The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Unreasonable Men
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
THE DISCUSSION IS OPEN - WEEK TWO - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: UNREASONABLE MEN - April 18th - April 24th - Chapter Two - The Railroad- (pages 31 - 52) - No Spoilers, please
message 2:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 18, 2016 08:59AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
The second week's reading assignment is:
Week Two - April 18th - April 24th
Chapter Two - The Railroad - (pages 31 - 50)
Chapter Overview and Summary:
Chapter Two - The Railroad
In Chapter Two, the reader is introduced to the "laying of the first stone of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (July 4th, 1898). The author begins this chapter with the following quote:
"If the Federal Government continues to centralize, we shall soon find that we have a vast bureaucratic government, which shall prove inefficient if not corrupt." --- Uncle Joe
Uncle Joe Cannon
Note on cartoon: - This illustration entitled, "The House in Session (According to the Minority Point of View)", by cartoonist Clifford Berryman, which appeared in the Washington Evening Star on April 16, 1908, depicts the powerful hold over debate held by Joseph G. Cannon as Speaker of the House. Here, the House majority is made up of clones of Cannon with no room for a minority voice.
July 4th, 1898 is the historic timeframe and date at the beginning of Chapter Two and the author and book are focused on the "railroad".
What soon happened was that the little railroad owners gave way to the power of the industrialists like Vanderbilt and Gould (robber barons). Eventually these barons merged their holdings to form the Northern Securities Company.
By that time J. P. Morgan had acquired control of half of the railroad mileage in the United States and substantial amounts of holdings in sea transport. The consolidations stabilized the turbulence of the railroad industry yet smothered competition. Shipping rates soared and the monopolies appeared to be in control.
The railroad companies manipulated local political machines and then tried to block any government interference.
By 1887, Congress woke up to what was going on and somehow established the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) but that entity had little power it appeared and it did too little and when TR arrived on the scene - Congress finally passed the Elkins Anti Rebate Act of 1903.
TR evaluated the situation and decided to take another crack at railroad reform and that is where he butted heads. TR's push for railroad reform piqued the interest of LaFollette in Wisconsin where folks were advocating for him to run for the Senate. Aldridge from Rhode Island was also coming upon the scene and was invited into the Finance Committee where he became the master of the federal tariff system - soon to be courted by the "titans" - including Morgan himself.
Every man seemed to have their own agenda and by the time TR gave his state of the union address on December 5th, 1905 - everyone had dug in. TR's main message was at the SOTU address was the following:
"This Government is not and never shall be government by a plutocracy. This Government is not and never shall be government by a mob..... The first thing to do is to deal with the great corporations engaged in the business of interstate transportation."
In order to combat rate discrimination - TR proposed to authorize the ICC to hear rate cases and set a maximum shipping rate if it found evidence of abuse.
Elkins ever loyal to his cohorts misinterpreted the President's wishes. TR was not impressed and did not want to give him another opportunity so he invited a Junior Republican to write a new railroad bill which was precisely to TR's liking.
The gauntlet was thrown down and the issue and bill was in play with Standpatters preparing for assault and senators grumbling that the President had exceeded his constitutional authority. The date was not 2016 - but December 19th, 1905!
message 3:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 15, 2016 07:07AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Please post and check the table of contents and syllabus.
We Begin:
As an introduction - for all folks who have received your book and for those of you who will receive your book - please post a brief intro on the Week One thread for your fellow readers of Unreasonable Men introducing yourself and at the same time give us your general impression of the Preface and Chapter One and details that made an impression on you right from the start - Remember this is done on the Week One thread - not on this week's thread. Also make sure that you have responded to the Week One's requirement for the intro and responses to the Preliminary Discussion Questions which you can find on message 5 on the Week One thread.
Here is the Week One thread's link - in case you need to go back and complete the first assignment:
Link to the Week One Thread: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Once you have completed all of the above on the Week One thread - you are ready to begin posting here on the Week Two thread.
message 4:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 15, 2016 07:11AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Therefore, you may discuss any element or quote, event or person or anything else dealing with Chapter Two and pages 31 through 50. You may also discuss anything that came before in the book - so the Preface through page 50 are the only pages that can be discussed here. Try to read with the group so that you are NOT posting any spoilers.
We do have spoiler threads where you can post anything - glossary, bibliography threads, the introduction and Book as a Whole thread.
But the weekly threads are non spoiler.
message 5:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 15, 2016 12:21PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pi...
Source: The American Presidency Project
TR's Inaugural Ceremony 1905
https://www.loc.gov/item/mp76000336
Theodore Roosevelt with Rough Rider friends
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNCMm...
Teddy Roosevelt Speech (Audio) - probably 1916 - later than this chapter of course
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhlzd...
Theodore Roosevelt's wife Edith Roosevelt Speaking, earliest First Lady's voice recorded
https://youtu.be/7AwuWv4wRsg
Theodore Roosevelt Inauguration Re-enactment - (fairly good but these are actors remember - begins with McKinley)
https://youtu.be/ww_RcEAfT1o
Theodore Roosevelt, Captured on Spinning Wax
https://youtu.be/gRbA88DGPwg
Source: Library Of Congress and the Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural Site as well as Youtube
message 6:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 15, 2016 04:37PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Chapter Two begins with this quote:
"If the Federal Government continues to centralize, we shall soon find that we have a vast bureaucratic government, which shall prove inefficient if not corrupt." --- Uncle Joe
1. a) Do you agree with the above statement? All of the time, some of the time or mostly never? Explain your position.
b) Do you sometimes drive on your state's roads and bridges replete with potholes and wonder what your Senator or Congressman is doing about these road conditions in DC. Probably nothing because he is at the federal level - or are you interested in the infrastructure problems that cannot be fixed at the state level be mandated and rectified for the citizens of this country by the federal government? - for example, the lead pipes in Flint, Michigan?
