The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Unreasonable Men
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
THE DISCUSSION IS OPEN - WEEK SEVEN - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: UNREASONABLE MEN - May 23rd - May 29th - Chapter Seven- The Tariff - (pages 143 - 174) - No Spoilers, please
message 2:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 24, 2016 12:50PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
All, we do not have to do citations regarding the book or the author being discussed during the book discussion on these discussion threads - nor do we have to cite any personage in the book being discussed while on the discussion threads related to this book.
However if we discuss folks outside the scope of the book or another book is cited which is not the book and author discussed then we do have to do that citation according to our citation rules. That makes it easier to not disrupt the discussion. Thought that I would add that.
Folks who have participated on the Week One, Week Two, Week Three, Week Four thread or any combination of the above will be bolded and Weeks missing will be noted. All group members receiving books in this offer should be posting at least once per weekly thread in a timely basis. If I missed you on any of the Weekly threads - send me a PM saying which week is in question and tell the message number that I should look at.
Updated as of May 23 - just starting
Bentley - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven
Jill - Weeks One, Two. Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven
Christopher for Southern Cal - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Week Six - not yet, Seven
Tomi - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Week Seven - not yet
Nita - Weeks One, Two, please get caught up by posting on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Peter - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Week Six - not yet, Seven
Teri - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven
Holly - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Hana - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Nick - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four , Five, Six, Week Seven - not yet
Mark - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Francie - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Lorna - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Vincent - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Week Seven - not yet
Betty - Weeks One, Two, Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Mary from SC - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four , Five, Six, Week Seven - not yet
Rachel - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Jovita - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four , Five, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Jordan - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four , Five, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Michael - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five , Six, Seven
Savannah - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four , Five, Six, Week Seven - not yet
John - Weeks One, Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Four , Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet. Week Seven - not yet
Kressel - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
David from Nebraska - Weeks One, Two, Three. Four, Five, Six, Week Seven - not yet
Simonetta - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Week Seven - not yet
Jason - Weeks One, Two, Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Other Jason Watts - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Pamela - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Rhonda - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Bryan - Weeks One, Two,Three, Four , Five, Six, Seven - post to BC on 5/24/16
Teresa - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Jim from Michigan - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Week Seven - not yet
Glynn - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four , Five, Six, Week Seven - not yet
Lacey from Mississippi - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Kacy - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Week Seven - not yet
Helga - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Week Six - not yet, Seven
Ann D from Nebraska - Weeks One, Two, please go back and respond to Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Robyn from New Mexico - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Week Seven - not yet
Robin (second Robin) - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven
Mary Ellen - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Four, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Steve D - Weeks One, Two, Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Jan from So Cal - Weeks One, Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Jason Page - Weeks One, Two, Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Gary from Penn - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Mike M - Weeks One, Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Four, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Laura R - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Alice - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Jack - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Week Seven - not yet
Mary B from Tennessee - Weeks One, Two, Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Nathan C - Weeks One, Two, please go back and respond to Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Nathan C - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Paul W - Weeks Two, please go back and respond to the preliminary questions for Week One, Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Kristie - Weeks One, please respond to the Week Two questions, please go back and respond to Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet , Week Six - not yet, Week Seven- not yet
obs20 - Weeks Two - however still needs to go back to Week One and complete preliminary questions, Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Phillip - Weeks Two - however still needs to go back to Week One and complete preliminary questions, please go back and respond to Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet, Week Six - not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Charles - Weeks Two - however still needs to go back to Week One and complete preliminary questions, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four, Week Five - not yet, Week Six not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Lewis - AuthorQ&A, no response to preliminary questions and not keeping up with weekly posting - go back and post on Week One done but Two, Three and Four and interact with posters, Week Five - not yet, Week Six not yet, Week Seven - not yet
Robert W - new poster - Week Five
Have Not Posted on Week One or on the Week Two threads or on the Week Three or Four threads or Week Five or Week Six or Week Seven
10. Cosmic - sent PM - contacted May 24th - final
15. Steven M - sent PM
17. Michael F - DC - sent PM
18. Karen L - Arkansas - sent PM
19. Harold J - sent PM
message 3:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 23, 2016 10:07AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Chapter Seven - The Tariff - (pages 123 - 142)
This is a non spoiler thread. For the Week Seven assignment - we are reading Chapter Seven - The Tariff which begins on page 123 and runs through page 142.
Therefore, you may discuss any element or quote, event or person or anything else dealing with Chapter Seven and pages 123 though 142. You may also discuss anything that came before in the book - so the Preface through page 142 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 4:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 22, 2016 10:12PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
The moderators are doing a superb job of putting together explanatory write-ups that they have drawn from a variety of sources with links, citations, books. etc.
For Week Seven, they have made the following entries - so please check out the glossary.
Chapter Seven
1. Thomas Fitzsimons of Pennsylvania
2. Henry O. Havermeyer
3. Tariff History of the United States
4. Protectionism
5. Elihu Root
6. Chautauqua (lectures)
7. William Allen White
8. Inauguration of William Taft
http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/swear...
9. Dingley Tariff Act
10. Senator Jonathan Dolliver of Iowa
11. Sereno Payne, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee
12. Payne-Aldridge Tariff Act
13. Sixteenth Amendment
Link to Glossary:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
message 5:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 23, 2016 04:19PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
The seventh week's reading assignment is:
Week Seven - May 23rd - May 29th
Chapter Seven: The Tariff - pages 143 - 174
"Whence comes this so called demand for tariff tinkering? Look at the latest balance sheets of the Treasure. Don't they show everything is all right? Is there need for revenue legislation? Who says there is? Aren't all of our fellows happy"
--Uncle Joe
message 6:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 23, 2016 10:06AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
message 7:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 23, 2016 10:12AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Chapter Seven - The Tariff
Chapter Seven begins in New York City and the year is April 8th, 1789 and the chapter ends in Spokane, Washington on October 20th, 1909.
