Potus Geeks Book Review: The Last Lincoln Republican by Benjamin Arrington
In the latest addition to the University Press of Kansas series "American Presidential Elections", Benjamin Arrington does a post mortem on the election with the closest popular vote to date in his recently published work The Last Lincoln Republican: The Presidential Election of 1880. Arrington is the manager of the James A. Garfield National Historic Site in Mentor, Ohio. His admiration for the site's honoree is apparent, and while this occasionally raises questions about the objectivity of one or two of the conclusions reached in the book, overall this is a superb academic analysis of one of the most fascinating presidential elections, one which took place at a pivotal time in US history. The author skillfully and efficiently considers on all of important issues and facets of the contest, doing so in a concise 186 pages.
The newly formed Republican Party had won every Presidential election since 1856, in part due to its campaign practice of "waiving the bloody shirt", a euphemism for the party's emotional appeal to voters to to avenge the blood of soldiers that died in the Civil War by supporting the party of Lincoln. In 1876 Republican Rutherford Hayes won a victory in the most controversial election in US history after a committee made up of members from the legislative and judicial branches of government awarded disputed electoral votes from three southern states to Hayes. This set off the greatest crisis in the nation since the war. In what became known as the Compromise of 1877, Hayes won the presidency, almost certainly in return for his agreement to withdraw US troops from the south that had been protecting former African-American slaves. It was a shameful chapter in the nation's history.
As the 1880 election approached, Democrats continued to believe that the election had been stolen from them and they were ready to retake the White House. Arrington tells the story of two fascinating nominating conventions held by the two major political parties. For the Republicans, James Garfield attended his party's event, intending to nominate fellow Ohioan John Sherman for President, only to become his party's "dark horse" candidate, after a split among party factions presented Garfield as the best compromise. For the Democrats, their selection of popular former Union General Winfield Scott Hancock as their candidate seemed to patch all the holes in their campaign. By selecting a Union war hero, they were able to silence the cries of those "waiving the bloody shirt" and at the same time selected a candidate acceptable to southerners because of Hancock's reputation for taking the side of white supremacists during his time as a military commander in post-bellum Louisiana.
Arrington describes the challenges faced by the candidates in attempting to hold together the various factions within their respective parties, their actions in an era when presidential candidates were expected to be neither seen nor heard during the campaign, and the issues that shaped the outcome of what would result in the closest election in popular vote in history to date.
Garfield was shot by an assassin less than four months after his inauguration and died from his wounds two and a half months later. Arrington engages in interesting speculation as two what kind of a President Garfield might have been, had he survived. He makes a strong case that Garfield would have returned the Republican Party to the path that it been set upon by Abraham Lincoln and that he would have used his mandate to support the freedmen of the south. Arrington argues that Garfield would have championed the civil rights of African-Americans, much as Ulysses Grant had done.
Occasionally Arrington's loyalty to Garfield's legacy makes one wonder if his assessment of his subject is skewed by adulation. For example, his dismissal of the suggestion of any wrongdoing on Garfield's part in the Credit Mobilier scandal is at odds with the conclusions of some of Garfield's leading biographers. Arrington's conclusion that "Garfield had been cleared of any wrong-doing" only tells half the story. Having said that however, Arrington does acknowledge that 18 years in Congress had molded Garfield into someone who factored political considerations into his every decision.
The 1880 election is one of the most interesting campaigns and one of the most overlooked. Arrington has done a capable job of setting out the prevailing mood of the time, the personality and character of the candidates, the supporting characters who played a role in the outcome of the election (including James G. Blaine, Roscoe Conkling, John Sherman, and Samuel Tilden), the issues on voters' minds, and the political calculus that led to the outcome. This book is a worthy addition to its series and a welcome read for anyone with an interest in American presidential election history.
The newly formed Republican Party had won every Presidential election since 1856, in part due to its campaign practice of "waiving the bloody shirt", a euphemism for the party's emotional appeal to voters to to avenge the blood of soldiers that died in the Civil War by supporting the party of Lincoln. In 1876 Republican Rutherford Hayes won a victory in the most controversial election in US history after a committee made up of members from the legislative and judicial branches of government awarded disputed electoral votes from three southern states to Hayes. This set off the greatest crisis in the nation since the war. In what became known as the Compromise of 1877, Hayes won the presidency, almost certainly in return for his agreement to withdraw US troops from the south that had been protecting former African-American slaves. It was a shameful chapter in the nation's history.
As the 1880 election approached, Democrats continued to believe that the election had been stolen from them and they were ready to retake the White House. Arrington tells the story of two fascinating nominating conventions held by the two major political parties. For the Republicans, James Garfield attended his party's event, intending to nominate fellow Ohioan John Sherman for President, only to become his party's "dark horse" candidate, after a split among party factions presented Garfield as the best compromise. For the Democrats, their selection of popular former Union General Winfield Scott Hancock as their candidate seemed to patch all the holes in their campaign. By selecting a Union war hero, they were able to silence the cries of those "waiving the bloody shirt" and at the same time selected a candidate acceptable to southerners because of Hancock's reputation for taking the side of white supremacists during his time as a military commander in post-bellum Louisiana.
Arrington describes the challenges faced by the candidates in attempting to hold together the various factions within their respective parties, their actions in an era when presidential candidates were expected to be neither seen nor heard during the campaign, and the issues that shaped the outcome of what would result in the closest election in popular vote in history to date.
Garfield was shot by an assassin less than four months after his inauguration and died from his wounds two and a half months later. Arrington engages in interesting speculation as two what kind of a President Garfield might have been, had he survived. He makes a strong case that Garfield would have returned the Republican Party to the path that it been set upon by Abraham Lincoln and that he would have used his mandate to support the freedmen of the south. Arrington argues that Garfield would have championed the civil rights of African-Americans, much as Ulysses Grant had done.
Occasionally Arrington's loyalty to Garfield's legacy makes one wonder if his assessment of his subject is skewed by adulation. For example, his dismissal of the suggestion of any wrongdoing on Garfield's part in the Credit Mobilier scandal is at odds with the conclusions of some of Garfield's leading biographers. Arrington's conclusion that "Garfield had been cleared of any wrong-doing" only tells half the story. Having said that however, Arrington does acknowledge that 18 years in Congress had molded Garfield into someone who factored political considerations into his every decision.
The 1880 election is one of the most interesting campaigns and one of the most overlooked. Arrington has done a capable job of setting out the prevailing mood of the time, the personality and character of the candidates, the supporting characters who played a role in the outcome of the election (including James G. Blaine, Roscoe Conkling, John Sherman, and Samuel Tilden), the issues on voters' minds, and the political calculus that led to the outcome. This book is a worthy addition to its series and a welcome read for anyone with an interest in American presidential election history.