a solidly democratic area and by 1904 was viewed as a candidate for governor.

The book gave a decent account of Wooster professor William Estabrook Chancellor accusing Harding of having “black blood” and what happened with that issue in the campaign. The professor was fired by Wooster College and later was hired by Xavier University! Another treat was the brief story about how Taft reached out to TR years later and that led to Roosevelt and Taft meeting many times. Although TR invited Taft to visit him at Oyster Bay many times, the only time he went was for TR’s funeral and that he stood away from others, as if he didn’t belong there after such a public dispute, and he wept longer than anyone else.

The book, of course, briefly reviewed Hardin’s affairs, spelling out that Nan Britton even went to his front porch to hear him speak during the campaign and tried to get Harding to look at his daughter after he won, which he refused. The book also mentioned that Elizabeth Ann Britton, President Harding’s illegitimate daughter, married in September 1938 and didn’t make her background public until 1964 when she announced she named her first born after the past president; she died in 2005, at age 86. Surprisingly, the book mentioned that Harding “impregnated Florence’s childhood friend, Susan Hodder” who had the child in Nebraska and stayed away from them the rest of her life. It barely mentioned the long-time affair with Carrie Phillips.

The details of the campaign against so many Republican candidates and less Democratic candidates was fantastic. He addresses the third party movement, especially the Socialists and Debbs. But the book also mentioned that both William Randolph Hearst and Henry Ford thought about starting a new party; Hearst actually advertised a meeting that ended up with miserable results and backed out but ended up giving support to FDR years later. One felt one was watching a horse race. It turned out to be a race between two Ohioans, two politicians, and two newspaper editors! They may have even been related!

Pietrusza spelled out Harding’s accomplishments in a succinct, powerful way – and her certainly had them, including: disarmament treaties, lower taxes, reducing national debt, a huge decline of unemployment from 12% to 3%, creation of the Bureau of the Budget, the first social welfare law, and first highway program. He had a mixed record on labor but eliminated the 12-hour day in the steel industry just before he passed away unexpectedly. His scandals – and dying in office – overshadowed any accomplishments.

A treat in the book is how the author covers the times – a time when there were now more automobiles than horses and more people living in urban areas than rural, the progressive movement to give women the right to vote and the poor treatment of African Americans, and labor unrest. He provided many incredible details that could have been a book all by itself but fitted well into the book.

There were so many good lines in this book. I highlighted more than I normally do. When speaking on the candidates, the book mentioned that one Vermont Republican newspaper editor said: “Vote for Taft, pray for Roosevelt, and bet on Wilson.” The book also mentioned that former US Senator Chauncey Depew outlined the election clearly: “The only question now is which corpse gets the most flowers.” Impressive words.

Good, fun reading.

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

You won't be disappointed in this documentary of the election that kicked off our roaring '20s. The book opens with the nearly incapacitated Wilson negotiating the 14 points and Treaty of Versailles to close WWI.
Then Republican promise Teddy Roosevelt passes away; leaving the delegates lost on their next move for the Presidency.

Incredible detail on both the Republican and Democratic...(and Socialist) primaries of 1919. A good indication of how the primaires function as more of a groupthink and mudsling competition rather than selection of a candidate. Harding comes from the middle of the pack to take the Republican nomination. Coolidge coming off the recent Police strike in Boston has steamrolled to higher ranks of VP thanks to his tactful but firm handling of the situation.
The Democrats put up another Ohio native, Cox with FDR for Vice; but barely get their campaign off the ground with little popularity throughout most of the state primaries.

I found it an easy read and relaxed pace despite all the politicking and detail that goes into this story.

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Engaging history of the presidential election of 1920 in which, at one point or another, six men who held the position vied for the office.
The author does a fine job of laying the landscape and developing the principals. Also, he provides excellent background on the suffrage movement (1920 was the first year women were provided the right to vote).
The descriptions of the conventions was also very enjoyable.
A well-written, easily read history of an important time in American history. The interbellum period provides insight into the disasters from without (Europe) and within (the Hoover and FDR administrations) that were to come.