The chapter begins with James Madison impatiently waiting for his colleagues to arrive. The country needed revenues and Madison proposed tariffs which if high enough would also allow American manufacturers the ability to complete with Europe by raising the price of imports until the US was able to grow its population and develop its own industries. In those days - few Americans disputed the principle of protectionism.
President- elect Taft was an administrator and a judge and not a visionary. He just saw a flawed tax code that needed correction and he wanted the quickest way to fix it. Also Taft did not abide by his promise to TR - to reappoint most of the current cabinet members. Before the election Taft had asked TR to let "the boys" know that he wanted to keep them all on and then he double-crossed his friend and reneged on his promise and decided to replace most of them. This was the first friction between Taft and TR and it embarrassed TR with his friends and colleagues.
Bad weather forced the inauguration indoors.. Taft quipped that he always knew "that it would be a cold day when I was made President of the United States".
The next double cross came when Taft delivered his inauguration speech and instead of saying that Roosevelt's policies would be the "chief feature of his administration" - he now delivered that TR's reforms would be "a most important feature of his administration". TR was as always congenial to his old friend.
The next day Taft thought that all was going well with the new tariff law - but he soon learned otherwise. Taft wrote a farewell letter to TR and TR responded with a cable that Taft never received - not hearing from TR caused resentment which simmered for 15 months.
LaFollette and Beveridge were appalled by the two minute message sent over to Congress regarding the Dingley Tariff Act. They saw no content in the Act and there was nothing about a tariff commission or even any tariff reductions or an income tax.
Nellie Taft had a stroke and Taft was beside himself and gained weight. Archie Butt wrote, "Mr. Roosevelt once said that Mr. Taft was one of the best haters he had ever known, and I have found this to be true. Taft never raged in public like Roosevelt, He was cordial, even friendly with people he couldn't stand. He held his hate to his chest and never let it go."
Aldridge did not want to add the income tax to the tariff bill. But Taft would not budge unless Aldridge added a new corporate tax to the tariff bill itself. Aldridge indirectly became the father of the Sixteenth Amendment.
By doing what he did - Taft found himself labeled a conservative. At first LaFollette was skeptical of Taft and now this skepticism had turned to contempt. Taft traveled the country defending the Payne-Aldridge bill while LaFollette traveled even farther denouncing it.
message 8:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 23, 2016 09:19AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
http://nyti.ms/25bSZwz
Sunday August 30, 1908
message 9:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 23, 2016 10:13AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
1. Uncle Joe once again wonders what is "this so called demand for tariff tinkering"? Why did he feel that there was no need for new revenue legislation?
"Whence comes this so called demand for tariff tinkering? Look at the latest balance sheets of the Treasure. Don't they show everything is all right? Is there need for revenue legislation? Who says there is? Aren't all of our fellows happy" --Uncle Joe
Uncle Joe’s signature Civil War era beaver hat, worn well into the 20th century
2. Uncle Joe was convinced that the tariff situation was fine just the way it was. Was he right or was he mistaken?
3. What are your thoughts on tariffs, Uncle Joe, other Speakers of the House and the situation with Uncle Joe obstructing legislation whenever he wanted to? Have things changed or have they stayed the same?
Uncle Joe walking through the Capitol, convinced some rapscallion had absconded with, his flask which he used during the chamber sessions - the story made national news headlines and inspired the poem “Cannonade.”
Excerpt from article:
It’s hard to say whether Speaker Cannon loved his smokes and booze more than the publicity he got for indulging them.
Preceding by a century Trump’s hair, Carson’s Bible tales, Hillary’s pantsuits, or Jeb’s bilingualism were the looney publicity photographs that he loved posing for around the Capitol Building and having widely printed in the nation’s newspapers and magazines.
“The cut of a congressman’s whiskers or his clothes is a better subject for a human-interest story than what he says in debate,” he admitted.
To some, he was a stinky, foul-mouthed old goat; to others he was a beloved institution.
“I am goddamned tired of listening to all this babble for reform!” House Speaker Cannon once crowed with pride in his opposition to labor protection laws, food safety regulations, and a woman’s right to vote.
“America is a hell of a success,” he affirmed.
Excerpt:
"He smoked, drank and yelled out obscenities all throughout the workday, and he didn’t give holy hell who didn’t like it. He got away with it because he also coalesced and used power perhaps more effectively than any other House Speaker, obstructing whatever he didn’t like.
A good part of what inspired perhaps history’s most infamous House Speaker, “Uncle Joe” was inspired not just by principal but persona. He loved the publicity and fear his presence could generate.
He made sure people never forgot him. They didn’t.
One day in August of 1890 during a debate on how the dairy industry could be damaged by margarine production Uncle Joe’s words was so vile that he rendered the stunned incumbent Speaker Tom Reed unable to slam his gavel and call for order.
Each time a Congressman arose to argue with Cannon, he’d fire off an insult using just enough profanity to silence them.
Not so New Jersey Democrat Willliam McAdoo, who began cursing him back.
It quickly escalated into a foul-mouthed shouting match.
A Tennessee Congressman feared for the virtue of women tourists listening in from the visitor’s gallery and called for its emergency evacuation.
“The ladies in the gallery were horrified and beat a hasty retreat, while the gentlemen on the floor blushed with shame,” the Atlanta Constitution reported.
Finally, once the halls cleared of all citizens, all the obscenities were cleared from the day’s verbatim Congressional Record and the session adjourned.
