ORIGINAL SIN: PRESIDENT BIDEN’S DECLINE, ITS COVERUP, AND HIS DISASTROUS DECISION TO RUN AGAIN by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson

July 13, 2025szfreiberger American Political History Leave a comment

(Biden family photos sat behind President Joe Biden as he delivered his address to the nation)

Ever since the Anita Hill hearings in October 1991 I have had little respect for Joseph Biden. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was responsible for her receiving a fair and respectful hearing – a task that then Senator Biden failed at miserably. The hearings took place during Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearing for a seat of the Supreme Court, and one would expect that the chairman of the committee could assure that Ms. Hill’s complaints concerning Thomas’ sexual harassment would have been received with an open mind, but this was not the case. The hearing was contentious, and I would categorize certain aspects particularly before the “Me Too” movement existed as somewhat misogynistic. Biden’s refusal or inability to reign in the commentary of certain committee members reflect his membership in the “Senatorial Men’s Club” which downplayed any questioning and support for women who raised the kinds of complaints that Ms. Hill did against Thomas. Fast forward decades and it is partially Biden’s fault that this partisan corrupt judge has a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court and feels no obligation to conform to the expected behavior of a justice as he has accepted millions in benefits from his political cronies.

The second issue that concerns me involves Mr. Biden’s decision to run for re-election in 2024. This is further borne out by CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios reporter Alex Thompson’s new book ORIGINAL SIN: PRESIDENT BIDEN’S DECLINE, ITS COVERUP, AND HIS DISASTROUS DECISION TO RUN AGAIN where the authors encapsulate Biden’s error, which in large part was driven by personal ego. The end result was that when he finally showed how unfit he was during a June presidential debate he was forced to withdraw his presidential candidacy leaving Vice President Harris 107 days to run against the MAGA machine which had been preparing for the election for four years. I am not saying Harris, or any Democrat could have defeated the current occupant of the White House, but at least they would have been given a more level playing field. The end result is an autocratic presidency where masked men and the US military round up legal immigrants, US citizens, in the guise of deporting innumerable criminal migrants, which has been shown to be statistically false. We now have the passage of the “Big Beautiful Bill” that will impact the poor in the name of rewarding the rich – thank you former President Biden.

MIke Donilon stands behind Joe Biden, alongside Liz Sherwood-Randall

(Mike Donilon (center) stands behind Biden, next to homeland security aviser Liz Sherwood-Randall in August 2024.)

The title of the first chapter says it all – “He Totally Fucked Us.” The theme laid out by the authors is clear and is supported by over 200 interviews, many of which were key players on the inside of the Biden administration, congresspersons, senators, journalists, major players in the Democratic Party, and activists. Despite reassurances that Biden could pull off his reelection, by 2023 it was clear he should have withdrawn any possible presidential candidacy and allowed a robust competition for the Democratic Party nomination. His frailty, reduced cognitive function were attested to by many on the inside according to the authors and it was obvious he could not engage in an arduous campaign and for the matter serve effectively for another four years. The authors point to the disinformation put out concerning Biden’s protectors – family, a close coterie of advisors, campaign staff and others led to a false sense that he could win reelection, despite this fantasy, there were a number of people who believed if reelected he would not live out his second term.

The authors argue correctly that Donald Trump won the election by 2.2 million votes. However, his electoral college victory was based on about 200,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Therefore, it was in the realm of possibility another democrat, be it Vice President Harris or someone else given the opportunity of a complete campaign might have won.

The book centers on the facts the authors uncovered pertaining to “Biden’s health and abilities; the silence of witnesses; the complicity of enablers; and the scheming of those who endeavored to hide it from others and from the public.” Biden was in decline since 2022, and the authors set out to prove a conspiracy to hide his deficiencies all out of fear that Trump could return to the White House.

Joe Biden meets with Steve Ricchetti and Louisa Terrell (cropped)

(President Biden meets with campaign advisor Steve Ricchetti)

It is common knowledge that the Biden family has suffered more than its share of loss and tragedies over the years. But the mindset of not facing reality on their part on a number of occasions clouded Biden’s judgement as well as those around him. There are two terms that the authors use that help explain what occurred. The first was “Bideness,” which refers to Biden’s decline in mental acuity to the point of a perceived effort by Biden’s inner circle to conceal his struggles from the public and maintain an image of a sharp and capable leader, even resorting to methods like highly scripting events and limiting access to the president. The authors describe a president who exhibited signs of cognitive impairment behind the scenes, such as failing to recognize longtime political allies, losing his train of thought in important conversations, and forgetting important dates. The second term employed by the authors is the “Politburo” made up of a very insularized inner circle that surrounded and protected Biden made up of seasoned political veterans like Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti, Ron Klain, and Bruce Reed. An outer layer consisted of Ann Dunn, and Bob Bauer. Cabinet members and other policy advisors were excluded as the insularized group protected their influence. One person described it as “Five people were running the country, and Joe Biden was the senior member of the board.”

I am not suggesting that the Biden administration achievement was not masterful. The handling of the Covid 19, the Infrastructure Bill, Climate legislation, economic growth, Inflation Reduction Act, investment into semiconductor manufacturing and research, revitalizing America’s relations with its allies and strengthening NATO etc. Some of this was even achieved with bi-partisan support, but the credit goes to Biden who was the head of his administration, but there are numerous others who deserve most of the credit. The question must be asked: did Covid 19 provide the impetus and cover for much of the success and was it possible that a second term with a cognitively reduced president could achieve other important legislation.

Outgoing White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain delivers remarks during an event where U.S. President Joe Biden (L) welcomed his new Chief of Staff Jeffrey Zients (R) in the East Room of the White House on February 01, 2023 in Washington, DC. The event also gave Biden an opportunity to thank Klain, the longest-serving first chief of staff for any Democratic president. Zients most recently served as the White House coronavirus response coordinator. Klain also served as chief of staff for Vice President Al Gore and later for President Barack Obama.

(President Biden and Chief of Staff Ron Klain)

The overriding guide for Biden’s aides and officials that surrounded him was to defeat Donald Trump in 2024, seemingly at the cost of hiding the president’s loss of acuity and physical infirmities. Most believed that Vice President Harris could not defeat Trump and many disliked her and her approach to politics. The mantra was clear, no one could defeat the former president but Biden. The result, according to the authors supported by people “who were in the room where it happened” (from the musical “Hamilton!”) was that Biden had difficulty focusing, forgot names and didn’t recognize people, exhibited a complete loss of energy, and had difficulty absorbing information. The resulting speechwriters had to adapt to his diminishing capabilities; an increased reliance on note cards and teleprompters, and scripted meetings and interviews. A case in point was Biden’s performance at the Normandy D Day commemoration in June 2022. Biden appeared stiff and according to the authors a number of Normandy survivors had more energy than the president.

One must realize in Biden’s defense that he was under extreme stress since the death of his son Beau in 2015. As the years passed, he grew further attached to his surviving son, Hunter, whose personal issues including drug addiction, using the president’s contacts and family name to acquire wealth, tax evasion, and illegal weapons purchase resulted in a trial all weighing on the president’s mind. Once a special prosecutor was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland and resulted at first in a plea deal related to Hunter’s purchase of a gun while addicted to cocaine was overturned and resulted in his conviction in a Delaware court, it knocked the wind out of the president as did his tax evasion trial in California. Biden would say he only had one son left, and he would enable him the most. Biden would blame himself for many of Hunter’s problems because if he hadn’t run for president, the Justice Department spurred on by Republicans would never have gone after his son.

Biden’s limitations are catalogued by Tapper and Horowitz by numerous examples supported by individuals who were present in National Security Council meetings, speech preparation, cabinet meetings, fundraising events, etc. Aides used personal blinders to convince themselves Biden would overcome his shortcomings as they referred to his excellent State of the Union Speech in 2024, however within hours it was the same old infirm president. This was compounded by the investigation into Biden’s possession of classified documents from his vice presidential years and the conclusion by special prosecutor that the case was not winnable because a jury would not convict an infirm man, with memory issues, well into his eighties. The “Politburo” grew angrier and angrier at Garland who refused to back down. They would freeze the Attorney General out of the administration as more and more Democratic stalwarts wanted Biden to drop out of the presidential race.

(Biden campaign advisor Bruce Reed)

The June 2024 debate debacle which the authors relate in minute detail was the final straw. Tapper and Thompson lay bare a sense of betrayal as Biden; his family and closest advisors dwelt in a world of alternative facts. As Jennifer Szalai’s New York Times May 13, 2025, book review states; “Trump’s debate performance was of a piece with his rallies, a jumble of nonsensical digressions and wild claims. But for many Americans, the extent of Biden’s frailty came as a shock. Most of the president’s appearances had, by then, become tightly controlled affairs. For at least a year and a half, Biden’s aides had been scrambling to accommodate an octogenarian president who was becoming increasingly exhausted and confused. According to ORIGINAL SIN which makes pointed use of the word “cover-up” in the subtitle, alarmed donors and pols who sought the lowdown on Biden’s cognitive state were kept in the dark. Others had daily evidence of Biden’s decline but didn’t want to believe it.” This created a firestorm within the Democratic Party that ultimately led to the nomination of Kamala Harris and her ultimate defeat.

(Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden)

The book may come across as a polemic against Biden and those around him, however if their arguments and sourcing are correct then a grave injustice was perpetrated against the American people. In a sense the best way to describe the book is a story centered around willful ignorance that rose to the level of a conspiracy – the authors prove their case!

In closing, according to Jennifer Szalai; “Earlier this month, in what looks like an attempt to get ahead of the book’s publication, Biden went on “The View” to say that he accepts some responsibility for Trump’s victory: “I was in charge.” But he was dismissive about reports of any cognitive decline. In ORIGINAL SIN, Tapper and Thompson describe him waking up the morning after the 2024 election thinking that if only he had stayed in the race, he would have won. “That’s what the polls suggested, he would say again and again,” the authors write. There was just one problem with his reasoning: “His pollsters told us that no such polls existed.”

(President Joe Biden with family members nearby as he delivers remarks during an address from the Oval Office of the White House)

RED SCARE: BLACKLISTS, McCARTHYISM, AND THE MAKING OF MODERN AMERICA by Clay Risen

(U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy (center) during an investigation into alleged communist infiltration of the government, 1954 with Roy Cohn on the right).

George Santayana’s most famous quote regarding history is: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This quote emphasizes the importance of learning from past mistakes to avoid making them again. I guess when one looks at our contemporary political, social, and economic landscape we as a society have not followed the Spanish-American philosopher, essayist, poet and novelist’s advice. We live in a partisan world where things seem to be defined by which tribe we belong to. It appears that our country is split almost down the middle in terms of our loyalties and belief systems. Currently, the administration that occupies the White House is led by a cult leader whose primary goal is power and enrichment for himself and his family. To achieve this, he has manufactured a world identified as “Make America Great Again” or MAGA and through executive orders and partisan legislation seeks to implement what has been identified as “Project 2025” which will devastate certain governmental components, social programs for the poor, the international trading system, the federal budget, our immigration system, and god knows what else that is written in the weeds of that document.

In examining American history, I can think of three periods where contemporary events have their role model. One is the Gilded Age of the late 19^th century, when tariffs, crony capitalism, and hard-and-fast hierarchies were the stuff of American politics. Secondly we turn to the 1920s with its version of anti-communism, an economic system that was overloaded with debt, highlighted by Wall Street, racism manifesting itself in anti-immigrant legislation, and a strict reshaping of American politics. Lastly, is the post-World War II period highlighted by the Red Scare, when the federal government was weaponized against the American left. This last example sounds familiar as we are bombarded on a daily basis by public commentary and social media posts by our president who has weaponized the Justice Department seeking revenge against his perceived enemies be it individual politicians, educational institutions, businessmen or lawyers who do not conform to his demands, a feckless Congress and Supreme Court, all with the goal of seeking total fealty to the beliefs of one man.

People Metal Print featuring the photograph Dalton Trumbo At House Hearings by Bettmann

(Screenwriter Dalton Trumbo before HUAC)

In Clay Risen’s latest historical monograph, RED SCARE: BLACKLISTS, McCARTHYISM, AND THE MAKING OF MODERN AMERICA the author examines a period that is close to being the precursor of our contemporary world. President Trump vows to root out “radical left wing lunatics” and “Marxist equity” from the bowels of the state. One of Trump’s minions, former DOGE overlord Elon Musk has proclaimed that U.S.A.I.D. designed as a soft power vehicle to enhance American popularity in poor countries particularly by improving their health care is “a viper’s nest of radical-left Marxists” and deserved to be destroyed. This commentary which pervades actors in the current administration sounds like Senator Joseph McCarthy, legal counsel Roy Cohn, Senator and later Vice President Richard Nixon, and even Robert F. Kennedy, and many others. In fact, McCarthy garnered a range of support, including from fellow Republicans, some ordinary Americans, and even some Democrats. His supporters often believed in the necessity of identifying and suppressing perceived communist influence, justifying the denial of civil liberties to those deemed subversive. Conversely, many Americans and political figures strongly opposed McCarthy’s tactics, highlighting the divisive nature of the movement as he lied over and over about the dangers of the “Red Menace.” Risen’s book shows that the Red Scare burst forth from a convergence of Cold War fears and a long festering battle between social conservatives and New Deal progressives. Risen begins at the outset of the Cold War concluding with McCarthy’s death in 1957 providing a fuller understanding of what the American people experienced at a time of moral questioning and perceived threats, and what people are capable of doing to each other under the right circumstances.