2. When things go wrong, do you think that your state has the ability to fix them? Do they have enough manpower, funds and other resources? What about when a big storm hits like Sandy or Katrina? Or do you think that the federal government should do something to fix the mess that your governor can or will not do? Or do you think that your state can only afford so much and if it did not get the help of the federal government many things would be swept under the carpet and ignored like the pipes in Flint, Michigan?
3. Are you happy with your social security and medicare or medicaid or federal pensions? If so these are federal programs? Are you unhappy about the cost of prescription drugs and wish that the federal government would do more about it? Do you have children with special needs and have you found that your state and local government are not doing enough to educate and take care of your children and you think that the federal government should do more? Are you a college aged student or a parent of college aged students who are having problems affording to send your children to college or are you having a hard time trying to work, study or pay off big college loans? If so, do you think that the Federal government should be doing more? Do you think that Bernie Sanders is your candidate because he feels that college should be tuition free and students debt free or do you believe that Sanders has a great idea but what is his plan for paying for it. Do you think yourself a progressive, a liberal, a conservative, a moderate or an independent?
4. Are you the type of individual who feels that you had to do it all on your own and there is no free lunch - so the federal government should stay out of your business and be "seen and not heard" at the state level. And that your state can take care of what it needs to take care of without the federal government butting in?
5. Do you believe that a federal government that does more is any more corrupt than a federal government that does less? Do you believe that a federal government that does more is any more inefficient than a federal government that does less?
6. Explain your views on what your ideal federal and state government would look like?
7. Was Uncle Joe right or do you think he is either making a sweeping generalization or is he wrong?
8. Do you feel that corporations get many breaks that they should not be getting? Should corporations pay more? Should US corporations be allowed to get tax breaks and move their jobs offshore to other countries? Who should do more to keep corporations in line?
message 7:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 17, 2016 06:32PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Baltimore, Maryland, July 4, 1828
"It was a fine day, and the sun shone big and bright over Baltimore. Thousands crammed the streets of the nation's third largest city to celebrate the 52nd anniversary or American independence. A column of soldiers, tradesmen, schoolchildren, and horse-drawn floats parted the crowd while a military band beat the rhythm. The procession rolled down the road to a sprawling plantation that nudged against the city limits.
When they arrived, dignitaries in top hats and breeches stepped down from their carriages and moved into position beneath a ceremonial pavilion. The mayor was there with a delegation of businessmen. Congressmen and governors had come from as far away as Indiana. The luminaries waited patiently for the guest of honor to shuffle up to the pavilion; Charles Carroll, 90 years old, the last surviving signature of Declaration of Independence.
When everyone had arrived, the Masonic grand chaplain delivered a prayer, and the Declaration of Independence was read aloud. Then one of the businessmen came forward to address the audience. "Fellow citizens, he called out, "The occasion which has assembled us, is one of great and momentous interest. We have met to celebrate the laying of the first stone of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad."
Discussion Questions:
1. Did anyone else think that the businessman was missing the entire point of the celebration of the 4th of July and what it should have meant for everybody gathered in Baltimore that day?
2. How do you think Charles Carroll felt having a spade placed in his hand celebrating the laying of the first stone of Baltimore and Ohio Railroad versus celebrating the great history of a young nation that had gone through so much to fight for the rights of all men not just a few?
3. Charles Carroll was the only Roman Catholic of all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and he helped promote and establish the concept of religious toleration which are embodied in the founding documents and laws of our country still used today for “all men who are created equal.” In 1826, Charles Carroll of Carrollton became the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence with the deaths of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams on July 4th. Two years later at the age of 90, Carroll laid the cornerstone for the B&O Railroad. He died in his 96th year on November 14, 1832, at the Caton home. Following a national day of mourning, he was interred at the family country seat, Doughoregan Manor.
4. Do you think that Carroll who had studied under the Jesuits but who was a very wealthy man was satisfied with the Independence celebration that day? The New Advent stated that after the election of Jefferson to the presidency in 1800, Carroll viewed public events with anxiety and fear.
5. How did the industrialists push out the small railroad owners and take over becoming what we call "robber barons"?
6. Can you think of any other consolidation of smaller entities which resulted in monopolies in this country's history that eventually had to be broken up to allow for competition and fair prices? Can you think of any other attempts to collude to fix rates and prices and what was the federal or state response?
7. How did Standard Oil force their competitors into bankruptcy?
8. How did the political parties become beholden to the railroads? And why did frustrated voters take things into their own hands? How did the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) become so impotent that it could not even perform its own mission? Why did Theodore Roosevelt take another crack at railroad reform and what was he up against? What were the two sides that pitted themselves against each other to either protect industry from federal regulation or to protect the people from industrial excess?
More:
http://charlescarrollhouse.org/the-ca...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03379...
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/c...
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2008/07/...
