HE LOST THREE TIMES

A review of Michael Kazin’s A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan (2006)

(Rating 4 of 5)

William Jennings Bryan is a complicated figure in history.  After reading this biography, I—much like the author—am still not sure how I feel about him.  Bryan in his time inspired a lot of people.  He had a mass following in this country.  He is one of only a handful of Americans who carried a major party’s banner three times.  The others were Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, Grover Cleveland, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Richard M. Nixon.  Nevertheless he leaves behind a complicated legacy.

Bryan was never elected to anything higher than a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and his brief time there can be considered unremarkable.  He was also very inefficient in the highest post he ever earned: Secretary of State of the United States.  What could be fair to say about Bryan is he played a type of a liberal Barry Goldwater role for Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal the same way the real Goldwater paved the way for Reagan conservatism.  Bryan espoused polices that helped the Democratic Party break away from its phobia about the Federal Government’s powers.  Bryan told the Democrats that the government could actually be used for good.

Bryan on the campaign trail

He also changed the way people would run for president.  Bryan actually ran for president.  By the end of the century it was common for candidates for the highest office to actively campaign, instead of staying home and running through surrogates.  He also would come to advance popular causes, such as women’s suffrage, that were long overdue.

Woodrow Wilson's Cabinet, Bryan served as Secretary of State ineffectively

Despite this there are extremely negative things about him as well.  He allowed his religion to often cloud his judgment.  Bryan was always so convinced that he was right and God was on his side that he labeled anyone who opposed him was acting against the will of the Lord.  He was completely deaf to constructive criticism and that attitude turned former supporters against him.  Bryan supported and helped pass prohibition and never could see how it was a complete failure.  Bryan also turned back science education in his useless war on evolution.  Even some of the defenses that Kazin comes up with to explain his position doesn’t excuse his over reach and how he harm he caused to the education of students that continues to this day.

Bryan vs Darrow in the famous Scopes Trial

Then there is his stance on race.  I have long accepted that there are historical figures who I admire, who had opinions on race—and other things—that I now find abhorrent.  (Already we have mentioned Jefferson.)  I also understand that politics is always of the possible and sometimes even sympathetic politicians have to make choices in the name of political necessity.  (John Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Bill Clinton come to mind.)  However as Kazin points out his racism and racist positions are not based on any political calculus, but rather blind bigotry.   It makes his whole anti-imperialism crusade look hypocritical.  The nicest thing you could say about his racial legacy was that his populist campaigns helped pave the way for other social movements that would challenge those issues to rise up.

This is a good book about a fascinating individual who gave voice to the opposition in the era of Theodore Roosevelt.

TWO STATESMEN AND A JACKASS

A review of Merrile D Peterson’s The Great Triumvirate: Webster, Clay, and Calhoun (1987)

(Rating 4 of 5)

In my earlier review of the Last Crusade I discussed how often unsuccessful presidents are in many respects successful statesmen.  This also holds true for even those great statesmen (and stateswomen) that fall short of the presidential honor.  My home state of Maine’s Ed Muskie would clearly qualify as a great statesman in the eyes of most Mainers.  Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun were three of the most prominent men of their era.  Each had a mass following in their respective region: Webster the Northeast, Clay the West, and Calhoun the South. 

Despite their large followings none of these men would ever reach the highest point in American politics, to be President.  Like Muskie, each one these statesmen would become Secretary of State and Webster would be hold that post twice.  At the start of the Republic good service in that office almost guaranteed the presidency[1].  Calhoun would become the Vice President, and Clay, among the three, would have the best chance of winning the coveted office, but all would fail. 

John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster

 

This book, covering political careers of all three, does a fairly good job of its task.  Although it can get convoluted at times, reading a duel biography is hard enough a trio-biography is very difficult.  However, the author does a good job staying on task.  There are moments where Peterson’s clear worship of these three gets a bit nauseating.

            “In 1832, when they came together in the Senate for the first time and coalesced in opposition to the president, Andrew Jackson, the idea of ‘The Great Triumvirate’ was born.  It was the offspring of the feverish Jacksonian imagination, for the prospect was very small of these master spirits—Webster, Clay, Calhoun—uniting in power like the famed Roman triumvirs who ruled after Caesar’s death.  Yet had they become a triumvirate in fact, what worlds they might have conquered!” (p.5)   

Clay and Webster, in my eyes, have very positive legacies.  There were things that they did and positions that they took that I strongly disagree with—the Fugitive Slave Act as part of the Compromise of 1850, for example—but over all I believe the two were positive forces in our nation’s history.  However, if one would take a more position, that person could argue all Clay and Webster really did was delay important issues repeatedly to the next generation instead of dealing with it themselves.  I think that Clay and Webster did the best they could with the situation that they were given.  

Compromise of 1850

 

The third member however is a different story.  Generally speaking I tend to judge historical figures by the standards of their own time not ours.  If I did the later, and was honest with myself, I would have to say everyone who ever made major decisions in the world was evil until I enter High School then it was just most of them.  However, in American history, there are four historical figures that I completely despise and John C. Calhoun is one of them[2]. 

I find absolutely no redeemable traits in Calhoun.  The only nice thing I can say about the man was if I had died in 1823 his death would have gone down as a tragic loss of a young great statesman.  Unfortunately, he lived into the 1850s and became the champion of all that was wrong with America at that time: slavery, nullification, and secession. An American villain if there ever was one.

“And so Webster, Clay, and Calhoun, the legitimate successors of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, never attained the presidency.  When the last of this ‘second race of giants’ passed away in 1852 nothing was left to challenge the sway of Lilliputians.  The republic lost its glory—the regalia of great statesmen.” (p.6)

I totally disagree with the above statement.  I am sorry but there were plenty of great statesmen to follow them.  I really do not feel these three were Founders’ natural successors.  Do not get me wrong they had their accomplishments.  Their end, however, was not the end of great statesmen.  In fact if you read Team of Rivals you can see the next generation of leaders was, in many ways, superior to this group. 

  

This book can be a very tough read so I would only recommended if you really love history and the time period.  In closing I am a little reminded of King William III of England and Holland who led coalitions against King Louis XIV of France.   King William might have been the thorn in King Louis’ side, but William III lived in the age of King Louis XIV.  Clay, Webster, and Calhoun may have liked to be known as the Triumvirate, but they were just players in the Age of Jackson.

---

[1] Or in John Marshall’s case the Chief Justice post.

[2] The others are Rodger Taney, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and George Wallace.