Risen has an interesting metaphor in approaching his topic by discussing how a bacillus, in this case, cultural and political can, lie dormant for decades and reappear years later. The bacillus of the 1950s Red Scare receded but did not totally disappear in the decades that followed, but its lineage has reemerged in the last decade or so with the American hard right. To understand contemporary culture and politics which is occurring before our eyes today we must understand it and its roots in the Red Scare. This is not to say that Trumpism and the MAGA movement is the same as McCarthyism and the John Birch Society, but there is a line linking them. Risen’s goal is to demonstrate that at a moment in the late 1940s, and in a certain political and cultural context, that knowing where we are today requires an understanding of where we were then.

Risen quickly turns to the origins, personalities, and actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), especially toward its witnesses and the people they were trying to destroy and disseminating its right wing agenda. The Committee would become the spear driving a decade long campaign of intolerance and political oppression. Risen clearly develops the case that the emergence of a strong anti-government agenda which used the fear of communism as a foil against its opponents had its origin in hatred for the New Deal and Franklin Roosevelt (much like Trump’s abhorrence of any achievement wrought by Barack Obama or Joe Biden). The anti-communist movement morphed into an anti-civil rights movement represented by HUAC and other congressional committee investigations highlighted by its war against Hollywood, epitomized by the investigation of Dalton Trumbo and the Hollywood Ten. For HUAC members and others the New Deal was a “stalking horse” for Soviet collectivization, which today we refer to as the deep state. The conundrum as Risen argues is that there were two visions of America; “one built on an expansive vision of government as the guarantor of the rights and welfare of all its citizens, the other built on a retrograde nostalgia for an America built on privilege and exclusion.”

(Elizabeth Bentley testifying before the House Committee)

The author integrates the major figures of the period nicely. Whether presenting the careers and beliefs of Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, J. Parnell Thomas, Dalton Trumbo, J. Edgar Hoover, Roy Cohn, Richard M. Nixon, Elizabeth Bentley, Judith Coplon, Harry Bridges, Owen Lattimore, Alger Hiss, Whitiker Chambers, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, and a host of others, Risen analyzes their role in the Red Scare and their impact on post-war American history.

The 1948 election plays a key role in Risen’s analysis as Truman was able to defeat New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey. After losing the 1946 congressional elections to Republicans Truman realized he needed to shore up support with those who felt he was weak on communism. This would lead to the Federal Loyalty Program and a rhetorical war within the Democratic party represented by former Vice President and Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace. During the 1948 campaign Dewey, to his credit did not get down and dirty with other Republicans who went after Truman as being “soft on communism.” With their defeat, Republicans learned their lesson and in future elections they had no compunction about using politics of the gutter.

(Whittaker Chambers)

It takes Risen almost halfway through the narrative to introduce Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy. According to Risen McCarthy had a “unique ability to braid the two strands of the Red Scare – the culture war and the politics of Cold War security – into a single cord.” McCarthy was a Senate “nobody” until he forced his way on the scene in January 1950 accusing the State Department of harboring 205 communists in its midst. McCarthy’s story has been told before in excellent biographies by David Oshinsky, A CONSPIRACY SO IMMENSE: THE WORLD OF JOE McCARTHY and Larry Tye’s more recent work, DEMAGOGUE: THE LIFE AND LONG SHADOW OF SENATOR McCARTHY. However, Risen presents an astute analysis reviewing the McCarthy hearings and his obfuscations, outright lies, and the careers he destroyed, as he turns to the role of an individual’s sexuality during the Red Scare.

Focusing on Carmel Offie, a U.S. State Department and later a Central Intelligence Agency official, who served as an indispensable assistant to a series of senior officials while combining his official duties with an ability to skirt regulations for his and others’ personal benefit. Offie’s career is important because he was gay and becomes the center of Risen’s discussion of how McCarthy and his Republican allies believed that sexual perverts had infiltrated the government and “were perhaps as dangerous as the actual Communists.” McCarthy and his allies helped push the politics of homophobia at a time of animosity toward Washington, particularly the State Department which was blamed for the loss of China a few months before McCarthy gave his damning speech in Wheeling, West Virginia. The name given to the move to dismiss and prosecute gay people was the “Lavender Scare.” Thousands would lose their jobs and careers due to their machinations as they now had another tool to fight their culture and political wars against the Truman administration and their supporters.

(Alger Hiss testifying in 1948)

It is clear from Risen’s account that McCarthy was able to rouse support because of the earlier work of the House Un-Activities Committee, the Chambers-Hiss imbroglio, and the actions of Richard M. Nixon. McCarthy would take advantage of the fall of China to the Communists and the outbreak of the Korean War. Further, certain personalities gravitated to the Wisconsin senator, and they would develop a relationship based on the need for power, ideology, and the ability to use each other. Two of those individuals were Alfred Kohlberg, a millionaire ideologue who made his money taking advantage of cheap Chinese labor and McCarthy would become his megaphone concerning the loss of China and the role of the State Department. The second individual was Roy Cohn, who in his later career became Donald Trump’s mentor. In his earlier career he would join McCarthy’s staff and mirror his viciousness, vindictiveness, and willingness to lie. Risen describes him as “the chief executive of McCarthyism, Inc., determining the senator’s targets, writing his talking points, and pushing him further than even he might have chosen to go.”

The fall of China to Mao Zedong and his forces greatly impacted American politics and paranoia. This was fostered by what is referred to as “the China Lobby,” a term often used for groups favoring the Republic of China on Taiwan under the leadership of Kuomintang head, Chiang Kai-Shek, an American ally during World War II. The China Lobby’s collective influence, fostered by Alfred Kohlberg and others, shaped policy and politics throughout the 1940s and 50s boosting and destroying careers as they enlisted McCarthy to their cause.

If we would set up an opposition to the China Lobby it would be called the “China hands,” career State Department diplomats and officials who had grown critical of Chiang Kai-Shek’s forces during the Chinese Civil War. They believed the US could not turn back to imperialism and the Chinese people had the right to determine their own future. Risen lays out the China lobby’s victory through McCarthy as many Asia experts in the State Department had their careers destroyed as well as Asia scholars at Harvard. Interestingly, the purge of the State Department deprived policy makers with experts on Asian countries and movements. It would be interesting to ponder what would have occurred in Korea and Vietnam if these individuals had been in place to offer their expertise. Perhaps the many errors surrounding the eventual “domino theory” could have been avoided.

Whether it was Hollywood, HUAC, or McCarthy, all of whom Risen explores in marvelous detail, the anti-communist hysteria of the early 1950s drew much of its energy from the ongoing war in Korea, exacerbated by the entrance of Chinese Communists troops into the war. Interestingly, General Douglas MacArthur’s headquarters in Tokyo became a satellite headquarters for the China lobby and the hard-core anti-communist right. Once MacArthur was fired by Truman it provided the hard core right with further ammunition against the president, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, and General George C. Marshall, and others who were critical of Chiang Kai-Shek and the Kuomintang.

Richard Nixon-[C]════ ⋆★⋆ ════

[C]“ 𝕋𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕤𝕒𝕚𝕕 ‘𝕊𝕠𝕟, 𝕕𝕠𝕟’𝕥 𝕔𝕙𝕒𝕟𝕘𝕖’
[C]𝔸𝕟𝕕 𝕀 𝕜𝕖𝕖𝕡 𝕙𝕠𝕡𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕨𝕠𝕟’𝕥 𝕤𝕖𝕖 𝕙𝕠𝕨 𝕞𝕦𝕔𝕙 𝕀 𝕙𝕒𝕧𝕖 ”

[C

(Richard M. Nixon)

The atmospherics of the time period are expertly recreated by the author. Risen’s descriptions of committee hearings, including the demeanor of witnesses, the response to questions, and the overall climate of this phase of American history allow the reader to feel as if they are in the committee rooms, the oval office, experiencing the political debates, and getting to know the major and minor players of the period.

A criticism of Risen is offered in Kevin Peraino’s New York Times book review entitled “Scarlet Fever: Culture in the United States is still driven by the political paranoia of the 1950s,” published on April 6, 2025. Peraino correctly writes; “Risen, a reporter at The New York Times who has written a history of Theodore Roosevelt and the Rough Riders, among other books, coyly insists that he is “not concerned with drawing parallels between the past and the present” and desires to “leave it up to the reader to find those as they will.” But this is disingenuous. In his 400-some pages Risen touches on anti-fascism, white supremacy, campus activism, anti-elitism, cancel culture, virtue signaling, doxxing, book bans, election interference, anti-immigrant racism, F.B.I. overreach, conspiracy thinking, antisemitism, the surveillance state, anti-colonialism, the Koch family and America First-style ultranationalism. To suggest all this amounts simply to a Rorschach test for his readers stretches credulity.”

In her recent New Yorker article, entitled; “Fear Factor: How the Red Scare reshaped American politics,” historian Beverly Gage concludes; “What can we learn about our current moment from all of this? Risen hopes that readers will decide for themselves. “This is a work of history, and as such it is not concerned with drawing parallels between the past and the present,” he writes. “I leave it up to the reader to find those as they will.” So, as a reader, let me offer a few thoughts.

The unfortunate truth is that most mechanisms of the Red Scare, including congressional hearings and loyalty investigations, would not be especially hard to revive. Indeed, recent developments have indicated that they might be deployed with genuine glee. Already, the Trump Administration has started asking for lists—of federal workers who attended D.E.I. training, of F.B.I. agents who investigated January 6th cases, of scientists engaged in now suspect areas of work. Trump himself has openly announced his intention to deploy the Justice Department and the F.B.I. against his personal, political, and ideological enemies.

Black and white image of Dwight Eisenhower sitting at a desk

(President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Oval Office)

The history of the Red Scare suggests that it won’t take many firings, federal inquiries, or acts of public humiliation to frighten a whole lot of people. But it also offers some reason to think that such intimidation methods may not be quite as effective this time around. For starters, there is much less agreement about the Trump Administration’s agenda than there was about Communism in its heyday. The Red Scare gained momentum because nearly everyone in American political life shared the same basic assumption: Communism is bad and poses an existential threat to the American way of life. It’s hard to come up with any contemporary issue that would generate the same powerful consensus.

Generally speaking, we also have better protections for political speech and assembly than Americans had in the fifties. Indeed, some of those protections are legacies of the Red Scare. In 1957, as the anti-Communist furor was winding down, the Supreme Court issued a series of decisions limiting some of the most sweeping methods deployed against political dissenters, including parts of the Smith Act.

But to say that Trump won’t necessarily succeed in setting off a new Red Scare is not to say that he won’t try. And, in this sort of politics, the trying is part of the game. As long as the nation’s “cultural Marxists” feel vulnerable to random accusations or secret investigations, they’ll likely be more careful about what they do and say. As Roy Cohn once instructed a young Donald Trump, much can be accomplished by attacking first and dealing with the consequences later.” Today, with trade wars, immigration, DOGE’s dismantling key aspects of the federal government, cutting foreign aid etc. we are now experiencing Cohn’s advice to Trump, and I wonder a few years down the road how bad the impact will be, and how long it might take to undo what he has done.

Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin during the Army-McCarthy hearings, with committee counsel Roy Cohn next to McCarthy and Republican Senator Ralph Flanders of Vermont standing at the center. Flanders, who was taking the lead in an effort to depose McCarthy, had just delivered a letter to McCarthy informing him that he intended to introduce a resolution to censure McCarthy. Here McCarthy responds saying that Flanders should take the witness stand if he has any information about the "Army-McCarthy row other than the 'usual smears... from the smear sheets.'" Flanders' original motion called for McCarthy to be stripped of his committee post. A revised motion eventually led to McCarthy's condemnation by the Senate.