This statue of Charles Carroll was given to the National Statuary Hall Collection by Maryland in 1903. Carroll was a statesman and signer of the Declaration of Independence. Richard E. Brooks was the artist.
The laying of the first stone
Mod
message 9:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 16, 2016 07:30PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
The Bosses of the Senate by J. Ottmann Lith. Co. after Joseph Keppler
This frequently reproduced cartoon, long a staple of textbooks and studies of Congress, depicts corporate interests–from steel, copper, oil, iron, sugar, tin, and coal to paper bags, envelopes, and salt–as giant money bags looming over the tiny senators at their desks in the Chamber. Joseph Keppler drew the cartoon, which appeared in Puck on January 23, 1889, showing a door to the gallery, the "people’s entrance," bolted and barred. The galleries stand empty while the special interests have floor privileges, operating below the motto: "This is the Senate of the Monopolists by the Monopolists and for the Monopolists!"
Keppler’s cartoon reflected the phenomenal growth of American industry in the 1880s, but also the disturbing trend toward concentration of industry to the point of monopoly, and its undue influence on politics. This popular perception contributed to Congress’s passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890.
Source: US Senate
More:
Gilded Age Corruption - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spgdy... (for kids - but informative)
Good old video on gilded age - Just the Facts: The Emergence of Modern America- The Gilded Age - https://youtu.be/yCZtNE3g_sQ
The new Gilded Age: Close to half of all super-PAC money comes from 50 donors - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...
message 10:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 17, 2016 08:31PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Week Two - April 18th - April 24th
Chapter Two - The Railroad - (pages 31 - 50)
You can discuss Chapter Two or any element that came before like the Preface and Chapter One. But this thread should only discuss events and pages through 50.
We are ready to begin. Please feel free to begin with the discussion questions in messages 7 or 8 or if you would like to discuss something entirely different that is in Chapter Two or in one of the earlier segments - by all means please post your thoughts.
Let us begin.
Question 1a. Simple answer: No.
Nuanced answer: All organizations can become corrupted and inefficient. Government seems to me to be, if anything, more corrupt and less efficient than on the federal level, although it is hard to know for sure since corruption naturally tries to hide itself and inefficiency is hard to measure on an objective scale.
Question 2:I live in NY which is, obviously, one of the most populous states. Nevertheless, when Sandy hit, we certainly needed help from the federal government. The reason is that when a disaster strikes, it has a bigger effect on local areas than national ones.
A storm hits the east coast - the rest of the country is unaffected. So, the proportionate cost of cleanup is much lower on the federal than local level .
I do not believe that big government is always bad. If the president is indeed seeking a "square deal" for all, then government might pass legislation that is odious to some but ultimately judicious to all. I do not feel that my state has ample resources to remedy disasters. Alabama has often relied on the federal government for assistance after tornadoes. Alabama cannot, however, blame anybody outside the state for the fact that voters elected a perfidious, philandering scoundrel. Regardless of which political party you support, the current Alabama governor is corrupt and is clearly the type of person Progressive reformers would have ousted.
Industrialists pushed out the small railroad owners by buying up as many lines as they could. Through vertical and horizontal integration, a robber baron began to control every aspect of his respective industry. He did not pay his workers adequate wages or compensate the public for natural resources that were pilfered (hence the "robber") and viewed himself as an aristocrat or lord of the plebians (hence the "baron").
Question 5: Do you believe that a federal government that does more is any more corrupt than a federal government that does less? I think the question has it backwards .... I think governments that are corrupt do less than governments that are not. Often, the forces of corruption are forces of delay.
In a combination of Questions 1a and 5, I'll say that I can see that big government leads to bureaucracy, but I'm more inclined to fear corporate corruption than government corruption, so there needs to be regulation on the corporations or they'll really take us for a ride. De-regulation of the financial industry didn't do the general public any good. As to 3, I am happy with the social security system. My mother is currently receiving social security and my late father's pension, and I am grateful that she does.
My own thoughts: Just as our author corroborated the parallel between Sanders:Clinton::La Follette:Roosevelt, it seems like the railroad industry is our current equivalent of big banking.
Mod
Simple answer: No.
Nuanced answer: All organizations can become corrupted and inefficient. Government seems to me to be, if anything, more corrupt and less efficient than on the fe..."
Peter are you saying that you think that local and state governments run the risk or are more corrupt than the potential is for the federal government to be so.
Mod
I live in NY which is, obviously, one of the most populous states. Nevertheless, when Sandy hit, we certainly needed help from the federal government. The reason is that when a disaster..."
Very true, yes that affected me too, And I think you have brought up an excellent example.
message 19:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 18, 2016 01:34PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
ultimately judicio..."
Robin - your post made me laugh - why would your state elect a scoundrel? I can hear that you are very dissatisfied with the governor of Alabama. But your state has elected some officials that have had dubious effects on enforcement of federal law and on federal and state politics in the very distant past unfortunately.
It does not seem to be brand new to some of the electorate there. It is difficult sometimes to understand what the electorate sees in these kinds of candidates for sure. Obviously some segments of the population see or receive some benefit from this person being in office and he may unfortunately reflect their views.
When is he up for re-election? Maybe he will be voted out then.
Getting back to the book - "As far as bigger government - I tend to agree that some programs have helped the entire population a great deal and that TR and LaFollette helped force the candidates to address issues and programs that would benefit the populace".