Uncle Joe was just as bad in the halls of the Capitol Building, wobbling on his cane as he made his way from his office to the House floor,”singing camp-meeting hymns at the top of his voice,” then stopping to tell colleagues “an indescribably filthy story.”
Remainder of article on speaker Joe Cannon and other Speakers of the House
http://carlanthonyonline.com/2015/11/...
Source: Carl Anthony and the source for the cartoon with Uncle Joe sitting on the box (Michael Wolraich)
I love the cartoons.The tariff debate on page 146, is the same today as it was during TR’s time. It epitomized the rupture between two different conceptions of federal government. One an elitist view that entrusted national leadership to politicians and industrialists and the populist view lead by Bryan and LF that sought to eliminate corporate privilege and empower the masses.
Mod
On page 150, La Follette started a magazine to propagate his ideas and to expand the new progressive movement. LF really had a lot of energy and commitment and wanted to spread his word. He was unstoppable with his message. I like the analogy from one issue when Congressman Nelson, was describing the looming battle with the speaker with one hope to end Uncle Joe’s tyranny. He described that Taft had to be King David with the sling, a message to Congress, and the pebbles, the legislative propositions of his predecessor. Does Taft have the skill or courage? It was like a battle between 2 forces.
message 13:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 23, 2016 11:47AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
1. Tariffs - I know that some of you wanted to get into a serious discussion on tariffs early on - now is your chance.
2. What are your thoughts on tariffs in general - should they be in place to protect our own manufacturing facilities (Reagan did the shoe industry in by not doing this) - since our labor costs more and we have a higher standard of living?
3. Should we be protecting our jobs and our way of life by increasing these tariffs and insisting on trade balance with China for example?
4. What are your thoughts on the shenanigans going on regarding tariffs in this chapter, between TR and Uncle Joe and between Taft and Aldridge - would TR approve or not?
Some information on tariffs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff
More:
Types of Tariffs: http://wits.worldbank.org/WITS/wits/W...
Source - The World Bank
WITS - http://wits.worldbank.org
What is a 'Tariff
A tax imposed on imported goods and services. Tariffs are used to restrict trade, as they increase the price of imported goods and services, making them more expensive to consumers. A specific tariff is levied as a fixed fee based on the type of item (e.g., $1,000 on any car). An ad-valorem tariff is levied based on the item’s value (e.g., 10% of the car’s value). Tariffs provide additional revenue for governments and domestic producers at the expense of consumers and foreign producers. They are one of several tools available to shape trade policy.
BREAKING DOWN 'Tariff'
Governments may impose tariffs to raise revenue or to protect domestic industries from foreign competition, since consumers will generally purchase foreign-produced goods when they are cheaper. While consumers are not legally prohibited from purchasing foreign-produced goods, tariffs make those goods more expensive, which gives consumers an incentive to buy domestically produced goods that seem competitively priced or less expensive by comparison. Tariffs can make domestic industries less efficient, since they aren’t subject to global competition. Tariffs can also lead to trade wars as exporting countries reciprocate with their own tariffs on imported goods. Groups such as the World Trade Organization exist to combat the use of egregious tariffs.
Governments typically use one of the following justifications for implementing tariffs:
***To protect domestic jobs. If consumers buy less-expensive foreign goods, workers who produce that good domestically might lose their jobs.
***To protect infant industries. If a country wants to develop its own industry producing a particular good, it will use tariffs to make it more expensive for consumers to purchase the foreign version of that good. The hope is that they will buy the domestic version instead and help that industry grow.
***To retaliate against a trading partner. If one country doesn’t play by the trade rules both countries previously agreed on, the country that feels jilted might impose tariffs on its partner’s goods as a punishment. The higher price caused by the tariff should cause purchases to fall.
***To protect consumers. If a government thinks a foreign good might be harmful, it might implement a tariff to discourage consumers from buying it.
Environmental Tariffs:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/e...
Balanced Trade:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/b...
Tariff War:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/t...
Multiple Column Tariff:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/m...
Commercial Policy:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/c...
Dollar Drain:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/d...
Net Exporter:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/n...
Net Importer:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/n...
Trade War:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/t...
Interesting article about Tariffs and Solar Energy
https://joinmosaic.com/blog/chinese-s...
Punch - November 1903
Source(s): Mosaic, WITS, Investopedia, Wikipedia, The World Bank
message 14:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 23, 2016 11:54AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I am trying to understand Taft and what motivates him - is it that he is a user and used TR to be president - was he motivated by Nellie in how he handled TR, did he ever believe in TR's policies or want TR's advice (I think he did at times - but was he stubborn and just went a different way out of spite or wanting to show who he was?). Did he think that the way he was trying to do things was really the right way or did he do things just to be different and thwart TR? I cannot figure him out. I guess I do not see Taft as King David - maybe he saw himself that way.
I am also saying that I do not think that Taft had the strategic or visionary skills either - not sure about courage - he did seem to have courage to ditch his agreements with TR.
I think he decided things on the spur of the moment in terms of what "he wanted to do". Now I could be wrong but LaFollette seemed to become more upset with him as time went on and in a different way than with TR. What do you think?
I do agree with you. That's why the analogy about King David struck me. I don't see him as such either. I think he went his own way but don't know what really motivated him except he wanted TR to help him to become president. I don't think LF or TR could figure him out either and that he upset them.
Understanding Taft, who was not a complicated man, is still a difficult task. but for me it boils down to these few facts.*He really never wanted to be POTUS as he was much more interested in being in the judicial system (read Supreme Court) so I don't feel he was using TR to reach the Presidency
*His personality, ideas and self-image were overwhelmed by TR who was a force unto himself; therefore he went along with TR's policies. I don't think he took being V-P to a force of nature very seriously
*He may have realized, once he was elected, that now that he was President, he could make decisions that better reflected his own ideas. But I don't see it as thwarting TR, but possibly trying to make a name for himself in history as something other than a toady of TR.