(Army-McCarthy hearings, 1954)

THE TRIALS OF HARRY S. TRUMAN: THE EXTRAORDINARY PRESIDENCY OF AN ORDINARY MAN, 1945-1953 by Jeffrey Frank

April 6, 2025April 6, 2025szfreiberger American Diplomatic History, American Political History, Biography Leave a comment

(President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Vice President elect Harry S. Truman, Vice President Henry Wallace)

During my forty-four year teaching career on the secondary and university level I was often asked; “Who is your favorite President?” The answer came very easily, Harry S. Truman. My response was based on his personality, moral code, and his actions during his lifetime culminating in the presidency. My opinion is not based on hagiography, but on a clear view of his important successes, and the mistakes that he made. There have been a number of important biographies written about Truman, perhaps the best are the works of Alonzo Hamby and David McCullough. Both are balanced and quite readable. The latest effort to unmask the thirty-third president is Jeffrey Frank’s THE TRIALS OF HARRY S. TRUMAN: THE EXTRAORDINARY PRESIDENCY OF AN ORDINARY MAN, 1945-1953 which focuses on the major decisions made during his administration, and whether they were the correct ones that resulted in success, and those that ended in failure. Truman, like most people, is a complex person who assumed the presidency at a time when the world was still in crisis and Frank delves deeply into how he managed those calamities and whether his approach was correct or flawed.

Upon entering the White House with the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Truman was unprepared as the deceased president had kept him in the dark about virtually everything before dying three months into his fourth term. Truman’s position was untenable due to a myriad of crises he was forced to confront, making decisions, whose impact still reverberates in today’s world. Frank’s goal is to reevaluate Truman’s presidency and his decision making, puncturing the myth of his “Give Him Hell Harry” persona while concentrating on foreign policy issues, and less so on the Fair Deal, Truman’s domestic agenda. According to historian James Taub in his April 10, 2022, New York Times book review; “biographies have a built in bias toward giving their subjects too much credit for anything within reach; Frank leans almost in the opposite direction,” focusing more on Truman’s imperfections. In Frank’s case he leans almost totally in the opposite direction in presenting an important contribution to the Truman literature analyzing many of the important achievements and disappointments during his administration.

President Harry Truman and Gen. Douglas MacArthur sit in the back seat of the sedan that carried them to their two-hour conference on Wake Island on Oct. 14, 1950.

(President Harry S. Truman and General Douglas MacArthur at Wake Island, October 14, 1950)

Frank immediately offers an astute analysis of Truman’s personality and decision making that would impact American foreign policy for generations. He considered indecisiveness to be a character flaw which allowed him to decide questions quickly and intuitively – “making what he called ‘jump decisions’ with all the risks of undue haste.” This trait was evident throughout his presidency. Truman was an insecure man based on his background and earlier career possessing an imperfect knowledge of the people around him, some of whom like Secretary of State James Byrne and Vice President Henry Wallace believed that they should have been president. The problem was that he met many of his cabinet members and administration officials for the first time on assuming office. Further he was too deferential to military leaders, especially George C. Marshall, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Douglas MacArthur. One individual he relied on a great deal was his fourth Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, whose stubbornness concerning the Cold War would lead Truman into many dangerous policy decisions. To better understand Truman, it helps to understand how he was guided and affected by these men and others, i.e., political enemies in Congress, a generation of powerful newspaper columnists who disliked Truman, assorted scientists and engineers, and “hangers-on from Missouri,” who cast doubt concerning his integrity. Frank continues arguing that Truman liked the reputation of honesty and directness, but he could fudge, and lie, when he felt concerned or embarrassed. He had a temper and like most presidents held grudges especially if it involved his family. This is an astute analysis that captures Truman’s true nature and how it impacted the impactful decisions he was forced to make.

The decision making process is evident throughout the narrative. In a book that was dominated by the decision making that led to the Korean War and the resulting “police action” and its results, and policies surrounding the use of and the possibility of sharing atomic secrets which led to the hydrogen bomb and the nuclear arms race, the author does not provide enough depth in his discussions of other important policies. The process that created the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Crisis, and the creation of NATO needed greater discussion as it would have been beneficial for the reader to have been exposed to a more in depth analysis of these measures.

Black and white photo of Harry Truman holding newspaper with headline "Dewey Defeats Truman"

From the outset Truman viewed the Soviet Union as a country inhabited by “semi-primitives, incapable of advanced thought, a people that somehow had managed to explode a nuclear something.” He regarded Stalin as “Uncle Joe,” similar to politicians in Jackson, Mo. and held to the idea that the Soviet Politburo, not Stalin, made the major decisions and was to blame for Soviet duplicity. This attitude is evident after the Potsdam Conference, the Berlin Crisis, and the Russian decision to support Kim Il-Sung’s invasion of South Korea. This view was reinforced by his last Secretary of State Dean Acheson who probably had the greatest influence on Truman than any other official and greatly affected the conclusions he reached.

Within the Truman administration there were numerous personality conflicts that needed to be managed. First, the inability of Acheson to get along with Defense Secretary Louis Johnson. Second, Truman’s inability to work with Secretary of Commerce Henry Wallace due to his left leaning policies; Secretary of State and Defense Secretary George C. Marshall’s dislike of Douglas MacArthur because of his imperious nature; both Acheson and Truman found it difficult to work with then Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, who Truman saw as pursuing appeasement toward the Soviet Union; and the plight of Secretary of the Navy, James Forrestal’s mental condition fostered difficulties with most individuals that he came in contact with. These are just a few of the personality conflicts that existed among administration officials. Throughout these discussions Frank provides an exceptional window into Truman’s personality and thought process. Further the author provides wonderful descriptions of the many characters that dominated the American domestic and foreign policy scene throughout Truman’s presidency. His description of George Kennen is a case in point as he describes him as “an enormously perceptive and spookily prescient, qualities that eluded Bynes, whose missteps on Russia were nothing compared to his missteps with Truman.”

Harry S. Truman, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin at the Potsdam Conference

(Joseph Stalin, Harry Truman, and Winston Churchill at the Potsdam Conference, July, 1945)

Frank is correct in stressing that the watershed moment for Truman and the coming Cold War was England’s decision to effectively end military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey. This would lead to the United States filling the power vacuum in the Middle East and elsewhere as it would culminate in American aid to those countries and ultimately the Marshall Plan which would provide aid to European countries. Frank could have developed this further as the Marshall Plan was designed as a program to help Europe recover economically so they could serve as markets for American products and enhance the American economy. This is indicative of Frank’s approach to the many topics in his monograph. While he does delve into the creation of the European Recovery Act, another name for the Marshall Plan, he gives short shrift to other areas.

Another watershed event that Frank is correctly addresses his discussion of the 1948 election where an underdog Truman shocks the political world by defeating New York governor Thomas Dewey. For nearly four years the Truman presidency experienced a great deal of success in the foreign policy realm, though less so domestically. However, in the ensuing four years Truman would not be as successful and was prone to make poor decisions.

A further turning point was the implementation of NSC 68 as it should be seen as a lesson in how American foreign policy was being developed – shaped by the expanding role of the nation’s defense and intelligence agencies. The document called for a massive increase in defense spending in the hazardous post-war world which would allow the United States to confront and contain Soviet expansion. It is clear that the document was impacted by the “who lost China?” debate and the rise of Joseph McCarthy, two issues that Frank should have discussed in greater detail.

Frank takes his deepest dives when discussing the implications of decisions relating to the development of the Atomic bomb and its use, and events surrounding the Korean war. A number of scientists involved in the A bomb project favored sharing the technology and the creation of an international regulating body as a means of preventing a nuclear arms race. Truman was adamant in his opposition concerning the sharing of nuclear knowledge, but did support a role for the international community to regulate peaceful ways to use that information. Further, Truman had no qualms about dropping the two atomic devices, and if Japan had not surrendered he would have approved dropping a third bomb because his advisors inflated the Soviet menace, and the US needed to project unflinching firmness which would send a message to Stalin. In the end, because of Acheson’s influence the International Atomic Energy Commission was created as well as the Atomic Energy Committee domestically.

(Korean War, June–August 1950 Map showing North Korean advances in the Korean War in June–August 1950)

The Korean War proved to be Truman’s Rubicon as he committed US troops to beat back the North Korean invasion and allowed MacArthur to cross the Yalu River with American troops provoking Chinese entry into the conflict. Truman and Acheson believed that the Soviet Union was behind the North Korean invasion as Stalin was influenced by Acheson’s “defense perimeter speech” on January 12, 1950, which omitted South Korea. Truman’s belief in what would become the “domino theory” at a time when the Sino-Soviet split was in its early stages is a total misreading of the struggle between Mao Zedong and Stalin for leadership in the Communist world which would impact US foreign policy for two decades.

The role of General Douglas MacArthur is especially important because Truman did not rein him in and almost gave him card blanche to conduct the war anyway he saw fit. This would lead to China’s entrance into the war which would prolong the “bloody” police action for almost three years. Further, the Wake Island conference between Truman and MacArthur reflected the general’s disrespect for the president as he treated Truman as his equal and provided false information concerning Chinese intentions as Truman did not stand up to military figures until in this case it was too late. The summary notes of the meeting reflect “a chronicle of extraordinary disrespect by a general toward his commander-in-chief. Out of pride, or unwilling suspension of disbelief, Truman was unable to recognize the impertinence before his eyes.”

: President Harry Truman with Bess and Margaret Truman

(Margaret, Harry, and Bess Truman)

According to Frank, Truman “saw the North Korean invasion not only as a test of national will, but of his personal backbone. Truman was in a quandary, partly of his own making. To do nothing meant ignoring the administration’s policy blueprint, NSC-68; risking American prestige; and possibly surrendering Korea and Formosa.” However, if he chose the military option, with available manpower, there was no way to predict, or control what might happen next as Eisenhower warned him. Interestingly, in the midst of the crisis when Chinese troops crossed the Yalu in late November 1950 Truman committed a major faux pas when asked at a press conference if he would deploy Atomic weapons, Truman responded, “There has always been active consideration of its use…it includes every weapon we have.” This would send allies into an uproar and allowed MacArthur to begin choosing the North Korean sites he would use atomic weapons to destroy.

Despite Truman’s limitations, according to Henry Dykstal: “it is remarkable how much he accomplished despite this. Truman set the terms for the post–World War II alliances and determined how the Cold War would be fought for decades. He began the government’s response to the Civil Rights movement by desegregating the armed forces. And when Medicare passed in 1965, Truman was given the first card in recognition of his pioneering efforts in creating a health-care safety net.

(Secretary of State Dean Acheson)

He was a private, ordinary man: the last president not to have gone to college, a man who was chosen to be vice president for lack of a better option. He took hell from all sides and left, if not popular, with some everyday dignity. He and Bess departed Washington by themselves in their own ’53 Chrysler, staying in modest motor courts and unaccompanied by security on the way home to Missouri. Frank has made a case for a man who, when given the responsibility of the entire country, was able to thread many needles, based on personal confidence, trust in the right people, and healthy relationships with family and friends.”* But one must remember in the end Truman held an unrealistic view of American power. As Frank argues “he held fast to the confident, and ruinous, idea that, from a great distance-and with no easily understood national interest at stake-the United States could successfully wage a war and administer a lasting peace.” As Walter Lippman wrote, the Truman Doctrine was “inflated globalism” which led to “misinformation, miscalculation, and misjudgment at the highest levels of decision and command” which would, and did not end well.

*Henry Dykstal. “A Private Gentleman: On The Trials of Harry Truman,” Los Angeles Review of Books, March 1, 2022.

(Harry S. Truman being sworn in as President, April 12, 1945)

AN UNFINISHED HISTORY: A PERSONAL HISTORY OF THE 1960S by Doris Kearns Goodwin

January 29, 2025szfreiberger American cultural history, American Political History, American Social History, Biography Leave a comment

Image: Richard Goodwin and Doris Kearns Goodwin

(Author Doris Kearns Goodwin with her husband, Richard Goodwin, at commencement ceremonies at UMass-Lowell on May 29, 2010)

For over ten years I had the pleasure of living and teaching in Concord, MA, a town with a deep history and a number of famous residents. One of those residents was Doris Kearns Goodwin who could be seen often on Sunday mornings at the Colonial Inn having breakfast. It was my pleasure as Chair of the History Department at Middlesex School to welcome her as a speaker at our school and expose our students to a gifted historian with a deep understanding of the American condition past and present. Her biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, the Roosevelts, and the Fitzgeralds and Kennedys stand out for their deep research, insightful analysis, and a writing style that draws the reader to her subject. Other books reflected on her experience as a White House fellow in the Johnson administration, an analysis of the leadership of the subjects of her biographies, and even a personal memoir growing up in Brooklyn and sharing a love for the Dodgers with her father. Her latest work, AN UNFINISHED HISTORY: A PERSONAL HISTORY OF THE 1960S can be classified as a biography, a memoir, as well as an important work of history assessing and reassessing the impactful events of the 1960s.