Note: I had to look up who was the governor of Alabama and I have attached the wikipedia article on him which I think spells out what you are talking about - and I want to say that I was horrified at his name (lol) and I want everyone to know that my dog Bentley is of no relation (smile).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_...
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2...
Mod
Excellent definition Robin.
Mod
I think the question has it backwards .... I think governments th..."
(smile)
Mod
Hmmm - I wonder about that although he did mention the Wall Street sit ins within the Preface. I thought he was relating to the influence of the corporations as well. That is a good question Kressel to ask the author.
Mod
Here is the link to the Author's Q&A:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Mod
message 25:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 18, 2016 08:21AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
1. Would anybody like to talk about the Gilded Age as we move from the Gilded Age into the Progressive Era.
2. Were there any surprises about this age that you did not know about before reading the book (Chapter 1 and Chapter 2) or do you have some questions about this time period?
Bentley wrote: "Maybe the author can weigh in on this here - Michael could you weigh in on Kressel's analogy in message 17 - thank you."Ooh! I'll be so happy when he does. I suppose the railroads were more like gas prices today in that you have to pay for it if you're going to get to work or ship your product, but the banking industry and its power to collapse our economy is one of our most pressing domestic issues, if not the biggest of all.
Mod
message 28:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 18, 2016 08:55AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
To a Finish - Nov. 25, 1905
In 1905, TR tried to convince reluctant Republican congressmen to regulate the powerful railroad industry
Enlarged: http://www.harpweek.com/09cartoon/bro...
Source: Harper's Weekly
message 29:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 18, 2016 11:59AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Background: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2011...
Source: The Library of Congress
More:
Illustration shows a scene on the Senate floor with several Senators engaged in a free-for-all around a signpost labeled "Rail Road Interests"; watching the melee from the "Visitors' Gallery" is Joseph R. Burton.
Supposedly depicting the following: (not Orville Platt)
Depew, Chauncey M.--(Chauncey Mitchell),--1834-1928.
Elkins, Stephen B.--(Stephen Benton),--1841-1911.
Aldrich, Nelson W.--(Nelson Wilmarth),--1841-1915.
Lodge, Henry Cabot,--1850-1924.
Foraker, Joseph Benson,--1846-1917.
Tillman, Benjamin R.--(Benjamin Ryan),--1847-1918.
Dolliver, Jonathan P.--(Jonathan Prentiss),--1858-1910.
Spooner, John C.--(John Coit),--1843-1919.
Platt, Thomas Collier,--1833-1910.
Burton, Joseph Ralph,--1852-1923.
United States.--Congress.--Senate.
Legislators--1900-1910.
Special interests--1900-1910.
Who was Joseph R. Burton?
BURTON, Joseph Ralph, a Senator from Kansas; born near Mitchell, Lawrence County, Ind., November 16, 1852; attended the common schools, Franklin (Ind.) College, and DePauw University at Greencastle; studied law; admitted to the bar in 1875 and commenced practice in Princeton, Ind.; moved to Abilene, Dickinson County, Kans., in 1878; member, State house of representatives 1882-1886; appointed a member of the World’s Fair Columbian Commission at Chicago in 1893, representing Kansas; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate and served from March 4, 1901, until his resignation on June 4, 1906; chairman, Committee on Forest Reservations and Game Protection (Fifty-seventh and Fifty-eighth Congresses); convicted in 1904 (convicted again on appeal in 1906) of the charge of illegally receiving compensation for services rendered before a federal department and served five months in prison; returned to Abilene, Kans., and engaged in the newspaper business; died in Los Angeles, Calif., February 27, 1923; was cremated and the ashes deposited in the columbarium of the Los Angeles Crematory Association; ashes removed in 1928 for burial in Burton family plot in Abilene Cemetery in Abilene, Kansas.
Senate Years of Service: 1901-1906
Party: Republican
message 30:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 18, 2016 09:34AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I have added some media which you may not be aware of - so I will add their links here:
One on the history of the Railroads:
https://www.goodreads.com/videos/1016...
One on TR:
https://www.goodreads.com/videos/1016...
One of Woodrow Wilson - A Biography:
https://www.goodreads.com/videos/3931...
The Real Theodore Roosevelt with Michael Wolraich:
https://www.goodreads.com/videos/9322...
From Salon: (Here the author is comparing LaFollette with Ted Cruz - interesting - by the author here - I am talking about ELIAS SQUISH not Michael Wolraich - it would be interesting to hear what Mr. Wolraich thinks about this comparison.)
“The Ted Cruz of his day”: How Robert La Follette explains today’s dysfunction
Our politics of corporate domination and right-wing intransigence has a clear precedent, an expert explains
by ELIAS ISQUITH
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/22/the_t...
Michael Wolraich writing in The Atlantic:
The Original Tea Partiers: How GOP Insurgents Invented Progressivism (Here the author likens the Tea Partiers to the original progressive insurgents - also interesting reading)
Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette and his supporters pioneered long-shot primary challenges, strong ideology, and populist rhetoric a century ago.
Link: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/a...
The Daily Beast:
The GOP’s Last Identity Crisis Remade U.S. Politics
In an excerpt from his new book, ‘Unreasonable Men,’ Michael Wolraich shows how a century ago it was progressives who splintered the GOP.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles...
Michael Wolraich on the John Batchelor Show:
http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcasts...