*I don't feel that Taft was a "politician" and didn't play that game very well. He almost seem disinterested and found his place later in life as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, his ultimate goal.
message 17:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 23, 2016 12:17PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I just do not see him as King David - I see him more as Goliath (lol) - tromping over all of the policies of TR. But I digress (lol)
Maybe I need to do a more in depth study of Taft - Michael did you see Taft as King David???? Why if you did?
There are positive and negatives to tariffs and of course a conversation in today's world on tariffs would have to include the Trans-Pacific Partnership. From what I understand of it, the gains the US would receive are insignificant to the harm it could do. Besides issues with agriculture, it has severe restrictions on intellectual property. I'm not well-versed on all of the issues with TPP but know there are some major issues with it.I believe that generally, tariffs can help protect our workers, while still allowing trade with other countries, especially in times where a particular product is unavailable or nearly unavailable here.
Bentley wrote: "Michael did you see Taft as King David???? Why if you did? "Not at all. Helga's reference was to a quote from page 151 where a congressman urges Taft to be like King David in confronting Uncle Joe, but that wish went unfulfilled.
As to Taft's motive, I think the most telling quote was the one from page 156:
"I am here to get legislation through...The question with me is practical and not theoretical, and I ask you how a man of sense, looking at the situation as it is, can do otherwise than to support the regular organization in the House. I should have been glad to beat Cannon and to have changed the rules within the party, but I must rely on the party and party discipline to pass the measures that I am recommending.
In short, Taft was determined to get legislation passed, and he believed that Cannon and Aldrich's cooperation was necessary to achieve it.
Incidentally, this quote is not so different from a similar sentiment that TR had expressed in a letter to Taft years earlier, referenced on page 34:
My experience for the last year and a half, including the two sessions of the last Congress and the special session of the Senate which has just closed, has made me feel respect and regard for Aldrich as one of that group of Senators, including Allison, Hanna, Spooner, Platt, of Connecticut, Lodge and one or two others, who, together with men like the next Speaker of the House, Joe Cannon, are the most powerful factors in Congress. With every one of these men I at times differ radically on important questions; but they are the leaders, and their great intelligence and power and their desire in the last resort to do what is best for the government, make them not only essential to work with, but desirable to work with. Several of the leaders have special friends whom they desire to favor, or special interests with which they are connected and which they hope to serve. But, taken as a body, they are broadminded and patriotic, as well as sagacious, skilful and resolute. Each of them is set in his ways on certain points. Thus, with both Hanna and Aldrich I had to have a regular stand-up fight before I could get them to accept any trust legislation; but when I once got them to say they would give in, they kept their promise in good faith, and it was far more satisfactory to work with them than to try to work with the alleged radical reformers. Aldrich, for instance, has shied off from a number of propositions in which I was interested, but if I thought the matter vital and brought it before him fair and square, I have always found him a reasonable man, open to conviction and a tower of strength when thus convinced.
Mod
*He really never wanted to be POTUS as he was much more interested in bei..."
Interesting - I think that Taft was more sullen and more manipulative than his smile depicted. He was one to hate remember and hold things close.
Mod
I agree Teri
message 22:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 23, 2016 03:08PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Not at all. Helga's reference was to a quote from page 151 where a congressman urges Taft to be like King David in cons..."
Thank you I thought I had it sorted out and then was trying to figure out the King David reference which I did not think fit Taft whatsoever. Thanks for the clarification.
I agree but I think there was a deep seated resentment of TR that TR never saw coming. Maybe jealousy is what it was for someone more vastly popular than he was or would ever be or having much more charisma and outward charm and vigor that he would never have. I think Taft is a tough man to figure out.
I think TR is easier to fathom and easier to like despite his foibles.
message 23:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 23, 2016 03:22PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Did you honestly like Taft after writing this book more than TR or vice versa?
Who do you think was the better president during this period of time? And why?
And was Aldridge preparing for the here after by deciding to focus on his legacy or was there something in a central bank scenario that would line his pockets - to me he seemed to be doing something altruistic for a change but I am generally suspicious of that (lol).
Some thoughts on this chapter:Taft should never have been president. He didn't want the job, he wasn't suited for it, and he only really took it to please his wife. This point is made briefly in this chapter, but more in other books about Taft. If I recall correctly, it was made explicitly in The Bully Pulpit (citation below).
I think Joe Cannon was wrong about just about everything. The system was a mess and he, as a standpatter par excellence, was in full denial of this.
The previous speaker, Tom Reed, had done a lot of good. Cannon inherited his power but not his morals. Reed was remarkable - he actually refused to run on a matter of principle. An excellent book on Reed is Mr. Speaker (citation below).
This chapter makes clear that the initial tariff was necessary as there was really no other way of raising money. This gradually became less true, but didn't really stop being true until an income tax became possible.
by
Doris Kearns Goodwin
by James Grant (no image).
Bentley wrote: "I think TR is easier to fathom and easier to like despite his foibles."For sure. TR is one of the most lovable, charismatic presidents in American history. Taft not so much.
But I feel sympathy for Taft. I think he genuinely believed that he was doing what TR would have wanted him to do. And not without reason. TR was the one who advised him to work with Aldrich and Cannon in the first place.
Bentley wrote: "Michael here is a question for you or maybe here are multiple questions - Did you honestly like Taft after writing this book more than TR or vice versa?
Who do you think was the better president..."