The story centers on her relationship of forty-six years with her husband Richard Goodwin, a significant historian and public figure in his own right. Theirs was a loving relationship between two individuals who loved their country and did their best to contribute to its success. Richard Goodwin, an adviser to presidents, “was more interested in shaping history,” Doris says, “and I in figuring out how history was shaped.” Their bond is at the heart of her latest work providing an intimate look at their relationship, family, and many of the important historical figures that they came in contact with. The book focuses on trying to understand the achievement and failures of the leaders they served and observed, in addition to their personal debates over the progress and unfinished promises of the country they served and loved.

Image: Richard Goodwin and Lyndon B. Johnson

(President Lyndon B. Johnson prepares for his State of the Union address with, from left, Richard Goodwin, Jack Valenti and Joseph A. Califano, Jr. at the White House in Washington on Jan. 12, 1966)

Goodwin’s recounting of her life with her husband encompassing Dick’s career before their marriage, and then after they tied the knot. In a sense it is a love story that lasted over four decades, and it also embraces the many significant roles played by Dick and his spouse. The events of the 1960s are revisited in detail. The major domestic accomplishments and foreign policy decisions are examined in detail from the perspective of the participants in which they were familiar with and had personal relationships. Doris conducts intensive research and analysis and integrates her husband’s actions and thoughts throughout. In addition, she is a wonderful storyteller relating her own experiences and that of her spouse.

Doris begins her memoir recounting her search for the young “Dick” and searching his early diary entries and letters from the 1950s onward. She describes a young man in love with America, a theme that is carried throughout the book. Dick believed in Lincoln’s credo – “the right of anyone to rise to the level of his industry and talents – would inform every speech he drafted, every article he wrote, and every cause he pursued.” The power couple relied extensively on Dick’s personal archive which he assiduously maintained throughout his career and retirement years for many of the stories and commentary that Doris relates. This personal archive was in storage for years and emerged during their senior years, i.e.; they had 30 boxes alone on John F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign.

(Bobby Kennedy)

A major theme of the memoir was “the tremor” that existed in their marriage as Dick was loyal to Kennedy, and Doris to Lyndon B. Johnson. Doris provides intimate details of their marriage and overall relationship relating to personal struggles, politics, and portrayals of prominent figures, i.e.; date night, watching the 1960 presidential debates years later, the origin of JFK’s inaugural address Dicks role in the Peace Corps, Latin American policy, including the Alliance for Progress. etc. Dick developed a special relationship with JFK which was shattered upon his assassination. Interestingly, Doris spends a great deal of time discussing Dick’s transition from an early member of the New Frontier who worked on Civil Rights among his many portfolios to taking his talents as a speech writer in support of Lyndon Johnson.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of the book is how Doris recounts meaningful events decades later. A Cuban Missile Conference in which Fidel Castro and Robert McNamara and co. attending while they were all in their eighties was eye opening, as was Dick’s meeting with Che Guevara which had implications for Dick’s career. Throughout Doris’ wit and humor are on display as she writes “here I am in my eighties and my thirties at the same time. I’m burning my life candle at both ends” as she explored the many boxes Dick kept for decades.

(Doris Kearns Goodwin with LBJ/Richard Goodwin with JFK)

The book’s depth is enhanced by the many relationships the couple developed over the years. The ones that stand out obviously are the two presidents they served, but also Jackie Kennedy, Sarge Shriver, Bill Moyers, Robert F. Kennedy, and numerous others. For Doris it was a magical marriage full of fun, love, and serious debates; she writes, “….my debate with Dick was not a question of logic or historical citation. It was about the respective investments in our youth, questions of loyalty and love.”

Dick’s reputation was formed by his almost innate ability as a wordsmith that produced so many important speeches. From JFK’s Alliance for Progress speech to formulating the term “Great Society,” to authoring the “We Shall Overcome,” Voting Rights, and RFK’s “South Africa’s Day of Affirmation” speeches which all impacted history based on who was speaking Dick’s phraseology and thoughts. After writing for JFK and LBJ, Dick turned to writing and supporting Robert Kennedy, a move that would sever his relationship with LBJ.

(Doris Kearns marries Richard N. Goodwin on Dec. 14, 1975. About 170 people attended their Lincoln, MA, wedding, during which this photo was taken, including Boston Mayor Kevin H. White, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Norman Mailer, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., and Hunter Thompson. Photo credit: Photo by Marc Peloquin. Courtesy of Doris Kearns Goodwin Papers)

Doris Kearns and President Lyndon B. Johnson, White House Cabinet Room, Oct. 29, 1968. Kearns was Secretary of the White House Fellows Association, and the event marked the presentation of the White House Fellows Report on Youth Participation. Doris Kearns Goodwin Papers, courtesy of the Briscoe Center for American History. — (Doris Kearns and President Lyndon B. Johnson, White House Cabinet Room, Oct. 29, 1968. Kearns was Secretary of the White House Fellows Association, and the event marked the presentation of the White House Fellows Report on Youth Participation. Doris Kearns Goodwin Papers, courtesy of the Briscoe Center for American History)

L-R: Ricahrd Goodwin, Bill Moyers, President Lyndon B. Johnson. Photo by Yoichi Okamoto, courtesy of the LBJ Presidential Library.

Perhaps the finest chapter in the book in terms of incisive analysis is “Thirteen LBJ’s” where Doris drills down to produce part historical analysis and personality study. LBJ was very moody and insecure, and he often burst out his emotions. Johnson was very sensitive about the press as he saw himself as a master manipulator and he always suspected leaks which he despised. He went as far as planting “spies” among others he feared like Robert Kennedy. Johnson’s approach to people was called “the Johnson treatment,” which is on display during his meeting with Governor George Wallace of Alabama and Senator Everett Dirkson during the Civil Rights struggles. Johnson could be overbearing, but in his mind what he was trying to achieve on the domestic front was most important.

Political expediency was an approach that Johnson and Robert Kennedy would employ during the 1964 presidential campaign when LBJ ran for reelection and Kennedy for the Senate from New York. Though they despised each other, Kennedy needed LBJ’s political machine and popularity to win, and Johnson needed to shore up his support in New York since he was a southerner. For Johnson he would rather have had “Bobby” lose, but he wanted his vote in the Senate. The LBJ-RFK dynamic dominated Johnson’s political antenna. Johnson was paranoid of Kennedy and feared he would run to unseat him in 1968. When the Vietnam war splintered America and Robert Kennedy turned against the war it substantiated Johnson’s fears. Further, when Dick, then out of government came out against the war, later joining Kennedy’s crusade, Johnson once again was livid. From Dick’s perspective he acted in what he saw as the best interests of America.

Doris nicely integrates many of the primary documents from Dick’s treasure trove of boxes. Excerpts from many of Dicks speeches, his political and private opinions, transcripts from important meetings inside and outside the White House are all integrated in the memoir. As time went on Dick turned to Eugene McCarthy and helped him force Johnson to withdraw his candidacy in 1968 after the New Hampshire primary. Dick would join Kennedy once he declared for president. The campaign was short lived as RFK was assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan in Los Angeles after winning the California primary. Dick was devastated by Kennedy’s death and would eventually attend the 1968 Democratic Convention where he worked with McCarthy delegates to include a peace plank into the Democratic Party platform. Doris was also in Chicago and witnessed the carnage fostered by Mayor Daley and the Chicago police

(Mr. Goodwin with Jacqueline Kennedy and her lawyer, Simon H. Rifkind, rear, in Manhattan in 1966. Mr. Goodwin was for years identified with the Kennedy clan)

One of the criticisms of Doris’ memoir is her lack of attention to the political right and her obsession with the middle to political left. That being said it is important to remember that this is not a history of the 1960s but a personal memoir of two people who fell in love, married in 1975, and the narrative correctly revolves around their firsthand experiences and beliefs. Doris would go on to work for Johnson after he left the White House, splitting her time between teaching at Harvard and flying to Texas , to help with his memoirs. Doris rekindles the spark of idealism that launched the 1960s which is missing today. She introduces readers to the Kennedy-Johnson successes in racial justice, public education, and aid for the poor, all important movements. In addition, she delves into the debate about the conduct of the war in Vietnam, including the anti-war movement, and the toppling of a president. Doris Kearns Goodwin has done a useful service by recasting the 1960s in her vision. It is an excellent place to start a study of the period, and its impact on what appears to be a wonderful marriage.

Doris Kearns Goodwin And Richard Goodwin

JOHN LEWIS: IN SEARCH OF THE BELOVED COMMUNITY by Ray Arsenault

August 21, 2024August 21, 2024szfreiberger American Political History, American Social History, Biography Leave a comment

(John Lewis, third from left, walks with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as they begin the Selma to Montgomery march from Brown’s Chapel Church in Selma on March 21, 1965)

If you ever wanted to know what type of man John Lewis was, all you have to do is ask someone from the other side of the political aisle what their opinion is of him. In this case I would point to someone who disagreed with Lewis about every conceivable issue – former North Carolina Congressman and Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows who would respond to questions about the Georgia Congressman and Civil Rights leader – “he was my friend,” and Lewis would reciprocate those feelings. You might ask how two such disparate characters could call themselves friends – all you have to do is read Raymond Arsenault’s new biography, JOHN LEWIS: IN SEARCH OF THE BELOVED COMMUNITY to understand the unshakable integrity and believer in man’s humanity which made up the core of the former activist and progressive legislator.

Lewis believed in forgiveness and compassion as part of achieving what referred to as “the beloved community” where racial hatred would be eradicated, and we would all live in a world of fairness and equality as he was determined to replace the horrors of the past and present with his ideals. Arsenault’s biography cannot be described as a hagiography as he delves into Lewis’ life, decisions and actions carefully offering a great deal of praise, but the author does not shy away from his subject’s mistakes and faulty decisions. At a time when racial “dog whistles” dominate a significant element of the political class it is unsettling to listen to a presidential candidate demean his opponent’s racial heritage linking it to her intelligence and background. This has led to racially motivated violent rhetoric that permeates the news making it a useful exercise exploring the life of a civil rights leader who fought valiantly against these elements in our society.

(Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., stands on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., on Feb. 14, 2015. Rep. Lewis was beaten by police on the bridge on “Bloody Sunday” on March 7, 1965, during an attempted march for voting rights from Selma to Montgomery)

Arsenault’s monograph begins by exploring Lewis’ rural upbringing in Pike County, Alabama. Sharecropping was the main source of income in a white dominated economic system designed to keep tenant farmers under the thumb of their landlords. Any progress his parents might have achieved was never enough to escape poverty. For Lewis, growing up in this racial and economic system formed a social and intellectual laboratory as he hated working in the cotton fields and soon became intoxicated with education where the inequality of white and black opportunities was glaring. The structure of Jim Crow society dominated. Lewis had high hopes with the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas but the “massive resistance” the southern white supremacists responded with disabused Lewis that the decision would ameliorate the situation blacks found themselves locked into.

The development of Lewis’ approach to achieving change is explored in detail and we learn the impact of Martin Luther King, Jr. on Lewis at an early age. Arsenault spends a great deal of time delving into the King-Lewis relationship from the mid-1950s civil rights struggles through King’s assassination in April 1968. The development of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) which Lewis would come to lead, and King’s Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC) is important as it shows the dichotomy that existed in the Civil Rights movement particularly as they split from each other in the early 1960s as Black nationalists like Stokley Carmichael and H. Rap Brown advocated violence against white supremacists took over SNCC.

No matter what aspect of Lewis’ career Arsenault discusses he presents a balanced account offering intimate details whether delving into Lewis remarkable rise within the Civil Rights movements from the late 1950s to 1970; his exceptional organizational skills, the schism that developed and seemed to dominate the movement, his four years on the Atlanta City Council through his congressional career. In recounting Lewis’ decision-making, he relates how each judgement was reached and how it affected his social gospel of the beloved community ideology.

(Martin Luther King, Jr.)

Make no mistake the book is more than an intellectual approach to Lewis’ role in the Civil Rights movement. Arsenault seems to cover all the major aspects of the Civil Rights movement from sit ins, stand ins to boycotts challenging the White supremacist governors, sheriffs and other officials in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. Places like Selma, Jackson, Montgomery, Memphis come to dominate the narrative as does the impact of peaceful and violent events on Lewis’ belief system and planning.

For Lewis it was a battle to maintain his belief in nonviolent protest as a tool to uplift his community. At times he would become frustrated after he was physically beaten or arrested, but he would always seem to veer away from anything which would contradict his core ideas, even when close friends and other leaders moved away from a total non-violent approach. He grew angry when the younger generation turned to black power and confrontation, but he always remained loyal to his core principles.

Arsenault’s portrayal does reveal a confrontational and antagonistic strain in Lewis’ personality on rare occasions. One that comes to mind is the nastiness of his Georgia congressional campaign against his friend Julian Bond and fellow activist which cost both men a deep friendship when Lewis was victorious.