=================
(Please feel free to discuss any of the above on this thread)
message 31:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 18, 2016 09:58AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
One thing that I think we need to keep in mind is that the current political labels of conservatives and progressives were not used during the time period discussed in this book and certainly not in the same context as we use them today.
If they used the word "conservative" for example - they did not use the term in the same way or in a political context very much as we would today. Then it might have meant cautious, doesn't like to change, etc. These terms then did not stand for an ideology as they do now.
In fact with Lafollette's arrival on the scene - LaFollette was termed a "radical" - so at that time they had LaFollette and the "radicals" on one side and the folks who did not want to change - which we can call conservatives on the other - and they included some Republicans at the time but also a lot of conservative Democrats as well.
The press grabbed a hold of a term one Senator had used to describe his philosophy. And he had said - "That we should stand pat." This was a term from poker lingo - that you did not want to draw anymore. What the senator meant however was that we should stand pat on any new reforms - particularly tariff reforms and these conservative folks who did not like change became known as "Stand-patters" - the name stuck.
"Stand-patters" controlled the Senate and through them controlled the House at that time. There were Republicans in all directions. The Senate was under the thumb of Nelson Aldridge - the Senator from Rhode Island while the House as we pictorially represented above was run by Joe Cannon from Illinois. Cannon's power in the House was absolute. In the Senate however Nelson Aldridge needed allies and the Big Four met with Roosevelt during the transition period in the fall of 1904 into 05 and 06 when Fighting Bob comes to Washington. The Big Four at that time set the agenda for the Republican party and the nation.
1. Who are the Stand-patters of today?
2. Who do you think are the Nelson Aldridge's of today and the Joe Cannon's - who are the bosses or influencers now and how do they compare to the Stand-patters of TR's day? What are their political philosophies and ideologies and how are they the same or different?
3. How do you think a Nelson Adridge would get along with a TR - who was a feisty and very young man to be president? What are your opinions? Remember at the time of this Big Four meeting TR was still very much an "incrementalist".
Source: Wikipedia, some of Wolraich's sources
message 32:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 18, 2016 10:57AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
1. Do you think that TR was as focused on domestic affairs as he was international affairs like the Panama Canal? Do you think he let Aldridge and Cannon run the show so to speak on the domestic front during that early period? Do you think that he was comfortable inching along on the domestic front because he had his hands full in other places - like the Panama Canal?
The U.S.'s intentions to influence the area (especially the Panama Canal construction and control) led to the separation of Panama from Colombia in 1903
message 33:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 18, 2016 11:20AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Nelson W. Aldridge: State Senator from Rhode Island and Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee which controlled banking regulation and monetary policy
More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_...
Nelson Aldrich by Paul Peter Kiehart
Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island rose from the position of grocery clerk to become one of the most powerful senators of his era.
Elected to the Senate in 1881, he chaired the Committee on Finance from 1898 to 1911, becoming an influential expert on the economy. He sponsored the Aldrich-Vreeland Act which established the National Monetary Commission.
His Aldrich Plan, providing for flexible cash reserves, was the forerunner of the Federal Reserve System.
Although Aldrich rarely spoke on the Senate floor, preferring the more casual atmosphere of the committee room, by the turn of the 20th century he became the leading figure in the Republican caucus and was one of the Senate Four, a powerful group of Republican senators who dominated the institution for a decade.
President Theodore Roosevelt referred to him as the “King Pin” of the Republican Party.
Aldrich “did not bother with oratorical display,” wrote one historian, “but relied upon his charm, his commanding appearance, his superior mind, his ability to speak forthrightly, and his exceptional memory” to influence Senate action.
Patriarch to a political family, Aldrich’s grandson, Nelson Rockefeller, became vice president and his great-grandson, Jay Rockefeller, became a U.S. senator.
Senator William B. Allison: State Senator from Iowa who was Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee until 1908
More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...
Said to be so cautious as a politician "that he could walk on eggs from Des Moines to Washington without breaking one of them," William Boyd Allison (1829-1908) of Iowa served 35 years in the Senate and chaired the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee for 25 of those years, longer than any other senator.
Allison was one of the Senate Four, a group of committee chairmen who dominated Congress at the beginning of the 20th century.
Although he represented a largely agrarian state, Allison strongly supported business, industrial, and railroad interests, promoted a "hard-money" currency program, and crafted high protective tariffs.
Those policies increasingly drew criticism from muckraking journalists and from the progressive wing of his party, prompting calls for the direct election of senators. This "Senate Lion" died on August 4, 1908. To honor Allison's long Senate career, his portrait has been placed at the entrance to the Senate Chamber.
John Coit Spooner: State Senator from Wisconsin
More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Co...
Spooner served as chairman of the Committee on Canadian Relations from 1897 to 1899 and of the Committee on Rules from 1899 to 1907. As a Senator, he sponsored the Spooner Act, which directed President Theodore Roosevelt to purchase the Panama Canal Zone.
A popular figure in Republican politics, he turned down three cabinet posts during his political career: Secretary of the Interior in President William McKinley's administration in 1898, Attorney General under President McKinley in 1901, and Secretary of State in President William Howard Taft's administration in 1909.
Spooner and fellow Wisconsin Senator, Robert M. La Follette, were known to be bitter rivals. Spooner disagreed with La Follette's progressive policies, which were opposed to his own conservative policies.