[Reginald · Rating 4 out of 5]

AMAZING, AMAZING, AMAZING........And we thought that the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Campaigns were something else..... I want to compel you to read THIS one.....
Imagine "6" very INTENSE Campaigners: six once-and-future presidents hoped to end up in the White House: Woodrow Wilson, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, and Theodore Roosevelt. It was an election that saw unprecedented levels of publicity. A GREAT Historical READ...

[Brett Van Gaasbeek · Rating 5 out of 5]

As much as Harding is "fly over" territory of Presidential history, his election in 1920 is fascinating from the standpoint that it was the end of the Progressive movement of TR and Wilson and the beginning of the "Roaring 20s" mentality of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. The 1920s Presidents are overlooked, so it is interesting to see how Pietrusza humanizes them in the book. This was a fast read and excellent narrative history, told with a fair look into the lives of these historical figures.

[Darrylgann · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit misleading in its title

An interesting read. But by 1920 only two were actual Presidents: Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson. One was the actual subject of the book, Harding. And the other were just Presidents to be: Cooledge, FDR and Hoover. A bit misleading and not all that dramatic as it lead on.

[Diskojoe · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an excellent read, especially considering these present times. I wish I could vote for Calvin Coolidge.

[Bill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enjoyed it enough to purchase extra copies for friends and family

[Mark Greathouse · Rating 5 out of 5]

An outstanding history of an era when the early manifestation of the progressive movement began to metastasize, spreading its cancerous anti-republic tentacles within the U.S. government.

[Todd Stockslager · Rating 4 out of 5]

Review: The once and future kings

Exactly 100 years before the disgraceful events surrounding the 21st century raucous interrupted transition of the American presidency for the first time in its history, the 1920 election was notable for both its own astonishing events but more notably for the roles that six past, current, and future presidents would play in them. Pietrusza tells the story of the 1920 election year through the lense of the men and events that made it momentous.

Woodrow Wilson was the current president fighting for his League of Nations and his life after a stroke left him so incapacitated that his wife was making decisions and limiting access to hide his decline from the press. Teddy Roosevelt was the past President who had already failed in one attempted return to power as a third party candidate but passed away before he could mount a campaign this year. His cousin FDR and future Presidents Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge had served with honor in the just-ended world war and were considered bright young stars but not yet ready for the ultimate role; each figured prominently in the 1920 campaigns and laid the groundwork for their own turns in the White House.

And like the contentious 2020 election, the nation was bitterly divided by serious issues. Wilson spent massive amounts of political capital fighting in person for his League of Nations ("No sitting president should have sat day after day, week after week, in Paris, listening to minute details of European boundaries, harangued by diplomats settling scores of centuries-old grudges at a single conference.", p. 28) and the debate on the treaty at home to a large extend drove the political party decision-making. Battles over free speech, labor unions, and communism were framed by the continued enforcement of drastic censorship laws remaining from the war period; socialist candidate Eugene V. Debs had to campaign from prison after he challenged those laws. Women had earned the right to vote, finally, but access was constricted by race in the south (for both genders) and religion: many female conservative Democrats refused to vote or were prevented from registering to vote by their husbands because of their religious belief that men should have authority over women. Prohibition had taken affect so candidates campaigned as Wet or Dry, a divide that cut across all political parties, but candidates and voters no matter their moisture level mostly accepted the constitutional ban and honored it in the breach.

And of course there was the broader issue of race. Then as now, black citizens were systemically restricted in their employment, access to education and health care, choice of neighborhoods and civil and voting rights. The Klan was beginning a 20th century resurgence and lynching were freely deployed to keep them "in their place", a particularly bitter pill for returning black veterans who had served their country well. And then as now, conspiracy theories abounded. One avowedly racist university professor claimed falsely that candidate Warren G. Harding had black ancestry and therefore was not fit to be president.