(Rosa Parks on a Montgomery bus in 1955)

Perhaps Arsenault’s most interesting chapters include Lewis’ evaluation of the Kennedy brothers who came late to the game of protecting civil rights workers. At the outset, Lewis had great hopes for John F. Kennedy, however he would be disappointed as the politics of Southern Democrats got in the way. With the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court would undermine in 2013, Lewis felt more optimistic, particularly with the metamorphosis of Robert Kennedy, especially after Dr. King was assassinated. There are chapters dealing with the Freedom Riders, important historical figures like Medgar Evers, Emmett Till, Rosa Parks, James Lawson, Andrew Young, Martin Luther King, Jr., James Farmer, Bayard Rustin, along with the Bull Conners, Sheriff Clark, Governors John Patterson and Lester Maddox among many that lend a sense of what it was like to deal with and live through such a tumultuous period in American history.

In the last third of the book, Arsenault describes the Republican resurgence under Gingrich, Reagan and the Bushes which made it difficult for Lewis to navigate the House of Representatives as any liberal agenda was dead on arrival on the House floor. At times he grew upset for the lack of progress that resulted in few if any legislative victories. He had high hopes for the election of Barack Obama, but it was not to be due to Republican obstructionism and in many cases outright racism. The arrival of Donald Trump took his frustration to new levels as events in Charlottesville, Va, a Muslim ban, hideous commentary concerning immigrants, and the actions of Mitch McConnell in the Senate made the achievement of a “beloved community” impossible. Before his death, Lewis would witness a Republican party taking America backwards trying successfully in many cases to undo fifty years of progress made under Democratic leadership – something against which he had repeatedly warned. What separated Lewis from most of his Congressional colleagues was his historical perspective. He could not accept the racism of the Trump administration which returned him to the dark days of the 1960s culminating in the deaths of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy.

(Robert Kennedy’s speech in Indianapolis, IN following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.)

In light of Donald Trump’s racial attacks against Kamala Harris, Lewis’ life story seems apropos in light of where we are as a society and how far, or perhaps not as far we have come after the Civil Rights movement. If there is one area that Arsenault could have explored more was learning about the people who knew Lewis the longest and what these relationships actually meant to him. However, Arsenault’s book is well written, researched based on documents and interviews, and has produced a thoughtful and measured account of Lewis’ life and work which continued even as he contracted pancreatic cancer and worked until ten days before his death in 2020 as he visited Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, DC.

(Tear gas fills the air as state troopers, on orders from Gov. George Wallace, break up a march in Selma on March 7, 1965, on what is known as “Bloody Sunday”)

CALHOUN: AMERICAN HERETIC by Robert Elder

July 20, 2023szfreiberger American cultural history, American Political History, American Social History, Biography Leave a comment

(John C. Calhoun)

Today we live in a country where white supremacism is on the rise, descendants of former slave’s demand reparations, state legislatures try to obstruct the teaching of black history, the College Board gives in to extremists who did not like the content of Advanced Placement African history classes, the Supreme Court ends affirmative action for colleges, and state’s rights advocates seem to have the floor. Three years short of our 250^th anniversary, the United States finds itself with a bifurcated population politically, economically, and socially over issues of race. The question is how did we get here, when did it originate, and who is responsible? Historian Robert Elder tries to provide some of the historical background in his recent biography of the former 19^th century South Carolina Senator, Vice President, and Secretary of State John C. Calhoun, in CALHOUN: AMERICAN HERETIC. Some might argue how a man who was so impactful in the first half of the 19^th century could still maintain such influence today. The answer offered by Elder is clear. Calhoun, a slave owner who argued that slavery was a positive good for America, furthered the doctrine of “state interposition” which for many became the legal argument for secession that led to the Civil War, and was the dominant spokesperson for the south, state’s rights, and the enslavement of blacks deserves a great deal of credit for setting the United States on the path it now finds itself confronting – a political climate that does not seem to have an exit ramp, with racial violence on the upswing.

(Henry Clay)

Elder’s monograph should be considered the definitive account of Calhoun’s life through the lens of a cultural and ideological biography. The account encompasses all facets of Calhoun’s life and covers the most notable events of the first half of the 19^th century. In doing so Elder traces the intellectual development of his subject very carefully. He pulls no punches as he outlines in detail how Calhoun went from a proponent of optimistic nationalism featuring what historians refer to as Henry Clay’s American system which consisted of internal improvements such as roads and canals linking the country’s economic development, a low tariff to promote trade, a National Bank, and the use of federal funds to assist the states to achieve his goals.

As the War of 1812 approached Calhoun justified his views of federal power over the states as a necessity because of the exigencies of war. Further his ideology was predicated on the concept of “honor,” particularly as it related to British impressment of American citizens. Throughout his career honor was foremost in his mind especially in debates with colleagues and those who opposed his beliefs. Elder has engaged in a prodigious amount of research that yields wonderful character studies of Calhoun’s contemporaries. An interesting example of his commitment to his personal honor belief system is the author’s description of his disagreements reflected in debates with Virginia’s House leader, John Randolph. Calhoun as his wont was to employ a carefully crafted barrage of logic that demolished his opponent, raising points with surgical precision one after the other. It was Calhoun’s strength of debate and putting pen to paper that allowed him to be the equal among the great figures of the period, like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, among others.

The head and shoulders of a man with light skin and gray hair nearly fills this vertical portrait painting. Shown against a peanut-brown background, the man’s shoulders are angled to our left, and he looks off to our right with blue eyes. His gray hair curls around his forehead and over his ears. His bushy gray eyebrows gather over a furrowed brow, and sideburns grow down past his earlobes. His long, straight, slightly hooked nose and high cheekbones are set into his long, oval-shaped face. His pink lips are closed over a rounded chin, which is framed by vertical wrinkles. The white edge of a collar peeks above the high neck of a velvety black garment with wide lapels. The area beneath the man’s shoulders is a dark ivory color, perhaps indicating that this painting is unfinished.

(President Andrew Jackson)

However, by the late 1820s he argued that the tariff of 1828 was unconstitutional. His solution, referred to as the South Carolina Exposition and Protest, argued the concept of “nullification” whereby the states had the right to declare federal actions as “null and void.” His viewpoint was clear as the Tariff of 1816 was designed to provide revenue, not to encourage manufacturing. The 1828 version was not a revenue measure. At this point Calhoun was not calling for disunion, as Elder argues he was trying to find a way to preserve the structure of the Union consistent with the principle that power resided in the people, although the people of states.” Calhoun would work creatively to find solutions for problems that arose within the system.

Calhoun was always a fervent defender of slavery though his justifications were part of an evolutionary process. He always argued that treating slaves as property gave masters a financial interest in their well-being. Calhoun was very wary of the British who ended the transatlantic slave trade in 1807 and ended slavery at home in 1833. His concern rested on his fear that London would undermine slavery as the United States expanded and their machinations throughout the western hemisphere. He would consistently point out British hypocrisy especially its rule of India and of course with his Irish lineage his dislike of England was predictable.

Calhoun’s mindset could be very convoluted as he saw no connection between European feudalism with its lords and vassals and southern slaveholding society. For Calhoun slavery was a “positive good” as Africans achieved a degree of civilization they had never previously attained. Further, he argued that slaves were treated better than European laborers who existed among the poor houses of Europe. Slavery created a stable society unlike the labor unrest in the north. Finally, he stated slavery was “an institution uniquely suited – morally, economically, politically – to the conditions of the modern world.” A believer in English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number, slavery fit perfectly as black inferiority and lack of progress were self-evident. Calhoun could compromise at times (see the Missouri Compromise of 1820 or the Compromise of 1850), however, when he believed southern rights centering on slavery were threatened he would draw the line.

(Daniel Webster)

Elder is correct when he argues that the second watershed in Calhoun’s development apart from 1828 occurred in 1836 as he finally came to reject Jeffersonian principles he once espoused. First was conflict with Andrew Jackson who created “Pet Banks” that his administration could fund instead of a National Bank – this would foster the Panic of 1837, the worst depression in US history to that point as cotton prices were hit hard. Further, the election of Martin Van Buren in 1836 reinforced Calhoun’s fears of hereditary monarchy. The result Calhoun’s views of state’s rights solidified resulting in his vehement support for slavery. These views were further exacerbated with the Texas annexation crisis, the Mexican War, and northern attempts to block or limit any expansion of slavery into territories acquired from the war. For Calhoun legislation like the Wilmot Proviso which would not allow slavery in any territory obtained from Mexico pushed Calhoun over the edge arguing that if this went into effect disunion could only result.

(Floride Calhoun, wife of John C. Calhoun)

Elder’s portrayal is of a brilliant man driven by intensity and unrelenting ambition. He believed that “Providence had placed him” on earth to complete his duty for his country. Elder strongly suggests that as Calhoun’s political career evolved his moods began to darken as does his belief system. Elder states he could be “noble, stubborn, suicidal or delusional,” all of which is supported by Calhoun’s own writings, speeches, political activity, and interaction with his contemporaries. Had Calhoun simply argued that slavery was a necessary evil whose abolishment would mean disaster for the south instead of arguing in a very tortuous manner that it was a moral good, economically sound, and made the south more democratic, he might be viewed more positively by history. However, his makeup would not allow this, and his defense of white racism, treatment of his slaves, and stubbornness are responsible for his reputation.

In Elder’s telling, Calhoun loved his country and his region, and despite his flaws his impact on American history cannot be denied. Elder’s work is one of objectivity that is well supported by the documentary evidence and should remain the most important biography of Calhoun for many years to come.

(John C. Calhoun)

A FEVER IN THE HEARTLAND: THE KLU KLUX KLAN’S PLOT TO TAKE OVER AMERICA, AND THE WOMAN WHO STOPPED THEM by Timothy Egan

June 6, 2023June 6, 2023szfreiberger American cultural history, American Political History, American Social History Leave a comment

( David C. Stephenson)

Today, we live in an America beset by racist groups who over the last decade seem to have been accepted by a significant element of society. The anti-Semitic murders at a Pittsburgh synagogue and the murder of George Floyd are just two examples in a world where white supremacists and extremists engage in attacks against Jews, Blacks, Muslims, the LGBT community, Asians, and Hispanics seemingly on a daily basis. If that was not bad enough, according to the Anti-Defamation League, the ACLU, and other civil rights organizations violence against minorities is on the rise along with malevolent threats against what racists see as “the other” in our society, while many politicians, including an ex-president grant these groups legitimacy through their public support and commentary. For some this period is an aberration in our history, however, the historical record does not support that conclusion.

One of the more interesting historical examples is the 1920s – the Jazz Age, a period which witnessed the height of a uniquely American hate group, the Ku Klux Klan. Their region of support was not the south, but the heartland and the west. They hated Blacks, Jews, Catholics, and immigrants and would do anything to block these groups from entering the United States and achieving the American dream. The group was led by a charismatic charlatan named D. C. Stephenson. This era with its focus on the KKK and its “Grand Dragon” is the subject of Timothy Egan’s latest book, A FEVER IN THE HEARTLAND: THE KLU KLUX KLAN’S PLOT TO TAKE OVER AMERICA, AND THE WOMAN WHO STOPPED THEM. Egan, a Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award Winner has written a number of excellent monographs including, THE WORST HARD TIME describing the depression and THE IMMORTAL IRISHMAN which deals with the Great Irish Famine of the 1840s. In his latest work he has produced a riveting historical thriller which deals with one of the darkest periods in American history. The period under discussion is highlighted by a cunning con man and his supporters and the woman who stopped them. The narrative evokes deep emotions as it reflects a deeper concern that we are now inside an even more dangerous period of racial hatred and violence.

(Wesley Hiram Evans)

Egan immediately lays out the problem in his introduction as in the 1920s the KKK controlled three state governorships including Indiana which Stephenson ruled as an autocrat, and a number of mayor’s offices nationwide. In addition, the KKK had its own 30,000 man legally deputized police force, and the state of Indiana passed the world’s first eugenic sterilization law, something that Adolf Hitler noticed and studied. In the South whites wiped out Black voting rights and imposed Jim Crow laws absolving government from supporting equal rights and was supported by a Supreme Court with only one justice dissenting. Lastly, the KKK claimed fifteen US senators and 75 House members to impact Congress.

As in all of Egan’s works A FEVER IN THE HEARTLAND is deeply researched and reflects the author’s command of the material. From the outset Egan argues that the KKK problem began at the conclusion of the Civil War with its foundation in Tennessee under the leadership of the defeated Confederate general, Nathan Bedford Forrest who unleashed a reign of terror throughout the south after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the accession of Andrew Johnson to the presidency who was an out and out racist. Lynchings, murders, violence rampaged throughout the south until General Ulysses S. Grant assumed the presidency and by 1872 he had crushed the Klan and Forrest disbanded it.