Ah, just saw this after my last post. TR and TR. I love TR, and Taft was a terrible president, though as I mentioned, I do feel sorry for him.
I found no evidence that Aldrich stood to gain financially from the central bank. It could be that he had secrets that never came out, but my sense of him is not that of a voracious capitalist eager to amass as much money as possible. He certainly wanted to be rich and build his shangri-la, but having obtained that already and facing his own mortality, I believe that he genuinely hoped to leave the central bank as his legacy.
I can't say I've ever catapulted from my chair at the opportunity to discuss tariffs, but Wolraich's engaging chapter and Bentley's pertinent discussion topics certainly have helped.Uncle Joe was a bit off the mark. "Tarriff tinkering" is not inherently progressive OR conservative.
In the 1820s, a protectionist tariff to boost domestic manufacturing made sense. Henry Clay endorsed it, just as Alexander Hamilton had. In 1909, a tariff to maintain favorable trade balance (and an income tax) made sense.
The shenanigans were uncalled for.
Taft wanted to be a ruler in the sense of being a decider, not in the sense of being a leader. He ought to have followed his instincts and adhered to the Supreme Court path all along, instead of taking a detour into the presidency.
I agree that Taft is more enigmatic and less endearing than TR.
Mod
Taft may smile but I wonder at the nature within.
TR might bark but I think the bark was worse than his bite.
Mod
Did you honestly like Taft after writing this book more than TR or vice versa?
Who do you think was the ..."
I do not know if I feel sorry for Taft but I think he was headstrong to a large extent despite Nellie and TR trying to manage him along to be president. He did fairly well for himself but I do not feel that he had leadership qualities although let's face it - he did become President and Chief Justice - pretty stellar accomplishments no matter how he got there.
I do agree with you about Aldridge - I do think he went through a serious transformation - made deeper possibly by the death of his old friend and colleague and I do think he was planning his legacy.
message 30:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 23, 2016 06:18PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Maybe TR told him to engage Cannon and Aldridge but not in the same way he did.
Yes, he was his own person but if he did not want to do what TR suggested then he should have sat down and had a talk with his old friend and mentor and come clean.
That would have been leadership, being courageous and being upstanding. There was no reason to tell TR to let the boys know that they were all staying on unless he was trying to embarrass TR in the long run. He did not have to say or do anything - he could have just done what every other president has done - (aside from when LBJ took over for Kennedy) bring in his own men. I do not think I feel sorry for Taft - I sense a side of him which was duplicitous - but maybe I am being too tough on him. He did have a nice smile and liked to play golf (smile).
Mod
Taft should never have been president. He didn't want the job, he wasn't suited for it, and he only really took it to please his wife. This point is made briefly in ..."
Excellent post Peter. Thank you for the adds. The one on Reed looks good.
message 32:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 23, 2016 10:45PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
So at the beginning - James Madison was concerned that the country was about 50 million dollars in debt - not including the individual states debts; after 8 years of war and over a decade without any consistent revenue.
The congressmen felt that property tax and poll taxes were too easy to abuse and/or collect so taxing imports seemed like the best idea.
This would also help out the primitive industries that the country had.
Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania was especially interested in "protective tariffs" but there were some worries about the hemp tariff.
In 1789 - Congress passed "an Act for laying a duty on Goods, Wares and Merchandises imported into the United States". But by the end of the 19th century - the tariff schedule grew convoluted and voluminous.
The Sugar Refineries Company (the Sugar Trust) through a young Nelson Aldridge played the tariff game like a violin. The biggest losers eventually became the American consumers.
The tariffs directly inflated import prices and indirectly inflated prices for domestic products by suppressing foreign competition.
LaFollette and Beveridge wanted a federal commission of experts who would determine tariff rates "scientifically". William Jennings Bryan called for a constitutional amendment to supplement lower tariffs with income taxes.
The Standpatters thought that any legislation would harm American industry. But economic principle was not the only motive - their campaign contributions came from corporate influence.
Wolraich summarizes what the tariff debate epitomized:
"In essence, the tariff debate epitomized the rupture between two different conceptions of federal government: one, an elitist view that entrusted national leadership to political bosses and captains of industry; the other, a populist view that sought to eliminate corporate privilege and empower the masses".
- page 147
More:
Harvard Law School - Paper on Taxation
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/ha...
The Spirit of 89
https://newrepublic.com/article/13155...
James Madison
Tariff Act of 1789
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3...
Protective Tariffs - (video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18-PN...
Tariffs and Protectionism (video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr-Ld...
Protectionist Empire: Trade, Tariffs & U.S. Foreign Policy, 1890-
Kissinger Chair at the Library of Congress - (video)
Link to Video: https://youtu.be/GjBnXjzoerY
Synopsis: Dr. Ben Fordham discusses the emergence of the United States as a world power during the years prior to World War I.
Speaker Biography: Benjamin Fordham is professor of Political Science at Binghamton University.
His research interests concern the influence of domestic political and economic interests on foreign policy choices, especially on security issues such as military spending and the international use of force. He has published articles on the role of domestic economic performance in decisions to use military force abroad, the effect of party differences on policy choices about the use of force and the allocation of the military budget in the United States, and on the influence of economic interests on congressional voting on foreign economic and security policy matters.
Transcript: http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/tran...