Spooner was also one of the early opponents of direct primary elections. At the time, party nominees were selected by the party officials, sometimes by party bosses. Although the system left much to be desired, Spooner had this to say in description of political campaigns after the reform of direct primary elections:
"Direct primaries would destroy the party machinery... and would build up a lot of personal machines, and would make every man a self-seeker, and would degrade politics by turning candidacies into bitter personal wrangles."
Other:
John Coit Spooner of Wisconsin was widely regarded as the Senate's leading constitutional expert of his time.
Chairmain of the Committee on Rules, Spooner was a member of the Senate Four, a group of powerful senators who dominated Senate action around the turn of the 20th century.
Spooner was a highly skilled orator and debater, and became a close advisor to Presidents William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. As a member of the "old guard" faction of the Republican Party, Spooner was among those attacked in David Graham Phillips' exposé articles, "The Treason of the Senate," published in Cosmopolitan magazine in 1906.
Orville H. Platt: Senator from Connecticut
More:
At the close of the 19th century, Connecticut senator Orville Platt held a place of distinction among his contemporaries in the Senate. As one of the Senate Four, a powerful group of Republican senators who dominated the institution during the time, the experienced Platt was an influential leader. During a long Senate career that spanned more than 25 years, Platt was known for his honesty and directness. In 1901, he gained national fame as the author of the Platt Amendment, which dealt with the provisions of establishing American intervention in Cuba.
Other:
Platt was state's attorney for New Haven County, 1877 to 1879, and was elected as a Republican to the U.S. Senate in 1879. He was reelected in 1885, 1891, 1897 and 1903, and served from March 4, 1879, until his death.
While in the Senate, he was chairman of the Committee on Patents (Forty-seventh through Forty-ninth and Fifty-fourth and Fifty-fifth Congresses) and a member of the Committees on Pensions (Forty-seventh Congress), Territories (Fiftieth through Fifty-second Congresses), Cuban Relations (Fifty-sixth through Fifty-eighth Congresses), and the Judiciary (Fifty-eighth and Fifty-ninth Congresses).
Platt's influence in the Senate swelled to the point that, eventually, he was known as a member of the "Senate Four," along with John Spooner, William Allison, and Nelson Aldrich.
Because of his votes against the Sherman Anti-trust Law, the Eight-Hour Labor Act, and the Anti-Injunction Bill, Platt was denounced by the labor organizations and was considered a reactionary. He was an earnest advocate of the abolition of secret executive sessions of the Senate.
On March 1, 1901, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Army Appropriation bill with the Platt Amendment as a rider which governed U.S. relations with Cuba from 1901 to 1934, and was named for Senator Platt.
Source(s): Library of Congress, US Senate, Wikipedia
Discussion Topics:
1. Please feel free to discuss any or all of the above as they relate to the events and topics discussed in the book? Was there anything that surprised you or that you did not know? What are your opinions of the "Big Four"? Who might you consider to be the "Big Four" today?
Mod
Helga posted:
Comment on Chapter 2, page 36
It was interesting to read about how the Founding Fathers did not fully trust the principle of democracy. They wanted to emulate the British Parliament, which divided power between popularly elected House of Commons ( our house of Representatives) and hereditary House of Lords (our Senate). But since there was no aristocracy the upper branch or Senate would consist of the most distinguished for their rank in life and wealth. So many of these Senators were heavily invested in oil, railroads, steel, etc. Now I can understand why the railroad problem arose. They needed to protect their assets.
Mod
Bentley wrote: "Helga, very interesting observation."Thanks for correcting my mistake.
From earlier questions, 1. I was flooded with 5 feet of water in my home last October and the government assistance was much needed in our disaster ridden area. It helped get the initial work done to help get my family back up on our feet. And the SBA loans were with very low interest, 1.8%.
I am very happy for social security and medicare. My parents have them both and I am grateful that they do. I think corporate corruption is worse than big government because of what happened with the financial crisis and the banks. Big Pharma also needs to be regulated and other big corporations due to corporate greed.
Bentley wrote: Peter are you saying that you think that local and state governments run the risk or are more corrupt than the potential is for the federal government to be so...."
I would not say all local government is corrupt but that it is easy for local government to become corrupt - perhaps easier than for the federal government
Bentley wrote: "Discussion Questions:1. Do you think that TR was as focused on domestic affairs as he was international affairs like the Panama Canal? Do you think he let Aldridge and Cannon run the show so to s..."
I think TR was a man of such manic energy that he could focus on everything.
I also think he was the last man who looked just as good when he left the White House as when he entered.
1. Who are the Stand-patters of today?This is a challenging question when compared to politicians today. On the surface, i'd have to say that those identified as the conservative wing of the Republican party would be the first that come to mind. Although when reading this chapter, I found it actually quite refreshing that the "Big Four" were able to meet with Roosevelt and compromise on all but one of the issues that TR felt were his most important ones. It seems today that especially with the current administration, the goal of the other party is not to do what's best for the country, but to obstruct absolutely whatever the President's agenda may be. Even if that agenda isn't all that controversial. They simply want nothing to be considered a victory by President Obama, even in a second term where reelection is not an issue.
2. Who do you think are the Nelson Aldridge's of today and the Joe Cannon's - who are the bosses or influencers now and how do they compare to the Stand-patters of TR's day? What are their political philosophies and ideologies and how are they the same or different?