The Klan would rise again with a slightly different agenda beginning in 1921 sending recruiters throughout the Midwest providing employment for D. C. Stephenson was living in the segregated city of Evansville, IN with the hope of expanding the organization in the north. Stephenson would soon move on to Indianapolis, a city Egan describes along with other midwestern cities and states as having become racially unhinged following WWI. People were fed racist lies and religious bigotry with no basis in fact by the Klan under the leadership of Stephenson, who Egan describes as a “drunk and a fraud, a bootlegger and a blackmailer,” a rapist and a man prone to lies, violence, using bribery to achieve his aims. He left a family behind in rags and distress who he refused to support.

(Madge Oberholtzer)

Egan explores Stephenson’s life and beliefs in detail and concludes he was nothing more than a huckster who traded in racial theories that were demeaning and dangerous. He would help reconstruct the KKK in part as a business investment that eventually would make him a millionaire. Egan lays out Stephenson’s strategy and the resulting machinations which would allow him to take over the state of Indiana leading to his view that “I am the law” which he would use as a basis for his actions. He would help spread KKK doctrine to Texas, Colorado, Ohio, and Pennsylvania as his ultimate goal was to use the Klan as a vehicle to take over the federal government and gain the presidency. Egan carefully develops the theme that racial hatred was not a southern phenomenon, but a northern one as membership in the Klan in the Midwest was rapidly expanding throughout the early 1920s. This expansion was due to the Klan’s rejection of modernism and a belief the world was spinning too fast and the threat of the “other,” southern European, Russian, and Italian immigrants who were mostly Jews and Catholics were a threat to what they viewed as the traditional American way of life.

(President Calvin Coolidge)

Aside from Stephenson there are a number of important historical figures that Egan introduces. Henry Ford, the catalyst for the rise in anti-Semitism through his newspaper the Dearborn Independent which had a circulation of over one million and the use of his wealth. Patrick O’Donnell, bravely stood against the Klan using his newspaper, Tolerance to spread the truth about their beliefs and the danger they presented. Hiram Wesley Evans, former Imperial Wizard who eventually shared leadership of the Klan with Stephenson and later had a falling out with him. Daisy Douglas Barr, a Quaker preacher who held a broad vision of White Supremacy and worked to develop a role for women in the Klan. President Calvin Coolidge who did nothing to offset the Klan’s popularity and used it for his personal political benefit. Governor Edwin Jackson and Senator James Watson both from Indiana owed their political success to Stephenson.

Egan’s narrative is in two parts. First he developed the strategies and actions of the Klan from 1920-1925. The author drills deeply into Klan ideology and the personalities that spread their beliefs. He points to numerous historical examples from the 1921 Tulsa Massacre, the acceptance of eugenics as science to justify Klan actions, Klan control of state legislatures to implement their programs, events designed to attract more members and reinforce their beliefs and goals, and the lack of response by state and federal officials to the violence against Blacks, Jews, Catholics, and immigrants. Egan will then shift his story to that of the events of March 1925 and introduce a series of new characters, the most important of which is Madge Oberholtzer, the manager of the Indiana Young People’s Reading Circle, a special section of the Indiana Department of Public Instruction. When she heard rumors that her job and program were about to be eliminated because of budget cuts she turned to Stephenson who she felt had the political power to assist her. Stephenson would take a shine to her which in the end resulted in a brutal rape and the death of Oberholtzer.

Egan explores the events that led to Oberholtzer’s rape and murder and the trial that followed. He introduces Asa Smith, Oberholtzer’s lawyer, and Will Remy, an unassuming prosecutor for Marion County, IN, both of whom wanted to destroy Stephenson and cut the Klan down to size. Egan’s descriptions are disturbing because of the violence involved and the political system that Stephenson sought to manipulate to obtain his acquittal at a time when there were between two and five million Klan members nationwide.

(Prosecutor William Henderson Remy and jury that convicted Stephenson))

Egan writes with adept authority with an eye toward disconcerting detail as a White Protestant racial movement sought to take advantage of the historical racial animus that has existed in the United States from its outset. Jeff Shesol’s New York Times book review of April 2, 2023, encompasses how deeply the Klan became ingrained in American society; “It offered a more expansive set of resentments, providing more points of entry for aggrieved white Protestants. Racial purists were armed with the so-called science of eugenics and stoked with fears of being replaced by “insane, diseased” Catholics and Jews. Moral purists and traditionalists were called from the pulpit to wage war against modernity — enlisting in K.K.K. vice squads that beat adulterers and smashed up speakeasies. But the Klan did more, in this period, than raise the fiery cross. For a startlingly large number of Americans, Egan writes, the Klan “gave meaning, shape and purpose to the days.” It was possible to do your shopping at Klan-approved stores and cook Klan-approved recipes, to enroll your sons in the Junior K.K.K. and daughters in the Tri-K Klub, and to spend evenings singing Klan songs by the piano. The K.K.K., in later parlance, was an ecosystem. “Folks got their news from editors loyal to the Klan,” Egan explains, or from a disinformation network that spread lies with speed. Corruption kept the enterprise running and growing: The police and politicians were bribed; businesses owned by Jews, Catholics or Blacks were shaken down; leaders and recruiters — including pastors — got a cut of initiation fees, dues and robe sales.”

Egan’s main theme that Oberholtzer’s death and Stephenson’s conviction stopped the Klan before it could take over America goes a bit too far. Granted, it was a major reason why the Klan’s membership rapidly declined within a few years of the trial, but more importantly was the graft and public hypocrisy reflected in the rot exhibited by Klan leadership and organization played more of a role in its regression. In addition, there were other actors who were emboldened to take on the Klan including Black editors, Jewish and Catholic groups which all contributed to the weakening and loss of influence by the Klan.

Despite Egan’s overemphasis of Oberholtzer’s role in the narrative the book is clearly written, well supported, and an addictive read. Anyone with interest in understanding the rise and fall of the Klan, and perhaps the rise of White Supremacy today should take the time to read Egan’s work – it will be eye opening.

THE DIVIDER: TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE, 2017-2021 by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser

March 28, 2023szfreiberger American Political History 1 Comment

HERSHEY, PA - DECEMBER 10, 2019:President Donald Trump gestures the confident fist pump on stage at a campaign rally at the Giant Center.

This week I have tackled Peter Baker and Susan Glasser’s exceptional account of the Trump administration, THE DIVIDER: TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE, 2017-2021. As I was reading the book I tried not to pay attention to the news of an impending indictment of the former president, but it was impossible. Baker and Glasser’s narrative are almost encyclopedic in its detail and as I pushed on words describing the Trump presidency kept going through my mind; scary, unimaginable, unprecedented, unbelievable, inconceivable, overwhelming, mind-boggling, etc. Today I find myself comparing events and comments related to the Trump presidency with the barrage of racist, anti-Semitic tropes that the former president is currently bombarding the airwaves and it seems he is willing to foster violence and say or do anything that will protect him. It is the Roy Cohn playbook on steroids and there is no daylight concerning Trump as president and Trump as a possible defendant in the Maro-Lago documents case, the Georgia election obstruction case, the special prosecutor’s investigation into January 6^th, and the hush money paid to a porn star grand jury in New York. All the descriptive words mentioned above apply.

After reading THE DIVIDER one should not be surprised by Trump’s current behavior. The authors dig into all aspects of the Trump presidency, be it how the White House was run, domestic policy, foreign policy, and of course Trump’s behavior. The cast of characters is long, and concerning based on how people were chosen for government positions and how frequently they were fired or left based on their own concerns. The authors repeatedly point out that people like James Mattis, Rex Tillerson, John Kelly, H. R. McMaster and numerous others took positions in the administration and remained long after they wanted to as a means of protecting the country, but all would be gone within a year. The authors point to March 2018 as the watershed moment as Trump relieved himself of anyone who could control him and now was able to do as he pleased, not necessarily for the betterment of the country, but for the betterment of Donald J. Trump. It is clear, no matter what your opinion of Donald Trump is, America has never experienced such a presidency and post-presidency.

Baker and Glasser’s narrative can easily be framed beginning with Trump’s “American Carnage” speech given at his inauguration on January 6, 2021 encouraging his followers to march on the capitol and overturn his election defeat. The authors base their work on assiduous research culled from over 300 interviews, private diaries, contemporaries notes, emails, texts, along with personal access to many of the players inside and outside the Trump administration. For Baker and Glasser Trump was a rogue president who took the country closer to conflict with Iran, North Korea, and to the brink of blowing up NATO even as Russia prepared to use force to redraw the map of Europe. His erratic behavior and belief in his own instincts saw him vindictively pullout thousands of troops from Germany because he was mad at Angela Merkel who refused to kowtow to his ego. He tried to buy Greenland after a billionaire friend suggested it to him. He secretly sought to abolish a federal appeals court that ruled against him. He privately expressed admiration for Hitler’s generals, while calling his own generals “fucking losers,” and subjecting them and others to racist rants that made it clear his “shithole countries” commentary was not an aberration.

(Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster shakes hands with President Donald Trump at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida)

Trump was consumed by his own image on television and twitter and both forms of communication dominated his presidency. Whether dealing with FOX “news” and their minions, a daily barrage of tweets, Trump needed to dominate the airwaves with his worldview. From the outset of the administration people like Jared Kushner, Reince Priebus, Steve Bannon, Steven Miller, and Kellyanne Conway fought for control of the White House. The polarization based on constant lies and personality conflict dominated policy decisions. In addition to exploring these personalities and others, Baker and Glasser delve into the Trump family. It is clear that Ivanka and Melania had no love lost for each other, Donald Trump had no use for his son Don, Jr. until after the 2020 election defeat, and it appears that a dysfunctional family greatly contributed to a dysfunctional presidency, a White House in chaos.

From the outset the announcement of the Muslim “travel ban,” the hiring and firing of Michael Flynn as National Security advisor, the firing of James Comey to avoid an investigation into Trump ties to Russia, Trump’s obsession with destroying any remnant of the Obama administration, the role of FOX “news” and Rupert Murdoch, and threatening to withdraw from NATO are on full display. The authors spend a great deal of time discussing “the Axis of Adults,” Mattis, McMaster, and Tillerson who worked to achieve some sort of normality reassuring overseas allies that things would work out, but at the first NATO summit Trump refused to reaffirm Article 5 of the alliance, a portent of the future.

Reading this book was like reliving a nightmare, particularly the chapter dealing with Roy Cohn who mentored Trump in New York and whose playbook of “take-no-prisoners approach to business and politics would define the 45^th president.” Trump admired Cohn’s underhanded ways and educated Trump into the “netherworld of sordid quid pro quos” that defined Cohn. The authors describe a president who was his own worst enemy as he pursued self-destructive policies. A case in point is firing FBI head , James Comey because he would not stop his investigation of Russia’s role in the 2016 election and pay fealty to Trump. Advisors begged him not to do it abruptly, if at all, but they could not control him and by doing so he obstructed justice by interfering in a federal investigation.

(General James Mattis, Secretary of Defense)

The authors put forth numerous examples of Trump’s self-destructive approach whether backing racist, incompetent candidates for office, condemning the American intelligence community in Helsinki in front of Vladimir Putin, his bromance with Kim Jong-un, withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear deal, and of course his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. For Trump it was all about wielding power and promoting his support for autocrats worldwide – perhaps his own jealousy of the power employed by the likes of Putin, Orbán in Hungary and Erdogan in Turkey was the reason he wanted to create an image of the all-powerful ruler.

Baker and Glasser have the knack of integrating comments by important characters into their narrative which are shocking and at times bizarre. A good example is their discussion of Mike Pompeo’s quest to be Secretary of State. Using his perch at the CIA, Pompeo attached himself to Trump’s hip and finally was able to gain the appointment. According to one American ambassador who worked with Pompeo, he was “like a heat-seeking missile for Trump’s ass.” Another example pertains to the convoluted relationship with Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham. McCain, a war hero, despised Trump and could not get over the fact his close friend, Graham “sucked up to him.” The story has been told many times how McCain got even with Trump over the Obamacare vote and the exclusion of the president from the family funeral, however the account of Trump’s refusal to put federal flags at half staff after McCain’s death further reflects the depths of Trump’s inhumanity and insensitivity. Trump’s comments went public, “What the fuck are we doing that for? Guy was a fucking loser.” Trump would finally give in, but not before he stated to John Kelly, “I don’t know why you think all these people who get shot down are heroes but do what you want to do.” Perhaps one of the most demented remarks uttered by Trump to John Kelly as he grew tired of “his generals” taking principled stands against him; “You fucking generals, why can’t you be like the German generals…..Which generals?….The German generals in World War II.” This was the model he craved. Trump’s audacity knew no bounds, pressuring Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize! Baker and Glasser’s inclusion of conversations/arguments was priceless as Nancy Pelosi confronted Trump at their last meeting; “all roads lead to Putin, you gave Russia Ukraine and Syria.”