Who's Protected By Tariffs? & The Drive for Exports | Mark Thornton and Jeffrey Tucker
V for Voluntary Library
Link: https://youtu.be/nmQywN-Znp8
Note: Interesting Sugar is still protected. Remember the Sugar Trust - We pay three times what we should pay for sugar. In fact because of these tariffs and the lock that the sugar industry have - that is why the high fructose corn syrup is in so many products because the price of sugar has been so inflated.
by William Edmunds Benson (no photo)Topics of Discussion:
1. Do you think that tariffs are good or bad? Why or why not?
2. If you worked in an industry where companies were going to the Philippines, China, Taiwan, India to capitalize on a less expensive labor pool - how would you feel about tariffs to protect your jobs and your manufacturing industry? Would you feel differently if corporations going overseas did not affect you?
3. Let us say you make solar panels in the United States for price x and you are really paring costs but you are a made in America product using US workers in US located companies - how would you feel about the US importing solar panels from China which could undercut your company and put it out of business because they pay their workers much much less and do not have the overhead that US companies have? Would you be for tariffs or quotas if that were the case?
4. Are you the kind of person who is only interested in the lowest price no matter what is the country of origin or how it affects American workers overall? Do you just not care one way or the other?
5. Are you for Nafta - and any free trade agreements even if the end result is fewer jobs in America for Americans?
6. Who had it right during this time period - TR, LaFollette, Taft, Aldridge, Cannon, or somebody else? Do you agree with Taft's approach on tariffs, Lafollettfe's and Beverage's, Cannon's, Aldridge's or TR's? Did any of them get it right? Why or why not?
7. Do you think that the Standpatters and Cannon were concerned that much about the effects upon American industry or were they more concerned with their campaign financing or fueling political machines? Were they actually with their obstructionism "encasing the government in a cocoon of corporate influence" as the author writes?
6. How do you feel about the trade imbalance with countries like China? How do you feel about Trump's proposal on tariffs? Do you agree with the candidate that this will bring back jobs or do you agree with Friedman that it will do the exact opposite? (Note: We are not political - we are discussing the current climate for tariffs as it relates to our history and potential new wrinkles regarding protectionism and tariff law here - no matter who the candidate - this subject would be discussed since we are on the subject of tariffs).
VIDEO: Friedman versus Trump - Trump vs Friedman - Trade Policy Debate - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dhag...
Synopsis: Import tariffs v. free trade, argued by Donald Trump and Milton Friedman. http://www.LibertyPen.com
VIDEO: Voice of America - Trump Trade Policy a 'Big Loser,' Economists Say - http://www.voanews.com/content/trump-...
message 33:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 23, 2016 07:22PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
1787-1800
April 8, 1789
Help Wanted--The Senate Elects a Secretary
Samuel Otis of Massachusetts
Here is a job posting that could have appeared in the spring of 1789. "Newly established legislative body seeks experienced public administrator. Successful candidate must be able to maintain confidence of demanding individuals holding diverse political views.
Specific duties include journal-keeping, bill management, payroll preparation, and stationery acquisition. Administrator must be able to supervise a three-member staff, keep secrets, and write neatly. Salary: $1,500."
On April 8, 1789, the Senate filled that position by electing Samuel Otis to be the first Secretary of the Senate. A protege of Vice President John Adams, the forty-eight-year-old Otis was well qualified for the job.
He had been quartermaster of the Continental army during the Revolutionary War, speaker of the Massachusetts house of representatives, and a member of Congress under the Articles of Confederation.
Otis' early duties combined substance with symbolism. In addition to engaging the many tasks associated with establishing a new institution, he had the high honor of holding the Bible as George Washington took his presidential oath of office.
As the Senate set down its legislative procedures and carefully negotiated relations with the House and President Washington, Otis became a key player.
At a time when senators spent less than half of each year on the job in the nation's capital, Otis was on the job year round.
During the twelve years that John Adams served as vice president and then president, Otis enjoyed great job security.
The situation changed, however, in 1801, when control of the Senate shifted from the Adams Federalists to the Jeffersonian Republicans. When John Quincy Adams became a senator in 1803, he reported to his father that Otis "is much alarmed at the prospect of being removed from office."
Through the considerable political turbulence in the years ahead, Samuel Otis held on as Secretary, despite occasional complaints from senators about the Senate Journal not being kept up to date or records being kept in a "blind confused manner."
During his twenty-five years in office, a record unbroken among his successors, Secretary Otis never missed a day on the job. To the very end of his life, he remained intensely devoted to the Senate. Suffering a terminal illness early in 1814, he held on until April, when the Senate completed its work for the session. Only then did he die.
Source: The Senate
message 34:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 23, 2016 11:30PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
William Howard Taft was elected the 27th President of the United States (1909-1913) and later became the tenth Chief Justice of the United States (1921-1930), the only person to have served in both of these offices.Distinguished jurist, effective administrator, but poor politician, William Howard Taft spent four uncomfortable years in the White House. Large, jovial, conscientious, he was caught in the intense battles between Progressives and conservatives, and got scant credit for the achievements of his administration.
Born in 1857, the son of a distinguished judge, he graduated from Yale, and returned to Cincinnati to study and practice law. He rose in politics through Republican judiciary appointments, through his own competence and availability, and because, as he once wrote facetiously, he always had his "plate the right side up when offices were falling."
But Taft much preferred law to politics. He was appointed a Federal circuit judge at 34. He aspired to be a member of the Supreme Court, but his wife, Helen Herron Taft, held other ambitions for him.
His route to the White House was via administrative posts. President McKinley sent him to the Philippines in 1900 as chief civil administrator. Sympathetic toward the Filipinos, he improved the economy, built roads and schools, and gave the people at least some participation in government.
President Roosevelt made him Secretary of War, and by 1907 had decided that Taft should be his successor. The Republican Convention nominated him the next year.
Taft disliked the campaign--"one of the most uncomfortable four months of my life." But he pledged his loyalty to the Roosevelt program, popular in the West, while his brother Charles reassured eastern Republicans. William Jennings Bryan, running on the Democratic ticket for a third time, complained that he was having to oppose two candidates, a western progressive Taft and an eastern conservative Taft.