Harding was also considered the least capable of the potential candidates by the press. "He might not particularly impress anyone, but he had performed the hardest trick in politics, holding a fractions coalition together." (p. 326). A healthy Wilson would have sought a third term (p. 187, even in his weakened and incapable state he wanted to run), and one party politician even proposed a slate of Hoover for president with FDR as his running mate (p. 137),not as unlikely as it would later seem as Hoover was courted by both parties and he and Roosevelt were acquainted. The "lack of excitement" most politicians, pundits, pollsters, and even voters felt over the eventual candidates "missed an important point." (p. 261), and the eventual result "wasn't a landslide, it was an earthquake" (p. 423) in the words of one of those politicians.

Note that so far I haven't said who was finally on the ballot and who was still standing after the earthquake, so that you can experience as I did the joy of reading Six Presidents like a novel whose ending is a mystery. Even though I have read widely in American history I couldn't remember myself who had won that year, and Pietrusza has written his history in lively popular style so that it indeed at times flows like a novel. He included notes and bibliography to document his facts, but the story is the thing here. He even begins p. 1 with a list of "The Players in Our Drama" and ends with an epilogue reprising the list to "present the fate of our often ill-starred cast" (p. 439)--including some new players who came onstage unannounced.

Written in 2007 to tell the story of an important election nearly 90 years before, this book served a valid and useful purpose to reintroduce readers (like myself) to facts and figures from a school history lesson they had long forgotten. But in light of the election that was to come in 2020 this book now serves a new and even more vital purpose to shine a comparative light on these two momentous periods in our history separated by a century and yet united by many of the same bitterly divisive issues. And it left me wondering where are the men and women of today who could have the gravitas, leadership ability, and political wisdom to restore unity and to be documented as once and future presidents 80 years from now when the histories of this time are written?

[Marshall · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book demonstrates that no matter what the year or time American elections follow a similar trajectory. It really is the personalities and how they respond that makes the difference.

One critical element, present in today’s contests is money. It is not as central to the outcome as it is now, in 1920, candidates are making deals with political bosses, not with the 150 families who regularly fund elections and determine national policy regardless of the national need.

Money is not a factor because primaries weren’t a factor. There was no need to contest one’s fitness to be president by setting up national organizations in all 50 states. The people who set policy in the two main political parties would have found this unseemly. The process could nominate the likes of of a Warren Harding, could also nominate a Franklin Roosevelt, both were on the national ticket in 1920.

Elements are repeated over and over in this and subsequent elections occurred in 1920. The incumbent of the White House, Woodrow Wilson steadfastly refused to entertain the idea that he ought to leave the scene and by his refusal to give up the idea of a third term, even when he was scarcely able to reason on minor matters (his post stroke condition reportedly left him unable to grasp the concept of folding letters to insert them in envelopes). Wilson’s insistence handicapped his party in 1920 and contributed to its defeat. Wilson’s reputation continues to decline in this book.

Nothing burgers of outrage are not a new phenomenon, in 1920 a half baked Ohio educator insisted that Warren Harding was African American (he used a different word). That a person with plenty of personal peccadilloes involving numerous mistresses and illegitimate children should find himself enveloped in such a ridiculous charge says a great deal about the times, not that such subjects would have been off limits (just ask Grover Cleveland).

The desire to unlock wisdom from the non professional politician was also a factor in the election of 1920. Herbert Hoover, oddly enough given his subsequent reputation, was widely courted by both parties. Even FDR tried to enlist “the great engineer” to run as a Democrat. Predictably, and as almost a warning of what would transpire when Hoover became president, Hoover insisted he did not want to mingle with the local bosses and so pursued a halfhearted strategy. Not unlike his administration.

Racial and ethnic politics were also part of the political landscape. Southern Europeans and Jews were the Latin Americans and Muslims of the day, no one was articulating the charge that they were rapists and terrorists, but Anglo Saxon America certainly thought so, and events like the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti certainly contributed to the notion that immigration needed to be controlled.

It could be said that there were two big winners in 1920. Harding, who was inaugurated as president in 1921, certainly was. But Roosevelt also made his way forward as well, establishing contacts throughout the nation that would help lay the groundwork for his victories,both at the convention and the general election in 1932.