I'm not sure I see anyone today with the kind of influence a Joe Cannon appeared to have. Cannon would obviously be a very important person to have as an ally or at least be convinced that what you needed passed was important enough for him to tell the rest of the house to pass this. Aldridge would likely compare to an old school wealthy northeastern conservative. He was confident enough in his allies that he not even concern himself with being present on some votes and his interests would be covered. I see this element of the party being much less prominent than in the past with the more radical right fringe being the platform that much of the party has adopted. I feel this has proven to be one of the most divisive developments in the last 10 years.
3. How do you think a Nelson Adridge would get along with a TR - who was a feisty and very young man to be president? What are your opinions? Remember at the time of this Big Four meeting TR was still very much an "incrementalist".
It appeared that TR knew how the game was played and realized that compromise was necessary in order to accomplish his biggest goals. Based on TR's meeting with the big four, it seems like they would be able to find common ground.
Wow! So many interesting questions that I don't know where to start.This one especially intrigues me:
Who are the Stand-patters of today?
I'm not sure that we have very many in Congress, It seems like we have those who are interested in moderate reform (barring Sanders who would like to implement the European version of democratic socialism) and those who would like to roll back the clock to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, to negate the executive orders on the environment and immigration, and possibly amend Social Security and Medicare to allow for more "free enterprise."
Am I missing something?
Who do you think are the Nelson Aldridge's of today and the Joe Cannon's - who are the bosses or influencers now and how do they compare to the Stand-patters of TR's day? What are their political philosophies and ideologies and how are they the same or different?I don't think we have any equivalents of Joe Cannon. The history of the House includes a revolt against Cannon. He was the last of his type in the House. Sam Rayburn was perhaps close, but no one now is.
In the Senate, Lyndon Johnson is the last person who led with that kind of authority.
I would also like to say that I am appalled by the level of corruption described in the book. Perhaps I am very naive, but on the federal level at least, I think corruption is a bit more nuanced today. We have swarms and swarms of lobbyists influencing Congressmen, but not many individuals on the scale of the Robber Barons.I think the transformation of so many federal employees into lobbyists for industries they used to regulate is an insidious practice that leads to corruption in our current system. I assume that wasn't so much of a problem during the period of this book because there weren't so many regulations.
If you have regulations, there will always be unwelcome bureaucracy, but, as others have written on this thread, the alternative is much worse.
In a discussion of corruption, Aldrich is an important figure, as detailed in pp 38-48. Although he came from very humble beginnings he was open about his great ambition for money. For his favors in Congress, his buddies in the railroad business, street car business, and sugar trust took care of him. I was fascinated to learn that his daughter married into the Rockefeller family.
Mod
The corruption today is "managed" with undue influence from lobbyists. The robber barons were not just influence peddlers but rich, rich, rich.
A dynasty marriage (smile) - politics and money.
message 44:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 18, 2016 02:20PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Here is a list of some of the most powerful senators of old. LaFollette is on the list.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016...
Theodore Roosevelt would not have approved - TR said he (LaFollette) was "a skunk who should be hanged."
message 45:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 18, 2016 03:54PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
March 12, 1959
The "Famous Five"
Just after noontime on March 12, 1959, a festive crowd jammed the Capitol's Senate Reception Room to induct five former members into a senatorial "hall of fame."
Four years earlier, the Senate had formed a special committee to identify outstanding former members, no longer living, whose likenesses would be placed in five vacant portrait spaces in the Reception Room.
Leading the five-member committee was a 38-year-old freshman who had recently written a book about courageous senators. That book, published in January 1956 under the title Profiles In Courage, later earned Senator John F. Kennedy the 1957 Pulitzer Prize in biography.
The committee also included Democrats Richard Russell (GA) and Mike Mansfield (MT), and Republicans Styles Bridges (NH) and John Bricker (OH).
The Kennedy Committee struggled to define senatorial greatness.
Should they apply a test of "legislative accomplishment"? Perhaps, in addition to positive achievement there should be recognition of, as they put it, "courageous negation."
What about those senators who consistently failed to secure major legislation, but in failing, opened the road to success for a later generation?
Personal integrity? That might exclude the chronically indebted Daniel Webster. National leadership? That would knock out great regional leaders like John C. Calhoun. The unanimous respect of one's colleagues? That would doom the antislavery leader Charles Sumner. The Kennedy committee's established criteria nicely evaded these questions.
It agreed to judge candidates "for acts of statesmanship transcending party and State lines" and to define "statesmanship" to include "leadership in national thought and constitutional interpretation as well as legislation." The committee further agreed that it would not recommend a candidate unless all its members agreed to that choice.
An advisory committee of 160 scholars offered 65 candidates. Sixty-five names for five spaces! Senator Kennedy quipped that sports writers choosing entrants to the Baseball Hall of Fame had it easy by comparison.
As its top choice, the scholars' committee named Nebraska's Progressive Republican George Norris, a senator from 1913 to 1943. Senate panel member Styles Bridges, who had served with Norris from the late 1930s, harbored many ill feelings from that association and consequently, along with Nebraska’s two incumbent senators, blocked his further consideration.
On May 1, 1957, the Kennedy Committee reported to the Senate its choices: Henry Clay (KY), John C. Calhoun (SC), Daniel Webster (MA), Robert Taft (OH), and Robert La Follette, Sr. (WI).
In 2004, the Senate added Arthur Vandenberg (MI) and Robert Wagner (NY) to this distinguished company.