Progressives were pleased with Taft's election. "Roosevelt has cut enough hay," they said; "Taft is the man to put it into the barn." Conservatives were delighted to be rid of Roosevelt--the "mad messiah."
Taft recognized that his techniques would differ from those of his predecessor. Unlike Roosevelt, Taft did not believe in the stretching of Presidential powers. He once commented that Roosevelt "ought more often to have admitted the legal way of reaching the same ends."
Taft alienated many liberal Republicans who later formed the Progressive Party, by defending the Payne-Aldrich Act which unexpectedly continued high tariff rates. A trade agreement with Canada, which Taft pushed through Congress, would have pleased eastern advocates of a low tariff, but the Canadians rejected it. He further antagonized Progressives by upholding his Secretary of the Interior, accused of failing to carry out Roosevelt's conservation policies.
In the angry Progressive onslaught against him, little attention was paid to the fact that his administration initiated 80 antitrust suits and that Congress submitted to the states amendments for a Federal income tax and the direct election of Senators. A postal savings system was established, and the Interstate Commerce Commission was directed to set railroad rates.
In 1912, when the Republicans renominated Taft, Roosevelt bolted the party to lead the Progressives, thus guaranteeing the election of Woodrow Wilson.
Taft, free of the Presidency, served as Professor of Law at Yale until President Harding made him Chief Justice of the United States, a position he held until just before his death in 1930. To Taft, the appointment was his greatest honor; he wrote: "I don't remember that I ever was President."
The Presidential biographies on WhiteHouse.gov are from “The Presidents of the United States of America,” by Frank Freidel and Hugh Sidey. Copyright 2006 by the White House Historical Association.
More:
Video - #27 William Howard Taft
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ePxP...
Source: White House
Doris Kearns Goodwin at the Library of Congress
Library of Congress historian Michelle Krowl talks to noted author Doris Kearns Goodwin about her book, "The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and the Golden Age of Journalism."
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0SG4...
Anecdote about Taft at TR's funeral - if true this places him in a better light:
Link: http://deadpresidents.tumblr.com/post...
Funeral of TR - Taft in Attendance - he looked quite upset
Link: http://www.manythings.org/voa/history...
Miller Center
http://millercenter.org/president/bio...
by Hugh Sidey (no photo)
by
Doris Kearns Goodwin
1. Uncle Joe once again wonders what is "this so called demand for tariff tinkering"? Why did he feel that there was no need for new revenue legislation?Speaker Cannon, along with many other Standpatters, felt that there was no need for tinkering because the then current tariff was bringing in enough revenues to the government. At the time, tariffs were the main way the U.S. government raised revenues. Not only was the income tax, which is the main source of revenue for the government today, not being used by the federal government at the time, but the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional. That's why the Sixteenth amendment was passed in 1913. This should be an object lesson for progressives like myself who are upset of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision, which has destroyed most campaign finance laws.
2. Uncle Joe was convinced that the tariff situation was fine just the way it was. Was he right or was he mistaken?
I believe he was mistaken because what people were crying out about was not that the tariff was not bringing in enough revenue for the government, but that the tariff was unfair to the interests of many people in the Western states. Their argument was that both the high rate of certain tariffs as well as the complexity of the tariff schedules favored Eastern business interests over Western interests. It wasn't a question about revenues, but about fairness and that is why Uncle Joe was mistaken.
3. What are your thoughts on tariffs, Uncle Joe, other Speakers of the House and the situation with Uncle Joe obstructing legislation whenever he wanted to? Have things changed or have they stayed the same?
I things have changed greatly since 1909. While we still have tariffs, they are no longer the main source of revenue for the government. Not only that, but due to nearly 70+ years of tariff reductions and free trade deals, the tariffs are not nearly as high as they used to be. The tariff and free trade rules we have today are still overly complicated and are just as much of an impediment to trade as a high tariff was in 1909, but the tariff does not hold as much importance in our politics as it used to.
On Speaker Cannon, I remember reading a history of the House of Representatives by Robert V. Remini a while ago and I remember how unfavorably he described Cannon's control of the House. (view spoiler) Mr. Remini's history of the House is well worth a read, even if it is a few years old.
by Robert V. Remini(no photo)
Mod
Great post Christopher and thank you for the add.
Mod
This chapter was challenging to write because of the difficulty of discussing tariffs without putting people to sleep. As Robin put it upthread, the topic doesn't exactly catapult people from their seats.But it used to. For much of American history, tariff policy was the second most divisive issue after slavery/race. Some even claim that tariffs were the primary cause of the Civil War. I wouldn't go that far, but I would cite tariff policy as one of the primary mobilizers in the Progressive movement.
In this chapter, I tried to convey the passion of the tariff reformers by focusing on entrenched corruption. High tariffs were incredibly profitable for American corporations, so they had a strong incentive to use all available levers to manipulate the system. It was this corrupt manipulation, epitomized by Nelson Aldrich and the Sugar Trust, that infuriated people a century ago.
Ironically, the positions are reversed today. In 2016, centrist leaders from both parties support free trade, while populist insurgents like Trump and Sanders support protectionism. People have written much about the economic impact of reinstating high tariffs, but not many recognize the threat to our civil fabric. Like economic subsidies, tariffs may be created with the best intentions, but once they've been established, the vested interests make them very difficult eliminate.
It's a good chapter. I didn't know Madison thought the tariffs should be temporary. You have to laugh because many temporary projects turn permanent in a hurry.Sugar is a key tariff protection. I remember visiting a few southern Florida sugar towns. It was like going back in time to coal company owned towns. It was the same, and that was only 25 years ago.