(CIA Head and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo)

Perhaps the second important watershed period for Trump was following the 2018 congressional elections when the Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives. According to Baker and Glasser, Trump felt liberated and believed he could move on and do what he saw fit. This would lead to the final firing of John Kelly as Chief of Staff and replacing Attorney General Jeff Sessions with Bill Barr. Further he would replace Joe Dunford as head of the Joint Chiefs with Mark Milley and make it so intolerable that James Mattis would resign. Next, Mick Mulvaney became Chief of Staff, and his approach was simple and disastrous, “Let Trump be Trump.” This would become a disaster for democracy and the rule of law.

(Joint Chiefs of Staff Head, General Mark Milley)

The dive into the Russia investigation is fascinating. It is clear that Putin worked to undermine Hillary Clinton’s run for the White House seeking and gaining revenge for her approach as Secretary of State dealing with Crimea and sanctions among other grievances. Baker and Glasser unearth many interesting aspects of the probe including the fact that White House Counsel Don McGahn was feeding the Mueller investigation a great deal of information and Mueller’s belief that he could not prove in a court of law a Trump-Russian conspiracy. However, they did believe that they could gain a conviction over obstruction of justice, but Justice Department protocols against indicting a sitting president disallowed such an action.

Baker and Glasser devote a considerable amount of attention to the conduct of American foreign policy under Trump. The dysfunction of the administration in the national security realm is on full display with the arrival of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State and John Bolton as National Security advisor. Though both men had similar views theirs was a relationship that was bound to fail. Trump’s “love affair” with Kim Jung-un is well told as are the machinations within the White House, State and Defense Departments over policy.

(Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump)

By February 2019, Bolton began implementing his agenda by arranging the withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, one of the last remnants of Cold War agreements. Further he laid the groundwork to pull out of the Open Skies Treaty of 1992 and pushed Trump to quit the United Nations Human Rights Council. Bolton continued his onslaught by pushing for regime change in Venezuela replacing General Nicolas Maduro with opposition leader Juan Guaido. The initiative would fail no matter how hard Pompeo and Bolton pushed. If this was not enough Iran was clearly in their sights. In June 2019, the Iranians shot down an American drone over the Gulf of Hormuz. What followed was the usual Trumpian bluster resulting in the canceling of a major American response as Trump could not make up his mind. Throughout the infighting and dysfunction reflected an administration which was incompetent in the conduct of foreign policy.

Ukraine would reemerge as an issue as Rudy Giuliani convinced Trump that Ukraine had interfered with the 2016 election not Russia. This was another flashpoint for Trump because any questions surrounding Russian interference in the election delegitimized his victory in 2016 and his presidency. Baker and Glasser take the reader through attempts to blackmail Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky over American military and economic aid linking the Biden family to corruption in Ukraine, and the firing of American Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. This would culminate in the “perfect phone call” between Trump and Zelensky and the former president’s first impeachment trial which the authors carefully detail including the various personalities and why they pursued the course they did.

The result, by following the “Clinton playbook” from the nineties of deny, deny, deny worked well, despite the fact that Trump released a transcript of his phone conversation with Zelensky which was direct evidence of a quid pro quo in return for an investigation of the Bidens. For Trump foreign aid was a normal cudgel to be employed to get what he wanted from foreign leaders. He had done it with the Palestinians, Pakistan, Central American countries, and of course Ukraine. The fact it was illegal was immaterial, especially for Republicans.

The authors do not shy away from the successes of the Trump administration. They spend a good amount of time discussing Jared Kushner’s accomplishments in achieving the Abraham Accords that brought recognition by Arab states for Israel and left open the possibility of Saudi Arabia joining later. Kushner was able to take advantage of fears of Iran and disenchantment by certain Arab states with the Palestinians. The vaunted Trump tax cut that was geared toward the rich, the renegotiation of NAFTA, and a few other successes are detailed.

The Covid-19 crisis gets a fair hearing and a number of important points are presented. The Trump-Fauci falling out was due to the former president’s jealousy of Fauci’s popularity and his constant advice that Trump disagreed with. Though nothing discussed is new the emphasis on treating the pandemic in the context of his reelection and looking tough led to a further bifurcation of America culture over the use of masks, vaccines, and shut downs. Deborah Birx, the White House response coordinator has said there was little the United States could have done to prevent the first 100,000 deaths from Covid, but the next 900,000 certainly would have been much lower had the Trump administration followed a rational path. Trump’s lack of empathy for those who passed and his laser vision on reelection ultimately cost hundreds of thousands of American lives.

(January 6, 2021)

Baker and Glasser rehash the details of Trump’s election defeat, his refusal to concede, his war on election denials leading to the January 6^th insurrection, and the final impeachments of Trump. Each issue is covered with the same detail and sourcing as other topics in the book and the ultimate conclusion is that as even certain Republicans and administration members stated, Trump was “crazy” and was destroying democracy. That may have been the case, but the Kevin McCarthys and Lindsay Grahams of the world found it easy to return to the good side of the Napoleon of Mara-la-go.

It is a credit to the authors that they manage to include the culture wars, corruption, demagogy, autocratic-love, palace intrigue and public tweets, the pandemic and impeachment in one well written volume. THE DIVIDER reconstructs all aspects of the Trump White House and the impact of decision-making and events. What is clear is that Trump may have left office in January, 2020 but his legacy of obstruction, promoting violence and hatred still plays out each day.

PARIS, FRANCE - JULY 13, 2017 : The President of United States of America Donald Trump at the Elysee Palace for an extended interview with the french President.

AMERICAN MIDNIGHT: THE GREAT WAR, A VIOLENT PEACE AND DEMOCRACIES FORGOTTEN CRISIS by Adam Hochschild

March 10, 2023March 10, 2023szfreiberger American cultural history, American Diplomatic History, American Political History, American Social History, World War I Leave a comment

Pres. Woodrow Wilson at his desk, Washington, D.C.

(President Woodrow Wilson)

The four years that followed America’s entrance into World War I was a grim period in American history that seems painfully relevant today. It was a time of racism, white nationalism, anti-foreign, anti-immigrant feelings, and of course plague.. On top of that American society suffered from a misogynistic view of women, and an appalling level of political partisanship. By 1920 the culmination of World War I and the Versailles Treaty were almost in place. The treaty itself was punitive and over the next decade it would be used by opponents of the Weimar Republic in Germany as a cudgel to destroy any hope in achieving democracy and greatly facilitated the rise of the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler. Fast forward to the turn of the 20^th century, we find Russia beginning to reject the promise of democracy following the collapse of the Cold War leading to the reemergence of Pan Slavism and the rise of Vladimir Putin. The similarities may be divergent, but it is clear that the economic misery in Germany in the 1920s and Russia in the 1990s is more than a coincidence in bringing authoritarianism to power in both countries.

The second decade in the 20^th and 21^st centuries tend to mirror each other. The fighting in the trenches on the western front during World War I matches the trench warfare that has existed in eastern Ukraine since 2014 and seems to be growing worse each day. The Russian Revolution helped produce the authoritarianism of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, in much the same way that the end of communism brought to power, first Boris Yeltsin, and his handpicked successor, Vladimir Putin. The end of World War I brought about the failure of Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations, and recently Donald Trump tried to unravel NATO and while Putin is trying to destroy NATO by invading Ukraine, the former president’s acolytes have continued to try and undermine the Biden administration’s effort to assist the Kyiv government.

(Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer)

In 1917, Lenin bragged that the Soviet Union would lead an ecumenical revolution in the name of Karl Marx. Today, Putin wants to recreate the former Soviet Empire and “Russify” its “near abroad” regions. During the 1920s Russia was an economic pariah, today economic sanctions imposed by the west are seen as one of the main weapons imposed in order to block Putin’s expansionism.

The difference today is that a number of countries which suffered under western colonialism; India, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia find themselves benefitting from Russian cheap energy and trade as they pursue their own reasons for their supposed neutrality in dealing with the war in Ukraine. There were many errors made in the diplomatic realm in 1919 that we see resurfacing today – one can call it the revenge of former western victims of imperialism.

(General Leonard Wood)

Across the Atlantic we also witness the similarities between the two time periods. Domestically the United states has found itself in the midst of violent anarchist movements on the right. Groups like the Proud Boys and their ilk and the MAGA crowd engage in political violence in much the same way as leftist anarchists did in the post-World War One era. Politically, the lack of bipartisanship today is a daily occurrence where “owning the libs” by the MAGA crowd is more important than passing legislation for the benefit of the American people. In 1919, the leader of the Republican opposition was Senator Henry Cabot Lodge who despised Wilson and resented democratic control of the presidency and congress over the previous eight years. He led the opposition to the ratification of the League of Nations in the Senate and was successful in part because of Wilson’s own political errors and a belief that he was infallible. In the same way NATO was threatened by extinction under the presidency of Donald Trump, another president whose belief in their own judgement was beyond reproach, and the likes of Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy who seems like he will do anything to satisfy the right wing fringe of the Republican caucus and stop American aid to Ukraine. A further similarity between the two periods is that of dealing with disease or pandemics. In 1918-1919 it was influenza which the government downplayed resulting in over 675,000 death which Wilson paid little attention too, and of course COVID-19 the last few years resulting in over 1,000,000 deaths, conspiracy theories, and a president who saw the disease as a plot to hinder his reelection as opposed to properly protecting the American people. Lastly, immigration issues have dominated both periods. The 1920s witnessed an increasing war against labor, communism, and immigration in general as it seemed the “Bolsheviki” were mostly Jews from Eastern Europe, not the good “white stock” of Northern and Western Europe. The period is known as the first Red Scare, but today we have similar issues. The lack of bipartisanship prevents immigration reform and politicians are quick to point to the southern border as a national security threat. Trump’s commentary on immigrants is well known as well as those dealing with “shit hole” nations.

The mindsets of Wilson and Trump are also similar, and that mindset led to numerous errors for the American people. Wilson proved to be a sanctimonious character who believed his way was always correct and if you didn’t support him you were no longer an accepted part of his administration. Trump has a similar mindset, but there is a difference. Wilson held strong beliefs in his Fourteen Points which he hoped would bring an end to all wars. Trump, believes in nothing apart from his use of the presidency for his and his families self-aggrandizement, and perhaps keeping him out of prison and an orangejump suit.

(Emma Goldman)

The lack of bipartisanship in Congress was clear concerning the League of Nations, the increasing belief in eugenics and anti-migrant and racist tropes led to violence against minorities be it the Tulsa or Omaha massacres or other events throughout the south. This resulted in the 1924 Johnson Act that created quotas to bar certain groups from the United States. Though women finally got the vote after the war, impediments for them and blacks remained to keep them from exercising their rights of citizenship.

Fast forward to today we have disagreements over aid to Ukraine and the US role in NATO. Further, we have election deniers who still have not given up overturning the 2020 election no matter what the courts have ruled. The crisis at the southern border, the bombing of synagogues, the shootings of young black men and schools, and of course the events of 1/6. These occurrences can be laid at the doorstep of MAGA conspiracy theorists, FOX news and Donald Trump and reflect how little the US has grown as a united nation over the last 100 years. Philosopher George Santayana was correct in 1905 when he stated, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” I guess the lesson no longer applies as a large segment of our population has cut history and government courses from educational curriculum on many levels as is highlighted currently by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ attempts to rewrite his states curriculum stressing only the “good parts dealing with whites,” and leaving out anything negative like slavery and genocide of Native-Americans out.

The first two decades of the 20^th and 21^st centuries are uncanny in their similarities and it makes it important to consult Adam Hochschild’s latest book, AMERICAN MIDNIGHT: THE GREAT WAR, A VIOLENT PEACE AND DEMOCRACIES FORGOTTEN CRISIS to understand the evolution of events surrounding World War I and its culmination, its impact on societal movements throughout the world including the United States, and how many of these issues remain with us today reflecting on the idea that we have not come as far as we think in the last century.