Reference Items:
Kennedy, John F. "Search for the Five Greatest Senators." The New York Times Magazine, April 14, 1957.
by
John F. KennedyU.S. Senate. Senate Reception Room. S. Rpt. 85-279.
Source: The United States Senate
Discussion Questions:
1. What do think of these choices? Should Norris have been booted because of the animosity of one or three Nebraskans? Who else do you think they missed? What do you think of Calhoun being included?
2. How many of you were alive when JFK was in the White House? Does 1959 seem so long ago to you?
3. And of course LaFollette was included - were you surprised after reading the Preface, Chapter One and Chapter Two?
Mod
This one especially intrigues me:
Who are the Stand-patters of today?
I'm not sure that we have very many in Congress, It seems..."
Here I might disagree because we have folks trying to roll back progress - does that count as stand pat - hmmm - something to ponder.
message 47:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 18, 2016 03:53PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
This is a challenging question when compared to politicians today. On the surface, i'd have to say that those identified as the conservative wing of the Repu..."
I agree with you David in terms of the points you made. And I think you are correct because in reading other accounts it would appear that TR and Aldridge respected each other and may have gotten along quite well.
Bentley,When I said I didn't think there were many "standpatters" today it was because few of the very conservative Republicans are satisfied with the current status quo. I agree that they want to roll back progress rather than "stand pat" with what the country now has. Sorry I didn't express that more clearly.
Thanks for the interesting article about the 5 best senators. Although I have lived in Nebraska for many years, I missed out on Nebraska history because I lived in South Dakota as a child. Thanks for drawing my attention to George Norris. He appears to have been a remarkable politician. The Republicans had no love lost for him because he so often opposed them even when he was a nominal Republican. He worked with New Dealers, and eventually, dropped out of the Republican party altogether. That probably explains the opposition of the Republican Senators in 1959.
Speaking of the influence of the very rich on current politics, today's newspaper reminded me of the huge contributions some of the wealthiest Americans have made to the Super-Pacs. Of course, that doesn't always work out the way they intended. :-)A different approach from those in the early twentieth century, but those with lots and lots of money continue to try to wield their influence.
message 50:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 18, 2016 06:05PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
When I said I didn't think there were many "standpatters" today it was because few of the very conservative Republicans are satisfied with the current status quo. I agree that they want to..."
No problem at all Ann D - yes, I was wondering when I posted that whether you might have some input from Nebraska - but I guess not because you were in South Dakota as a child.
I have to ask you this because I wanted to cross the country coast to coast on the train and of course I had to do that adventure - and I have done it coast to coast across the South and also across the North - it took me "forever" - I might add - but it was something I wanted to do (had my own little cabin/compartment) - since I am in planes a lot - thought I would like to do it on land.
I decided to go to the national parks as well and part of the trip took me through the Dakotas and I wondered who lives there?
Of course you have to understand that I am a city person but you know where I was coming from - no Starbucks - no skyscrapers from what I could see from the train window - not much. What was South Dakota like to grow up in. I found Nebraska to be quite beautiful with the rolling hills and fields and I have been to Omaha quite a bit on business. But of course I flew there (smile).
I thought that was very small of the Nebraskan Senators at the time of that committee to not allow George Norris to shine even after his death. Sometimes as we are learning - conflict - can bring great things - and changes in how folks think - look at TR.
Maybe because he dropped out of the party altogether - but I doubt recognizing his greatness was going to start a stampede for the door.
It is always interesting to me how people think and it always shows how small they really are when they do such things. It is a wonder they did not see how potentially gracious and magnanimous they would have been otherwise. 1959 was a different time period - however somehow they got past the indignation regarding Calhoun which was a good thing I believe.
Ann - look at message 10 - the last article - they are calling it the new gilded age.
I am always delighted to have so many folks from every state of the union and from 170 countries - we have so much to learn from each other.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Belle La Follette: Progressive Era Reformer (other topics)The Big Scrum: How Teddy Roosevelt Saved Football (other topics)
Profiles in Courage (other topics)
Profiles in Courage (other topics)
Unreasonable Men: Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican Rebels Who Created Progressive Politics (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Nancy C. Unger (other topics)Nancy C. Unger (other topics)
John Fitzgerald Kennedy (other topics)
John Fitzgerald Kennedy (other topics)
Michael Wolraich (other topics)
For the week of April 18th - April 24th, we are reading Chapter Two of Unreasonable Men: Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican Rebels who Created Progressive Politics by Michael Wolraich.
The second week's reading assignment is:
Week Two - April 18th - April 24th
Chapter Two - The Railroad - (pages 31 - 50)
We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.
This book was kicked off on April 11th. It is never too late to start a book here at the History Book Club.
We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, local bookstore or on your Kindle. This weekly thread will be opened up April 18th.
There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.
Bentley will be moderating this discussion and Assisting Moderators Teri, Jill, Bryan, Francie and Samanta will be backups.
The author Michael Wolraich will also be actively participating in the moderation with Bentley. We welcome him to the discussion.
Welcome,
~Bentley
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL
REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.
Notes:
It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.
Citations:
If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.
If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...
Also the citation thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Introduction Thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Table of Contents and Syllabus
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Glossary
Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Bibliography
There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in his research or in his notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please. We will be adding to this thread as we read along.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - SPOILER THREAD
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Directions on how to participate in a book offer and how to follow the t's and c's - Unreasonable Men - What Do I Do Next?
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...