Mod
message 41:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 24, 2016 12:40PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I agree Michael but you know - manufacturing has been hit hard in this country and people need these jobs and even though in the videos they indicate that other jobs are taking their place - I would dare to differ that many of these jobs never came back in other industries as they profess they do or did. It is a double edged sword so I can see why folks are listening to Sanders and Trump. Not that I do not wish the best for other countries but on the other hand there needs to be some healthy self interest - the trade imbalance is one area which needs to be addressed.
In regards to Taft in this chapter, one thing I haven't seen mentioned in the discussion yet was the effect his wife's stroke and disabilities on him afterwards. It seemed to me as if losing a part of her made him withdraw even further from some of his duties as the president. Especially when it concerned addressing the concerns of progressives like La Follette. It was like he lost what little desire he had for any kind of real reforms, choosing to pick little battles instead of the big ones.
Was anyone else surprised that Nellie's stroke was reported as a "nervous breakdown" in the press? A nervous breakdown would be so much more stigmatizing these days. It seems they were trying to downplay the seriousness of her condition, which seems a shame. Perhaps if La Follette and the other insurgents had known what Taft was going through, they would have expressed more sympathy and he wouldn't have resented them so much. They wouldn't have given up the fight, but it might have taken a different tone, and then a better resolution might have been reached.
Mod
Mod
David you made a valid point - and that may be the case but I don't think that Taft was a real visionary and strategic thinker with a big plan but I could be wrong.
David wrote: "In regards to Taft in this chapter, one thing I haven't seen mentioned in the discussion yet was the effect his wife's stroke and disabilities on him afterwards. It seemed to me as if losing a part..."I would agree ,David, that Nellie's illness affected Taft to the point that his full attention was not on the presidency. She had been somewhat the "power behind the throne" and without her assistance, he was floundering. But what Bentley said about him not being a visionary and strategic thinker is also valid and it became obvious once he did not have Nellie's support and counsel. Her sudden illness brought his political weaknesses to the fore.
David wrote: "In regards to Taft in this chapter, one thing I haven't seen mentioned in the discussion yet was the effect his wife's stroke and disabilities on him afterwards. It seemed to me as if losing a part of her made him withdraw even further from some of his duties as the president. Especially when it concerned addressing the concerns of progressives like La Follette."That's the point I was getting at in the post right after yours. Perhaps if her stroke had been public knowledge, and La Follette and his insurgents would have expressed some appropriate sympathy, Taft would have been more open to working with them, instead of just opposing them and blaming them for the stress they put him and Nellie under.
Michael wrote: "TR is one of the most lovable, charismatic presidents in American history. Taft not so much. But I feel sympathy for Taft."That comes across because I definitely have sympathy for him now, even though I don't like his policies. On the other hand, my opinion of TR has declined because of your book.
The thing that stands out to me in this chapter is how little government/politics has changed. Back room deals, ignoring what the people need, every senator (or Congressman) having pet interests...and legislation being so convoluted that nobody knows what's going on! Bentley used the term "shenanigans" in one of the discussion questions and that's a perfect term.Economic history is not my strong point. I think tariffs are necessary to protect American workers but I imagine that the laws today are so full of "pet interests" that they need revision. In 1909, the Western states were just beginning to feel their political power and to see ways to lessen Eastern political influence. The West was more settled, the Indian Wars were over, and now Western states could turn their attention to making things level on the political stage. There was more division in the nation between Eastern and Western states and between the industrial and agricultural interests. I don't think there is so much division in those areas today so the tariff issue has gone in another direction. We have more free trade today. And the tariff issue seems to be more about jobs leaving the USA because it's cheaper to produce goods elsewhere.
I don't particularly like Taft but I did feel sorry for him when Nellie had a stroke. She meant so much to him that he was floundering without her. As far as saying she had a nervous breakdown instead of telling people that she had a stroke, that seems like a way to put her back in her place as "just" a woman. Women were weak and they had nervous breakdowns. Men had strokes. So maybe this was a way to remind people that she really was one of the weaker sex.
Loved the Billy Possum! But if Taft really knew anything about possums, he would never had asked for one for dinner!
I have a question regarding the telegram from TR to Taft (page 157)- anyone know why Taft never received it?
Tomi wrote: "I don't particularly like Taft but I did feel sorry for him when Nellie had a stroke. She meant so much to him that he was floundering without her. As far as saying she had a nervous breakdown instead of telling people that she had a stroke, that seems like a way to put her back in her place as "just" a woman. Women were weak and they had nervous breakdowns. Men had strokes. So maybe this was a way to remind people that she really was one of the weaker sex."That interpretation of events crossed my mind, too. And Nellie was the first of the first ladies to ride with her husband during the procession to the inauguration.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The House: The History of the House of Representatives (other topics)The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism (other topics)
The Presidents of the United States of America (other topics)
A Political History of the Tariff 1789-1861 (other topics)
Mr. Speaker! The Life and Times of Thomas B. Reed, the Man who Broke the Filibuster (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Robert V. Remini (other topics)Doris Kearns Goodwin (other topics)
Hugh Sidey (other topics)
William Edmunds Benson (other topics)
Doris Kearns Goodwin (other topics)
More...
For the week of May 23rd through May 29th, we are reading Chapter Seven of Unreasonable Men: Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican Rebels who Created Progressive Politics by Michael Wolraich.
The seventh week's reading assignment is:
Week Seven - May 23rd - May 29th
Chapter Seven - The Tariff - (pages 123 - 142)
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 today (sorry but away on travel).
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, 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/...