(Presidential candidate and Socialist Eugene V. Debs)

As the case in many of his books like KING LEOPOLD’S GHOST, TO END ALL WARS, SPAIN IN OUR

HEARTS, and BURY THE CHAINS Hochschild exhibits a mastery of the historical material and sources including astute analysis that is important for the reader to digest. He possesses an easy writing style that makes it easier to absorb material that can be very disconcerting. In his current work Hochschild has created a narrative that is more of a socio-political history than a recounting of World War I and the treaty that followed. The book is separated into two distinct parts. First the reader is presented with an America that is in the grip of a patriotic fervor that had never been seen before. Anti-German feeling fostered by submarine warfare raised levels of hostility that remained throughout the war. The result was the loss of civil rights for a large component of American society particularly labor and anyone who questioned the Wilson administration. President Woodrow Wilson was seen as a progressive, but the policies implemented under his watch caused tremendous repression and violations of constitutional protections of free speech. The repression resulted in vigilantism, violence, and an unequal implementation of justice. Legislation and later Supreme Court decisions codified these the Espionage Act, the Sedition Act, or the actions of the Postmaster General and other propaganda organs. Big Business saw this as an opportunity to go after labor unions like the IWW and the Socialist Party. Racists saw this as an opportunity to repress blacks in the south as well as the north as many southern blacks migrated north to escape adverse treatment and hopes for employment. In addition, the government deputized private groups to assist in this repression and violence. A number of personalities dominate this section including President Wilson, radicals like Emma Goldman, Postmaster general Albert Burleson, and many others.

In the second half of the book, Hochschild’s analysis zeroes in on the continuing repression after the war and the rise of the Red Scare. The constant round up of immigrants for deportation, legislation to block immigration, violence against blacks, even those who fought in World war I, the continued imprisonment of people jailed for opposing the war, a domestic war against the new enemy communism which seemed to be spreading in Europe were dominant themes. Throughout President Wilson did not oppose these extreme measures as his focus was on gaining passage of his precious League of Nations which ultimately failed. After suffering a debilitating stroke trying to sell his League, Wilson was effectively a non-executive for the last eight months of his presidency as his wife Edith seemed to have been a co-president. Two of the dominant personalities of the period were Attorney-General A. Mitchell Palmer, and General Leonard Wood. Both sought their respective party nominations for president in 1920 and ran on a platform of anti-immigration and deportation. In Palmer’s case his actions relate to an anarchist bombing of his home in 1919 which changed a progressive into a right wing fanatic employing the likes of the young J. Edgar Hoover.

Portrait of white woman in dark clothing

(Kate Richard O’Hare)

A number of important movements and personalities are explored, many of which lead to current comparisons. The first, Woodrow Wilson who oversaw the war on dissent resulting in violence and jailings. Wilson was a southerner who held strong racist ideas despite his progressive reputation and showed little interest in protecting civil rights after the American entrance into the war. Wilson’s problem throughout was that he believed that bargaining was beneath him and his autocratic tendencies eventually would dominate his approach to politics. Apart from Wilson, the author focuses on personalities who normally do not receive the coverage of a President, Secretary of State or other high officials. The reader is exposed to William J. “Big Bill” Flynn, the former Chief of the Secret Service and New York City Police Detectives who would head up the Bureau of Investigation, the precursor of the FBI, a man who would hire the young J. Edgar Hoover who would copy the Library of Congresses card catalogue system to track what he deemed to be enemies of the people. Women who spoke out against the war and were jailed receive a great deal of coverage. Emma Goldman, Dr. Marie Equi, and Kate Richard O’Hare are front and center. The role of Postmaster General and his weeding out all opposition to the war effort through the mails; the jailing of Eugene Debs; Grace Hammer, a Sherman Detective Agency employee imbedded within the IWW as “an underground cheerleader” for the war to root out dissidents; Leo Wendell, a Justice Department spy, Lt. Colonel Ralph Van Deman, the domestic military intelligence chief, Louis F. Post, the only member of the Labor Department who fought against deportations, Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis who had no difficulty with objectivity dealing with dissidents, Congressman Albert Johnson who led the fight for immigration quotas that blocked immigrants from anywhere apart from northern and western Europeans (sounds like Trump!) are just a few whose impact on American history and their actions should serve as a lesson for all to study.

The infamous Palmer Raids, mass arrests by the Justice department on the Union of Russian Workers and other organizations receive extensive coverage. In particular was the radical Division within the Justice Department fostered by J. Edgar Hoover who was put in charge of these raids and implemented the surveillance, arrests, police raids, internment camps, legal chicanery, all strategies employed for decades to come. Hoover saw the resulting deportations as a “feather in his cap.” Wilson is just as culpable as he remarked in 1919, “any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this republic.”

Hochschild also stresses how the Wilson administration drew upon America’s experience in the Philippines, employing torture techniques like water boarding and counter insurgency in the United States to ferret out dissidents. General Leonard Wood was the master of implementing these techniques.

(US Postmaster Albert Burleson)

In summary I turn to Thomas Meany’s review in the October 9, 2022, that appeared in the New York Times; “Hochschild’s sharp portraits and vignettes make for poignant reading, but at times skirt fuller historical understanding. We hear about newspapers and magazines being shut down, but little about what was being argued in them. Powerful thinkers about the political moment, such as Randolph Bourne, are absent from “American Midnight,” while John Dos Passos features more as a backup bard than a literary chronicler with historical insight. Hochschild attributes much of the failure of American socialists to expand their ranks to the racism and xenophobia that bedeviled the white working class. But there were also significant problems of organization in the American labor movement, which struggled to unite unskilled immigrant workers with workers in established unions. Trotsky had expected America to make as great a contribution to world socialism as it had to capitalism; he was appalled by the lack of party discipline, later damning Debs with faint praise, as a “romantic and a preacher, and not at all a politician or a leader.” The Catholic Church inoculated large segments of immigrant workers from radicalization, while canny capitalists like Henry Ford devised ways to divide workers into a caste system with different gradations of privilege. For all of the success of the strike waves of 1919, almost none of them left any permanent new union organization in place, nor did socialists make much headway in electoral politics.

In the closing portions of this tale, Hochschild shows that, by contrast, a generation of American liberals learned what not to do from Wilson. As his international crusade sputtered into catastrophe, with Wilson signing off on the Versailles Treaty, which laid the kindling for World War II, younger members of his staff were already preparing to become different kinds of liberals. Felix Frankfurter, who, as a young judge advocate general, gallantly tried to counteract some of Wilson’s domestic terror, and Frankfurter’s friend Walter Lippmann, who worked on Wilson’s foreign policy team, were determined to cast off the administration’s excesses. Both envisioned a state that would protect civil rights instead of violating them, and oversee a more efficient and fair economy. In the early 1930s, even as they drifted apart, Lippmann and Frankfurter would help impart a crucial lesson to the Roosevelt administration: If it wanted to snuff out American socialism, it was better to absorb some of its ideals than to banish them.”

(President Woodrow Wilson)

AND THERE WAS LIGHT: ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND AMERICA’S STRUGGLE by Jon Meacham

February 7, 2023szfreiberger American Civil War, American Political History, Biography Leave a comment

In many ways Jon Meacham is the conscience of America. The Vanderbilt historian and author has a very optimistic view of the American people and his appearances on MSNBC and other programs is usually upbeat when it comes to the future of the United States. This viewpoint is readily apparent in a number of his books, including THE SOUL OF AMERICA: THE BATTLE FOR OUR BETTER ANGELS where he discusses turning points in American history and how we have overcome numerous issues including partisanship. Meacham is a prolific author whose books include FRANKLIN AND WINSTON: AN INTIMATE PORTRAIT OF AN EPIC FRIENDSHIP, AMERICAN GOSPEL: GOD, THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE MAKING OF THE NATION, AMERICAN LION: ANDREW JACKSON IN THE WHITE HOUSE, HIS TRUTH IS MARCHING ON: JOHN LEWIS AND THE POWER OF HOPE, and DESTINY AND POWER: THE AMERICAN ODDESSY OF GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH. All books are well written with a degree of empathy for his subjects which is the case with his latest effort, AND THERE WAS LIGHT: ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND AMERICA’S STRUGGLE which tells the story of our 16^th president from his birth on the Kentucky frontier to his leadership during the Civil War through his assassination. For Meacham, Lincoln’s life illustrates the ways and means of politics in a democracy, the roots and durability of racism, and the capacity of conscience to shape events.

Meacham’s Lincoln is a humane and empathetic individual who must overcome personal tragedy and his own demons. The death of two children, a depressive personality, and a spouse who caused trouble repeatedly must be dealt with as he tries to maintain the union and reunify his country. Lincoln did not shy away from complex decisions whether dealing with politics, military personnel, or wartime strategy. He was a firm believer in Jeffersonian equality and the constitution. He was not averse to making compromises to maintain the union and a democratic form of government. The idea that the federal government could not end slavery in states where it existed but could prevent its expansion into new territories was deeply ingrained in him. According to poet and editor James Russell Lowell who wrote in 1864, for Lincoln it was more convenient to say the least, to have a country left without a constitution, than a constitution without a country.”

1862. Allan Pinkerton, President Lincoln, and Maj. Gen. John A. McClernand at Antietam.

(Lincoln at the battle of Antietam)

Meacham’s account of Lincoln’s treatment of slavery is heavily laden with theological arguments and experiences which Lincoln argued was his own enslavement by his overbearing father who forced him to labor and forgo education, to the exposure to reverends preaching against slavery during his boyhood. Meacham develops anti and pro-slavery ideology throughout the narrative and concludes that Lincoln did not believe in racial equality, favored the colonization of slaves to areas outside the United States, but overall, he could not tolerate individuals being owned by another and having to labor for someone not of his choosing.

The narrative carefully recounts Lincoln’s evolution concerning the slave issue relying on his religious and political development. Lincoln was a man of compromise in all areas, but not concerning the maintenance of the union. Meacham reviews the most important debates, events, and movements of the period and offers a dissection of Lincoln’s thought processes and how he finally reached the conclusion in 1862 that after trying everything to appease the south and keep the states as one to announce the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

Lincoln only served one term in Congress, but it was an important education. He learned a great deal about slavery coming into contact with southern members of the House of Representatives, opposing racist legislation, and the need of compromise, not conquest in order to make meaningful change. Lincoln repeatedly turned to the “Founders” for inspiration and if one examines his speeches it is a combination of religious belief and political pragmatism. As Lincoln stated in 1861, “I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.”

This is an image of Lincoln, Grant, Lee, and Davis.

(Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee)

According to historian Richard Carwardine, “the fatalist and activist were thus infused in Lincoln.” He was a dichotomy. He articulated his moral commitment against slavery and his willingness to leave a white dominated society intact. For him racial prejudice among whites was at such a level that the practical course was to acknowledge and accommodate it.

There are countless interesting aspects of Lincoln’s life that Meacham introduces. One of the most surprising is his obsession concerning his own birth – was he illegitimate? Did policy decisions emanate from his own inferiority about his own birth that summoned temporal and divine help, as he tried to put the national family back together when his own family origin was in doubt?

Meacham does an excellent job reviewing events leading to the Civil War, the course of the war, and the ultimate victory of the north which cost Lincoln his life. The author concludes that in most aspects of his narrative race is the central cause of the conflict as even if he would free the slaves northern racists were on par with those in the south – the only difference was they did not want to enslave them, but they could not accept that they were equal.

AND THERE WAS LIGHT is not a traditional biography of our 16^th president. It is more a conversation with an eminent historian who examines the intellectual development of his subject while at the same time placing him in the context of the world he lived in and the difficult choices that he made. Meacham offers an account that is worldly and spiritual, and carefully tailored to suit our conflict-ridden times. Meacham alludes to the present with examples from the past. A case in point is Vice President John Breckinridge’s courageous decision to carry out the electoral college faithfully in February 1861 as Mike Pence did in 2021. Further Lincoln promised to accept the results of the 1864 election, even if he lost, Donald Trump and Kari Lake are you listening? Lastly, Lincoln’s support for absentee voting for soldiers, unlike Trump’s call to outlaw the process. Lincoln faced a White supremacists national minority chafing against Jeffersonian ideals which Lincoln was committed to. With January 6^th and further threats of violence Meacham tries to use Lincoln as an example of leadership in somewhat similar times.

The book is thoroughly researched and highly readable written by a craftsman of the English language. The book as are his other works is relevant for today as Meacham writes, “ A president who led a divided country in which an implacable minority gave no quarter in a clash over power, race, identity, money, and faith has much to teach us in a twenty-first century moment of polarization, passionate disagreement, and differing understandings of reality. For while Lincoln cannot be wrenched from the context of his particular times, his story illuminates the ways and means of politics, the marshaling of power in a democracy, the durability of racism, and the capacity of conscience to help shape events.”

Doc's Books

A window into Doc Freiberger's library

American Political History

ORIGINAL SIN: PRESIDENT BIDEN’S DECLINE, ITS COVERUP, AND HIS DISASTROUS DECISION TO RUN AGAIN by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson

THE TRIALS OF HARRY S. TRUMAN: THE EXTRAORDINARY PRESIDENCY OF AN ORDINARY MAN, 1945-1953 by Jeffrey Frank

THE DIVIDER: TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE, 2017-2021 by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser

AND THERE WAS LIGHT: ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND AMERICA’S STRUGGLE by Jon Meacham